C300: C300mk2 real world footage and user reviews.

cpreston said:
What's worse for marketing, having a 120p that doesn't come close to matching the detail of the standard 1080p image or not having 120p at all? I think that is a legitimate question.
Click to expand...

Worse are statements by Canon that the C300II is in a different league than the FS7 and doesn't consider it competition. Its no wonder people expected much more. Double the price and considered by Canon to be in a different category than the FS7 expectations where set far too high.
 
Your kidding me right Jim? God bless your relationship with Canon and their legal department, but with this much money on the line I hope you'll understand if we skip the shenanigans and let the evidence do the talking.[/QUOTE]


Not kidding......so you are assuming that Canon is putting out BS...you just don't know them at all, you are pontificating......
 
Not kidding......so you are assuming that Canon is putting out BS...you just don't know them at all, you are pontificating......
Click to expand...

I don't think that was his point. You stand to financially gain from sales of this camera thus your opinion of the camera and relationship with the manufacturer is biased. Simple fact.

No one is saying you're intentionally being untruthful, but I think you can understand why your word may be taken with some hesitation. Especially since you are swinging so hard for a single manufacturer in this instance.

If your point is Canon is a very reputable company and we should therefore automatically trust them... lol. They are in this to make money like everyone else.
 
Canon isn't in it to make money. They give away cheap cameras which make us a lot of money so we can live in lavish mansions and drive fancy sports cars, while meanwhile Canon isn't making a dime off of their charitable camera sales which they only charge just to cover the cost of making said cameras. I heard the CEO of Canon was living in a homeless shelter, and that any time Canon accidentally has profits they donate it all to that homeless shelter, which, admittedly, may be a bit selfish on the CEO's part since he stands to benefit from said donations, but considering there are hundreds of other people in that small shelter I don't think we can look down on him too much.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Canon isn't in it to make money. They give away cheap cameras which make us a lot of money so we can live in lavish mansions and drive fancy sports cars, while meanwhile Canon isn't making a dime off of their charitable camera sales which they only charge just to cover the cost of making said cameras. I heard the CEO of Canon was living in a homeless shelter, and that any time Canon accidentally has profits they donate it all to that homeless shelter, which, admittedly, may be a bit selfish on the CEO's part since he stands to benefit from said donations, but considering there are hundreds of other people in that small shelter I don't think we can look down on him too much.
Click to expand...

Where did I say making money is bad?

I'm just saying they are not above marketing hype.
 
I guess. I think Jim was just insinuating that they tend to be more conservative than other companies in regards to marketing exaggerations, not that they are incapable of marketing hype.
 
LeoGrey said:
I'm sure he is, nowhere in my post did I say he wasn't. What I did say was that I am confident(and so are many others) that 120p out of this camera is incapable of resolving 2,048 lines on an ISO 12233 chart. However it produces that image(debayer,up-sampling, scaling, binning, line skipping, etc) is nearly irrelevant and can be subjectively debated. One thing is for certain though, and that is all the white papers in the world are not gonna make the image any more detailed.



Your kidding me right Jim? God bless your relationship with Canon and their legal department, but with this much money on the line I hope you'll understand if we skip the shenanigans and let the evidence do the talking.
Click to expand...

remsyatassi said:
I don't think that was his point. You stand to financially gain from sales of this camera thus your opinion of the camera and relationship with the manufacturer is biased. Simple fact.

No one is saying you're intentionally being untruthful, but I think you can understand why your word may be taken with some hesitation. Especially since you are swinging so hard for a single manufacturer in this instance.

If your point is Canon is a very reputable company and we should therefore automatically trust them... lol. They are in this to make money like everyone else.
Click to expand...
I/we sell many different brands...Panasonic, JVC, Canon, Sony, BlackMagic, AJA, Nikon, GoPro, DJI,etc..as well as many more related to production. I've been doing this for the last 15 years (god I'm getting old!) so I do know each of the manufacturers, their trends and nuances. Each one has a bit of a reputation in how they, in this case, market their products. I'm not sure how long you have been in this business (your avatar shows 2013) and how well you really know the different companies, but in my case, over the years I have always got behind products that work, have no issues, are reliable, and are delivered as promised. My job (and our staff here at EVS) is to get the right information to our clients so they can make an intelligent decision ...and who range from the top level of production to the one-man crew shooting a kids birthday party.
So lets get back on track with this thread and wait for some production run 2K slo-mo footage to see what it really does and not speculate and/or claim absolutes on old prototype footage.
 
Jim Martin said:
I/we sell many different brands...Panasonic, JVC, Canon, Sony, BlackMagic, AJA, Nikon, GoPro, DJI,etc..as well as many more related to production. I've been doing this for the last 15 years (god I'm getting old!) so I do know each of the manufacturers, their trends and nuances. Each one has a bit of a reputation in how they, in this case, market their products. I'm not sure how long you have been in this business (your avatar shows 2013) and how well you really know the different companies, but in my case, over the years I have always got behind products that work, have no issues, are reliable, and are delivered as promised. My job (and our staff here at EVS) is to get the right information to our clients so they can make an intelligent decision ...and who range from the top level of production to the one-man crew shooting a kids birthday party.
So lets get back on track with this thread and wait for some production run 2K slo-mo footage to see what it really does and not speculate and/or claim absolutes on old prototype footage.
Click to expand...

I've been shooting for or running small productions for 10 years. I use what I need for any given project. Often it is C300.

Flame on boys.
 
The recording time for the batteries used with the C300 MK II:

4K&UHD 29.97P -> 19.6W -> BP-A30: 125min / BP-A60: 265min

2K&HD 59.94P -> 21.2W -> BP-A30: 115min / BP-A60: 245min
 
For sure, looks a lot like the best type of C300 images. A lot of poorly graded shots floating around the net but to me this is the look producers love.

Nice to see somebody here in Chicago getting into it early.
 
From a colleague who has had the Mark II for a week or so:

Out of of box settings don't match C300 Mark I in terms of color space.

Canon is doing something different now, when properly exposed, matches Arri or F5/55 with LC-709A LUT.(Arri emulation)

Mark II color space falls apart when over or underexposed, does not have DR of Arri or Sony.

The above comments, albeit preliminary, are somewhat disconcerting. Need to see Mark I and II side by side myself. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top