C300: C300mk2 real world footage and user reviews.

Mark II color space falls apart when over or underexposed, does not have DR of Arri or Sony.
Well if the color space falling apart when over or underexposed is comparing internal 10 bit 4:2:2 C300 Mark II to 14-16 bit 4:4:4 RAW on the F55, F65, or Arri Alexa, that's only to be expected.
 
Last edited:
Can someone please shoot some footage with this camera on a sunny day? All I've seen are very low contrast scenes. Also stop exposing for the highlights, we wanna see how it burns off and what you can pull back.

The end
 
Well if the color space falling apart when over or underexposed is comparing internal 10 bit 4:2:2 C300 Mark II to 14-16 bit 4:4:4 RAW on the F55, F65, or Arri Alexa, that's only to be expected.

Eric, he was not comparing to RAW. Just ProRes and XAVC. I am concerned by his initial impressions.
 
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.

Though the above was directed towards LeoGrey, I think it is better that all of us provide links to our profile so that we all can know about people and make our decisions about whose opinion to consider.
 
Colours look very nice, and DR is certainly improved a bit over the original C300. But I wonder how the 15 stops of dynamic range is distributed above and below middle grey, on most of the samples I've seen so far, clipping still seems to come on really harshly.

If only they could get whites to blow out as smoothly as they do on their stills cameras.
 
However strangely it may sound in last 3 examples I see "sony look" there. Definitely no wow factor for me. The only examples that were really nice were that shot on an island and Film Riot's piece.
But, even though they shot log2 and colored it, the purpose of this piece is to show off the very good auto focus and the look was secondary...so wouldn't beat them up too much on the "look".
Just sayin'
 
There's actually a parody clip on YouTube that "advertises" a product that combined the selfie stick with a ... (well, y'all figure it out for yourself) ... I am sure it's supposed to have the auto-focus too.
 
Especially if Canon comes out with a firmware update to do other parts of the anatomy than just face-detection.
with updates like that they will have to change the marketing strategy, otherwise i dont see how they would explain the needs of a boobs triangulation technology
 
+1
Have you seen Film Riot's piece? I find it good too. But rest no wow factor for me either.

We have to wait for the c300 mark ii to get into more hands, there is just not a lot of footage out there yet. I definetly need to see some more footage before I make any decisions. I had the original c300 and it was and still is a great cam but I recently sold it because I want to get a 4k cam. The footage that I have seen thus far has been hit or miss. Some of it is really good and some not so. The footage is begining to trickle out slowly so hopefully we see some new footage soon.
 
Last edited:
it would be easier to make a decision , at least for me, if i would know , when and what c500 II will be,- to be honest i would gladly invest more funds into something that would be more universal system...
 
Dan Chung's piece about whether C300 Mark II is worth its price http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/10/08/canon-c300-mkii-is-the-image-worth-the-price/

He is an existing FS7 owner and says that "the images it produces are good, but without significant grading by someone much more experienced than myself, I can't get the images to look the way they come out from the C300 mII."

In production jobs time is money. Some of the channels don't even budget editing for c-log files. So nice colours straight out of the camera is required. Internet warriors can argue that any camera can be matched with any other. However, we don't get that time, budget and colourist to work on the files.
 
Dan Chung's piece about whether C300 Mark II is worth its price http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/10/08/canon-c300-mkii-is-the-image-worth-the-price/

He is an existing FS7 owner and says that "the images it produces are good, but without significant grading by someone much more experienced than myself, I can't get the images to look the way they come out from the C300 mII."

In production jobs time is money. Some of the channels don't even budget editing for c-log files. So nice colours straight out of the camera is required. Internet warriors can argue that any camera can be matched with any other. However, we don't get that time, budget and colourist to work on the files.


+1 so true well said.
 
Back
Top