C300: C300mk2 real world footage and user reviews.

Jim Martin said:
Disagree....Because the C300 MK II, aside from some accessories, you are basically done at $16K where the REDs are much more when you get all that is needed to make it work...and The Alexa Mini is over $30K..

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
Click to expand...
If you want to use C300II on your shoulder you have to rig it as well. You have to pay for media, extra batteries and possibly bigger and better monitor. PL and EF with lock costs extra money too, so it's not only $16K. It seems it's a lovely camera with few quirks but really overpriced.
 
If you want to shoulder mount the Red or Alexa Mini you'd have to buy a shoulder mount setup as well. F55 and Arri Amira work without a full separate shoulder mount setup.

http://www.arriblog.com/main/2015/4/30/true-cost-of-comparison-between-the-alexa-mini-and-the-red-weapon-cf

True Cost Comparison Between The Alexa Mini And RED Weapon CF said:
Alexa Mini: $70,125.00
Weapon: $67,955.00
Click to expand...
That's including sales tax, so without sales tax you're at around $64,000 and 62,500.


I paid $16,000 for my C300 Mark II, $1300 for batteries, and $2600 for media, for about $20,000 total. I may later get a Zacuto shoulder mount setup for around $2,000 and probably use the C300's LCD with a Z-finder or Hoodman instead of getting a $3100 gratical, though a gratical or other viewfinder is a possibility.

How people think $20,000 to $25,000 for a C300 Mark II is even remotely close in price to around $63,000 for a kitted out Red or Alexa Mini is short sighted at best. Sure, there's the Red Raven for around $10-15k kitted out, but it has its limitations and is surely not what I think of when people say "Red."
 
Last edited:
I think plenty people will be just fine with the Raven a will consider it a "RED". I think the C300 is overpriced no matter how you cut it. I also believe most Canon cams are overpriced for there feature set compared to other cams
 
DLD said:
From the price-for-quality angle, it may be worthwhile to compare C300 MKII with FS7 Raw package (which would include the XDCA + the external recorder such as Q7+) for about $12,500.

IMO, FS7 Raw looks nothing like the FS7 XAVC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVQIpN-DRhQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4CUrfoNX1w
Click to expand...


Why would you compare FS7 raw to Canon XFAVC instead of XAVC or raw out of both cameras. XFAVC & XAVC are very comparable.

If a raw workflow was my goal I'd seriously look at the Raven. The decent quality compressed codecs recorded internally is the niche of the FS7 and C300II.
 
If any owner gets a chance, I'd like to some shots that illustrate the rolling shutter improvement.
 
Quick update: I just did a side by side with the Amira and C300mk2, both at 12bit/4444. They look pretty great together, colors match pretty well and skin tones looks great too. Mk2 seemed to fair better with fine detail and color separation.

The mk2 looks stunning exposed a stop over! However we did a 2 stops under exposure and it looked terrible! That's in LOG-2 We didn't test the under in LOG-1, but we're assuming it's much better. Setting up a night test shoot later on.
 
Interesting that 800 native ISO on Mark II is similar to 12.5db gain, but mark I with 850 native ISO is more like 2.5db gain. Relative to what 0db reference, I'm not sure. Advantage of Mark II is SN ratio is 67db vs. 57db for Mark I. Makes me wonder why new sensor is so slow?

Another owner of the mark II has confirmed magnification does not work while recording. Unfortunate. Is the processor inadequate?
 
dreamXpress said:
found a new video shot with c300 mk2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM4oyFz2Wug
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this. I hate to keep beating this horse but the shot at 1:33 is pretty jarring. The 120p footage jumps out as soft and I would personally consider this quality of footage to be borderline unusable, especially juxtaposed w/the 4k images.

I don't think you'd see a huge difference if this piece was shot w/a C300 and graded similarly.
 
Last edited:
Dino said:
Interesting that 800 native ISO on Mark II is similar to 12.5db gain, but mark I with 850 native ISO is more like 2.5db gain. Relative to what 0db reference, I'm not sure. Advantage of Mark II is SN ratio is 67db vs. 57db for Mark I. Makes me wonder why new sensor is so slow?

Another owner of the mark II has confirmed magnification does not work while recording. Unfortunate. Is the processor inadequate?
Click to expand...

this is a pretty damning claim against c300ii if I'm understanding you correctly. Where did you find these numbers or is from personal testing of the camera, or is that calculated based off the native iso? If accurate, would those numbers infer the mark1 is much cleaner in low light or more flexible in low light?
 
Lkorver said:
this is a pretty damning claim against c300ii if I'm understanding you correctly. Where did you find these numbers or is from personal testing of the camera, or is that calculated based off the native iso? If accurate, would those numbers infer the mark1 is much cleaner in low light or more flexible in low light?
Click to expand...

from the Shift 4 video I posted here, http://youtu.be/Ka3HiBgDLeg

I don't know where they got their information. The mark II is supposedly 10db cleaner than the mark I according to Canon specs. I'd assume this would be measured from base ISO, but maybe it's measured at its lowest ISO?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top