C300: C300MKIII: Yet another lens thread...

[puredrifting]

I'm assuming you have peripheral illumination turned on.

Is it bare or do you have a UV filter?

If you have a filter have you heard of any luck with step up rings?

I've tried with peripheral illumination on and off. It helps a bit but the lens still doesn't look that great on the C200.
I put clear, UV or Sky 1 A filters on all of my lenses for protection, only good stuff like B&W MRC filters, no junk. I don't see
a visual difference that I can discern in 4K.

I try to buy filters that are the correct diameter for the lens rings, I don't like step up or down rings, they seem to be a
place where the filters often get stuck.

 

[Run&Gun]

The sensor size doesn't matter. What matters is the effective pixel dimensions. The height of the C200 and C300 Mark III sensors are the same. And they have same number of effective pixels in that dimension.
Unless the pixel size is different on the C300 Mark III and the C200, they will have the same exact image circle, since they have the same exact effective pixel dimensions and vertical dimension.
We don't know what they're doing with those non effective area pixels, but the image circle stays the same. It's simple grade school geometry.

When you look at the sensor specs, it reads like the C300/III is effectively a physically bigger sensor and thus a larger image circle compared to the C200.

Actual listed sensor sizes:
C300/III 4206 x 2280 / 26.2mm x 13.8mm
C200 4206 x 2340 / 24.6mm x 13.8mm

My math says:
C300/III sensor at 4096x2160 is effectively ~25.51mm x 13.07mm. Image circle ~28.66mm
C200 sensor at 4096x2160 is effectively ~23.95mm x 12.73mm. Image circle ~27.12mm

APS-C Image Circle is 27.04mm.

s35mm Image Circle is 32mm.

"FF"35 Image Circle is 43mm.

 

[dadoboy]

I have access to a C200 / C300 II and the C300 III. I love the image from the C300 III and have shot with it but I don't own one yet. I'll run some tests and let everyone know. Regardless of the 17-55mm lens coverage, if there's a slight difference in the FOV between the two cameras with same lens / focal length / focal plane distance to chart, then it will indicate that Canon is gapping the photosites differently. My guess is, since this a new sensor, there will be a difference in coverage. There always is after any sensor change in Canon cameras.

 

[Stills2HDConvert]

I have access to a C200 / C300 II and the C300 III. I love the image from the C300 III and have shot with it but I don't own one yet. I'll run some tests and let everyone know. Regardless of the 17-55mm lens coverage, if there's a slight difference in the FOV between the two cameras with same lens / focal length / focal plane distance to chart, then it will indicate that Canon is gapping the photosites differently. My guess is, since this a new sensor, there will be a difference in coverage. There always is after any sensor change in Canon cameras.

It will be interesting to see if you get as bad vignetting on the C200 as drifting does on the 17-55 and if Run is correct on the photosite size increase you should get worse vignetting on the C300 Mark III.

It's a bigger sensor in one dimension only. They're using fewer photosites in the vertical dimension. If they had used the same number of total photosites in that dimension the density would have been the same. We don't know how the off active area is laid out though.

Since you have access to both it should be pretty simple to see the difference.

 

[Run&Gun]

It will be interesting to see if you get as bad vignetting on the C200 as drifting does on the 17-55 and if Run is correct on the photosite size increase you should get worse vignetting on the C300 Mark III.

It's a bigger sensor in one dimension only. They're using fewer photosites in the vertical dimension. If they had used the same number of total photosites in that dimension the density would have been the same. We don't know how the off active area is laid out though.

Since you have access to both it should be pretty simple to see the difference.

And when you do the math after the conversion on the effective size of the 300/III, the aspect ratio is slightly wonky... It's a little wider than 17:9. But not quite to 2:1. Could be weird spacing. Maybe non-square pixels? And of course how precise you go past the decimal point and rounding can affect the calculations, so...

Also, dimensionally(physical size), the C200 sensor is 16:9 and C300/III is 17:9.