Canon 300 <---- Is it worth the price?

K

Kenneth Lau

Active member
To all cinematographers, I like to hear your opinions about the camera Canon C300.

Knowing the camera is the next 5D with all the video camera features such as build-in ND filters, XLR input etc, is actually quite exciting.

However, I have read that the camera only records in 1080. ( not understanding why Canon keeps mentioning 4K in the website )

My question is, for a camera that records only 1080, and have maybe some upgrades on the features from the 5D, which cost around $2000 when

it first came out, does it really worth $20000?

I mean, if this camera is 10x more expensive than the previous version, I kind of hoped that it can at least shoot more than 1080....

What do you guys think??

$20000 for C300... worth it or is a little too much?
 
Well, it's not going to be $20K. It will probably be under $15K US. Canon mentions 4K because the sensor is capturing a very pristine 4K image, but it's down converting to a full 1080P 4:2:2 8 bit image in a broadcast ready codec in camera. This should be fine for everything from TV to cinema.

"Act of Valor" will be released in theaters in Feb 2012. 85-90% of that film was captured on a 5DII. You'll have to go watch it and see if it meets the bar for you. I believe the codec of the 5DII is something less than true 1080P and only 4:2:0 8 bit and with a sensor prone to aliasing and moire. The C300 will be quite a bit better than that, but Hurlbut ASC still seems to prefer the 5DII.
 
Its worth it, specially if you're doing broadcast work like TV Commercials, TV Fiction or Documentaries. For Short Films, Features, Cinema- and this is my subjeective opinion- you would do better going for a Scarlet package.

The C300 will show a much, much better image than a 5D if you do not have a huge post-production budget or time. The C300 out of the box gives you better dinamic range, better colors, no aliasing and moire and better low light than the 5D, as well as much better controls, LCD and a robust, Broadcast approved codec. The image from the C300 should be probably the best of the 8bit cameras on the market, giving better image than every 2/3rds 20K plus 8 bit camera on the market. Due to its codec and fast workflow I can see this camera becoming some sort of a Broadcast standard for Fiction and documentary production. But for the higher end Commercials, MTV's and short films, and this is again my subjective opinion, the Red Scarlet should be the way to go.
 
I would say it's not worth it but each to his own. No 10-bit output and overcrank in only 720 is a big no-no for me for that kind of cash.
 
Totally agree with Editman.

Even though I like the form factor and resolution of this camera, I'm not spending this amount of money for something that misses 1080 60p and outputs 8bits via SDI.
I will keep on using my AF100 and wait patiently to see what Panasonic will release.
After all, my clients are happy of what comes out from the AF100. Nobody ever complained. It's just me that want to get more resolution and dinamic range :)
 
diegocervo, You rather stick with your AF-100 eh.

I was excited when this camera first came out too but the crop factor hold me back from buying it. I figure most productions would probably prefer

shooting with the 5D/7D instead because of the image sensor, and plus the fact that it is cheaper to purchase/rent. However, I was a DVX user

myself back then and I am really putting my hope on PANASONIC to come out with a camera that is as competitive as 5d and as hot as the DVX back

then.

 
I hopped on the c300 bandwagon for a minute, but after seeing philip blooms shot out I'm not convinced anymore. Besides Ron howard and crew still managed to incorporate the canon 5d in the c300 short film they did, which I couldn't tell which shot was which. If I were going to make a move now it would be Red. Not take a step backwards to an inferior and played out codac. I can get 720 60p from a 7d, grant it with some moir workarounds, but not interested in shelling out $15,000 or anything remotely close to it when there are cams out there under $2000 providing a similar image. Don't get me wrong I would still purchase this cam but under $10,000.
 
The F3 gives you the ability to record 1080p 60fps on some external recorders. I'm not saying it's a cheap option, but at least sony offers it if you can afford it.
 
Well, the trade-off from 10-bit 444 and 1080 60p is a codec that's actually useable for a lot of projects that can benefit from a camera like the C300, but don't need that much quality.

It's frustrating really. If the F3 came with XDCam instead of XDCam EX, then I think it would be the clear winner (outside of the option for the native EF mount...that's pretty enticing as well).
 
We hope to test the C300 soon.

If it doesn't chroma clip like the Sonys, or Panasonics, it will be worth every dime, & we may pick up a pair.
 
editman said:
I would say it's not worth it but each to his own. No 10-bit output and overcrank in only 720 is a big no-no for me for that kind of cash.
Click to expand...

I didn´t see it yet, but I am quite sure the C300 in 720p will give similar resolution to the 1080p over crank of the only cam in this price range that does it: the AF100.

F3 does over crank 720p and so does the C300. There is probably a technical reason why they do it this way. MAybe they also want to leave some reason for us to upgrade next year again :P
 
Not take a step backwards to an inferior and played out codac

Please, not a great statement......its a working broadcast codec around the world and virtually the same codec that almost all of the 1 hour shows here in Hollywood record to. You are just too caught up in "It has to be 4k"

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
I am just afraid that 1080 will become the SD we have right now thats why it is holding me back on investing $15000 on a camera that does not have the greatest

tech. People have been saying even with the RED 4K, what you are projecting in the theatre or on television is not 4K anyways. But if you think about it, that

happened the same when HD came out. Commercials and music videos were started to be shot in HD cameras whereas broadcast was only SD. And in a

business sense, why would anyone spend that much money buying a SD camera where the industry demands is on HD.
 
alpi69 said:
I didn´t see it yet, but I am quite sure the C300 in 720p will give similar resolution to the 1080p over crank of the only cam in this price range that does it: the AF100.

F3 does over crank 720p and so does the C300. There is probably a technical reason why they do it this way. MAybe they also want to leave some reason for us to upgrade next year again :P
Click to expand...

If you watch Philip Bloom's resolution comparison there is a clear difference between the C300's 720p60 and the FS100's 1080p60, with the FS100 being clearly sharper. I'm not saying this invalidates the C300, not everyone needs 1080p60 but if you do then that is a clear shortcoming for the C300.
 
50mb/sec seems to be a magic number for some distributors. AVC-Intra was an addition to some of the big Panasonic cameras but has since been added as standard equipment on the P2 cameras. It's twice what the 5D can record. It's not an aggressive variable bit rate codec like AVCHD/H.264 which Panasonic says in some situations can outperform P2, but the Canon codec is twice what AVCHD records. I don't know. One thing is to have a camera with actual knobs and buttons, audio and ND and you can manipulate the iris on EF lenses and OIS works. That's the thing for me over the AF100 or F3, putting that canon glass to work. How about that peripheral illumination correction? Kind of like chromatic aberration correction in the Panasonic world, right? I can't wait to see the camera one week from today.
 
Kenneth Lau said:
I am just afraid that 1080 will become the SD we have right now thats why it is holding me back on investing $15000 on a camera that does not have the greatest

tech. People have been saying even with the RED 4K, what you are projecting in the theatre or on television is not 4K anyways. But if you think about it, that

happened the same when HD came out. Commercials and music videos were started to be shot in HD cameras whereas broadcast was only SD. And in a

business sense, why would anyone spend that much money buying a SD camera where the industry demands is on HD.
Click to expand...


1080 will be the next SD? Really? Do you even know what size your TV would have to be for you too see any visible difference between 1080 and 4k?

Seriously, on anything less than a 120" TV, you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Unless you're rolling with a 400" TV, 1080p will be fine for the foreseeable future. Also, dDo you realize how much bandwidth would be required for broadcasters to actually broadcast 4k?...but I digress..


Let's say, for a moment....let's just hypothesize...that 4k actually makes it big within the next 10 years. Technology gets old REALLY fast. The 4K cameras that will be on the market in 3 years will make today's cameras look like Fisher Price toys.

Buy the camera that you need TODAY. If you get a stupid, stubborn client who demands 4K delivery then fine!!! Buy a 4K camera, but make sure you charge your client appropriately. The image quality we're seeing today is garbage compared to what it will be in five years...just like the image quality we're seeing today is amazing compared to what it was 5 years ago; that's the just how technology goes.

4k, 8k, 16k....this just marketing BS...most viewers don't care...why did DVD succeed? Because it provided a huge leap above VHS, in both picture quality and usability. Why is BD struggling? Because the jump in quality from DVD is moderate and the usability is the same as DVD...plus, more and more people watch videos and movies on their computers.

4k is a fad...while it will be useful for large screen productions, it will simply be unnecessary for most other intents and purposes.

Concentrate on making quality content instead of getting caught up in this resolution fiasco....it's like the megapixel race of digital cameras and the megahertz race between Intel and AMD.


Personally, I'd rather watch Scarface in 320x200 than Gigli in 4k.
 
Phil1076 said:
4k is a fad...while it will be useful for large screen productions, it will simply be unnecessary for most other intents and purposes.
Click to expand...

4k is not a fad, and it has its uses even for web/home video content. However, we won't be seeing 4k TV sets in the home for a long, long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top