Canon 300 <---- Is it worth the price?
- Thread starter Kenneth Lau
- Start date
Yes, exactly... this is why it's frustrating on paper. The 5D is a 6k chip, 14-bit processing funneled down to 2k, 8-bit recording... $2300. The GH2 is a 5k chip, 10-bit processing funneled down to 2k, 8-bit recording... $700.
There is just a spec-to-price ratio that's out of whack with the C300.
I'll chime in and say that if a cinematographer wants to own a camera, they should probably buy the camera that is best worth the price - in this age, all the 4K cameras can also do 1080p, with all the frame rates one can imagine. (Red Scarlet). Also, these cameras are now quite portable, like the new Alexa or again, the Scarlet. For $15,000, these cameras really do everything, from cinema quality 4K RAW to 1080p 60p broadcast work, ans everything in between, just in case you say, wanna shoot 3K to downsample to 1080P.Now, cameras like the C300 or F3 are a bit more limited in those aspects, and slightly cheaper. If you only do television work and never will produce theater work, 1080P is perfect and will be perfect for probably more than a decade. I don't personally believe 1080P is perfectly suited to large theater projections; I can barely get 1080P to look crisp on a computer, but if it came down to it, both of these cameras can probably make images that hold up very well on the theater screen. And if the codecs and lack of post-transcoding make it easier for folks to do television work, it may be worth the same amount of money.One thing I think about, though, is that for television work, why DSLR's, for a mere $900, aren't suitable choices... I've seen some amazing looking documentary work done on them and it simply looks superb. And the codec is probably the easiest, doesn't the GH2 even have 1080 60i for those that need it?
Also, if I were going to spend $15,000 on anything, I'd shoot RAW 4K. Don't care. You're going to have to use Red's software regardless, and you're going to need a monster computer and genius editor regardless. RAW cover one's butt a bit more, and I say that is primarily worth the $15,000. Other than that, if you're a genius cinematograpgher, you'll get great footage from a DSLR - GH2 film Green Hills proves that, for quality, color, view, and literally everything.
Anything beyond that, I'd use $15,000 for RAW - you're going to have to transcode and downscale and convert no matter what you do, why would it cost more? If I spent $15,000 on a C300, I'd really have to trust myself as a cinematographer, and trust that the camera truly makes things truly easier on the quick go. However, if these cameras were more around $7,000 or less, it'd be the thing to snatch up in a heartbeat, to heck with RAW or 4K.
Anything beyond that, I'd use $15,000 for RAW - you're going to have to transcode and downscale and convert no matter what you do, why would it cost more? If I spent $15,000 on a C300, I'd really have to trust myself as a cinematographer, and trust that the camera truly makes things truly easier on the quick go. However, if these cameras were more around $7,000 or less, it'd be the thing to snatch up in a heartbeat, to heck with RAW or 4K.
The only problem you'll find is that for $15,000 you simply can't shoot RAW. The basic 'workable' Red Scarlet package costs $16,000, an that won't get you through a whole day's work. To achieve that you need to spend around $20,000 at the very least (that's to get 2 extra batteries and more media).
Anyway, the C300 is 'reasonably' priced if you look at the F3, not the Scarlet - it costs similar to the F3, but offers better internal recording and CLog at no extra price. I'm sure in the future cameras will get better and cheaper, but 'unfortunately' at the moment no other big sensor camera offers the same picture quality and full professional features (XLR, ND's, useable viewfider + screen, waveform, ...) at the same price as the C300.
By the way, shooting RAW is not some sort of magic recipe that will make you pictures instantly look incredible. It can save your butt as much as it can expose it. Give me good latitude over RAW any day (I prefer the Alexa to the Red for that reason - it can really save your butt if you have a bad day in the office), and also give me a well lit scene over definition any day too.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
I had a read on Alan Roberts test of the C300 and some very good comment about the design of the camera. All talk about the sensor being superior and well worth the price when it comes to resolution at 1080 seems to be true. But with higher resolved lenses like the 100L you also get aliasing and 720 downscaling is not performed as good as one could ask for. He discovered some minor colour errors but overall good remarks about the C300.
As this is Canons first large sensor video camera it looks promising in the future. I think that in the next generation from Sony, Panasonic and Canon we'll see something really worth the price with most of todays quirks worked out.
As this is Canons first large sensor video camera it looks promising in the future. I think that in the next generation from Sony, Panasonic and Canon we'll see something really worth the price with most of todays quirks worked out.