C300: Canon at NAB2015 starts to make "headlines"

puredrifting said:
Ha, ha. My challenge is usually DPs, Directors and Actors on film and television sets doing stand ups, not in sit down interviews...
Click to expand...
Gotcha ... I think you do need an auto focus system then. Dual Pixel with a bunch of crossover points might/should/ought to help.

Very cool link, thank you, I enjoyed watching that. I wonder what that entire system costs though? About as much as a C300?
Click to expand...
Off Red Rock's site -

The sonar rangefinder is $795 (U-Boats beware).

The handheld microremote is $1,590 (+ accessories like cables and lens gears), the wireless is $2,485.

So, off that video, with the operator controlling the system on his gimbal, it's about $2,500, give or take a few bucks.
 
Matt Turner said:
It's even worth contemplating "sidegrading" from a C100 to a C300 just for the name recognition, especially if you are shooting docos.
I'd expect the investment would pay for itself pretty quickly and aside from different media it's a totally painless body replacement.
Click to expand...

Well I just bought a C100 Mark II in late January. I love the camera, and don't regret buying it at all. But now I'm starting to consider (within a couple of months or so), selling the C100 Mark II and getting a C300. Maybe new, maybe used, not sure.

I'll have to decide if it's the best thing for me to do financially or not. There's definitely the bigger demand for the C300. My first client (freelance) after getting the C100 Mark II, a NYC based production company, definitely needed it shot on a Canon C series. They would have preferred C300. But they were ok with the C100 Mark II right then since the job was soon and we were just starting to work together. And for future jobs (they should be using me regularly), they want me to get a recorder, which I believe they're going to at least partially cover.

Also, most of the network shows request C300 rather than C100 on job posts. Some might be ok with a C100 with recorder, but it doesn't hurt to have what they want from the start. I've yet to get any jobs in that area.

So if I could "side grade" from the C100 Mark II to the C300, and not spend more than $1,000 to $1,500 over what I get for the C100 Mark II in the process, it might be a good thing to do while the resale on the C100 Mark II will be at its highest. What do you all think?
 
Last edited:
Whatever you do just make sure it's not a want versus business decision. In a lot of ways the new C100 MKII is actually better than the C300 so I would rather have it than an older C300. Like you said add a cheap Ninja Star and you are shooting 4:2:2 ProRes and have 60P at 1080 for slowmo.
 
An unsubstantiated rumor from a poster on CR, who says that C300 MK II specs, even discounting the 4K, will trump Alexa's. The said poster implied that he doesn't know how Canon accomplished it but it's supposed to be pretty impressive (not exact words).

One of those close-to-an-insider posts or so it looks like. Canon has managed to keep a pretty decent lid on things, with about a week to go before the NAB.

PS. Having scanned this thread, that CR poster also contributes here. What's the etiquette? Should I delete the above?
 
Last edited:
DLD said:
An unsubstantiated rumor from a poster on CR, who says that C300 MK II specs, even discounting the 4K, will trump Alexa's. The said poster implied that he doesn't know how Canon accomplished it but it's supposed to be pretty impressive (not exact words).

One of those close-to-an-insider posts or so it looks like. Canon has managed to keep a pretty decent lid on things, with about a week to go before the NAB.

PS. Having scanned this thread, that CR poster also contributes here. What's the etiquette? Should I delete the above?
Click to expand...

It could trump the Alexa in resolution, match it in colour, but that's about it. Canon has yet to release a camera with that much DR, even in their stills line. The C300 sensor is fine, but it's not a game changer and doesn't quite compare to the top sensors in the industry.
 
IanTheM said:
The C300 sensor is fine, but it's not a game changer and doesn't quite compare to the top sensors in the industry.
Click to expand...
This to me is the biggest question: will the C100 MKII be used to run out the existing sensor tech, and the C300 MK II be used to introduce a newer and even better sensor, something the C500 MKII would then build upon... if the C300 MKII keeps the same sensor then I don't see it being an Alexa beater, though it could (should) match the C500 MKI's capabilities.
 
Erik Naso said:
Whatever you do just make sure it's not a want versus business decision. In a lot of ways the new C100 MKII is actually better than the C300 so I would rather have it than an older C300. Like you said add a cheap Ninja Star and you are shooting 4:2:2 ProRes and have 60P at 1080 for slowmo.
Click to expand...
But still limited to 30p with the Ninja Star.
 
Doug_EX said:
But still limited to 30p with the Ninja Star.
Click to expand...

Mk II outputs 60p. Maybe the star limitation?

Anyway I agree with Rick, the ONLY advantages to the c300 over the mk II are HDSDI + 4:2:2 internal. That's it. If you need them sure. But for most respects c100 mk II is now a better camera (which makes perfect sense why they had to bring c300 down to c100 price)

MK II over C300 has
-1080p 60p
-DPAF, with Face detection
-Smaller, lighter package
-two mics for use without top handle
-next gen processor and image pipeline (better sharpness less aliasing better lowlight)
-Internal wifi/remote shooting to phones/tablets
-Mp4 recording alongside AVCHD
-Cheaper by 1K now
-4:2:2 can be had with a ninja star

So ONLY reason to go for a C300 is that HDSDI GEN-LOCK port.
 
Yes it's a star limitation, but the end results won't change...you will be able to record no more than 30p with the Star.
 
Some really good points here, guys. I'd like to continue this discussion. I hope no one feels like I'm hijacking this thread with the C100 Mark II vs. C300 (OG) discussion. If so, we can start a new thread. That's probably not a bad idea. Otherwise, here are some thoughts and questions on it.

Erik, it's definitely a business decision and not a want. I like the C100 Mark II very much. The main point I have is that having the C300 "should" get me in the door to be qualified for more work. Namely, the local 1 - 3 day freelance shoots for different cable network shows (Discovery, A&E, HGTV, CMT, & Food being the ones I most often see on Staff Me Up).

As far as the Ninja Star, I know the device itself is more affordable. But with the higher cost of the CFast cards, I think I'm better off with the Ninja 2 or Ninja Blade in the long run.

The C300 has the required 50 mbps bitrate that is required by networks. Which "should" also mean that it produces a better picture in some ways. But it sounds like the C100 Mark II has the better sensor between the two. Especially in regard to low light. Do you all agree?

What is it like shooting on the MXF file format? Does it get past some of the irritating things of AVCHD, especially in regards to clip spanning? I always feel like I need to prep an editor (who I've never even spoken to, normally) about AVCHD in my log notes on the hard drive that I ship back to freelance clients.

The C300 has gen-lock. Which would help me with two-camera events, assuming it can jam sync with my Panasonic AC130A (which I think it can). And will be almost necessary for two-camera reality show shoots. That was a major PITA recently (for the editor, at least), when I was used to being able to sync with my AF100.

On that last note, we're having some success with pitching our reality show that we've been working on to a major network. Just finished a second version of the sizzle reel, and it's going around to the producers and execs right now. We shot this version from their notes on the first version. So if it happens (the main interested party is one of those that I listed above), I have been pretty well betting that they'll need it on the C300. And I know that our editor, whoever that might end up being, will need the TC synced between it and whatever we get as a second camera. Probably whatever Canon makes that is on the same level, but with a 1/3" sensor and 20x zoom. Of course, this is all an "IF" right now. And the outcome will probably be the biggest deciding factor in all of this.

TLDR; most of my work is becoming freelance camera operator right now. And I want that side to increase over the full service client work. So the advantage of the C300 to me is that that seems to be what is required or requested by production companies and cable networks. Thanks!
 
Just finished work on a reality show which used 3 C300's and I don't think they are worried about 4K. The C300 will continue to be a great doc camera. If you do high end commercials, TV or features then it was never the camera that was in demand anyway.
 
IanTheM said:
It could trump the Alexa in resolution, match it in colour, but that's about it. Canon has yet to release a camera with that much DR, even in their stills line. The C300 sensor is fine, but it's not a game changer and doesn't quite compare to the top sensors in the industry.
Click to expand...
But that's what we know of Canon thus far. The question is whether they're coming out with something that we don't. From the image processing point of view, there are workarounds to up the DR over and beyond of what a sensor can provide by itself. And, of course, they can try to improve the sensor quality also, given that C300 MK II will pretty much be their flagship model for the time being.

Anyhow, it's a week to go!

Matt Turner said:
If Philip Bloom can't get CNN to go 4K (with his Sony F55), then I think we are safe with HD on docos/reality for a few years at least.
Click to expand...
This is rather short sighted of them. Just looking at that Romanian 1989 video a few weeks back suggests that news should be archived at the highest quality possible. CNN might not be ready to pay F55 rates, however. At third the price, C300 MK II seems a lot more feasible.
 
DLD said:
This is rather short sighted of them. Just looking at that Romanian 1989 video a few weeks back suggests that news should be archived at the highest quality possible.
Click to expand...

Hard to argue that statement, though decent quality 1080p will always look good in normal sized living rooms.
 
DLD said:
But that's what we know of Canon thus far. The question is whether they're coming out with something that we don't. From the image processing point of view, there are workarounds to up the DR over and beyond of what a sensor can provide by itself. And, of course, they can try to improve the sensor quality also, given that C300 MK II will pretty much be their flagship model for the time being.

Anyhow, it's a week to go!
Click to expand...

Canon usually settles for it's formula of ~11.5 Stops of DR, and great (sometimes best in class, though not Sony's class) low light. That's a good way to go for a Docu/small show camera. In the same way it makes sense for the Alexa to be less low light sensitive, but have 14 stops of DR. Those shows have lights, are able to work super effectively around the 400/800 ASA range. I don't think Canon actually has enough incentive to make a new sensor, as much as a new recording system/workflow. It'd be neat if they tried to source a sensor from somewhere else, like RED does, for the C500, but it's unlikely they want to dominate the high end market.

Canon's thesis is that they are beloved for the glass, the abundance of options and availability, and their cameras need to be just good enough. They can make a great high end cinema camera one day in the future, maybe when the technology slows down, but for now they just need to keep designing and manufacturing great glass and cameras that are just good enough to sway people towards their ecosystem.
 
IanTheM said:
Canon usually settles for it's formula of ~11.5 Stops of DR, and great (sometimes best in class, though not Sony's class) low light. That's a good way to go for a Docu/small show camera. In the same way it makes sense for the Alexa to be less low light sensitive, but have 14 stops of DR. Those shows have lights, are able to work super effectively around the 400/800 ASA range. I don't think Canon actually has enough incentive to make a new sensor, as much as a new recording system/workflow. It'd be neat if they tried to source a sensor from somewhere else, like RED does, for the C500, but it's unlikely they want to dominate the high end market.

Canon's thesis is that they are beloved for the glass, the abundance of options and availability, and their cameras need to be just good enough. They can make a great high end cinema camera one day in the future, maybe when the technology slows down, but for now they just need to keep designing and manufacturing great glass and cameras that are just good enough to sway people towards their ecosystem.
Click to expand...

A lot of people feel this way. For good reason.

They all just need to wait a week before feeling very differently. DLD is hinting at inside knowledge fwiw. I just wish someone knew the price, as I can't imagine this monster will be cheap.
 
greenheron said:
Just finished work on a reality show which used 3 C300's and I don't think they are worried about 4K. The C300 will continue to be a great doc camera. If you do high end commercials, TV or features then it was never the camera that was in demand anyway.
Click to expand...

Good info. If this show needed to hire a camera op with gear at a location, do you think that they would have required the C300, or would they have been open to the C100 Mark II? I'm guessing it would be C300 or no hire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top