G
Guest
Guest
Not quite what I meant. Haha! =)
Canon EOS C300 NEW pricing!!!
- Thread starter Bertholt4
- Start date
- Status
Not quite what I meant. Haha! =)
The fact that this was filmed with a GH2, straight up just pisses me off! Haha..
Seriously though, this is proof once again how much more important it is to have good talent, DP, Director, location, light, editor, etc. then the latest and greatest wonder camera. Says the guy who just bought a F3...
Perspective is relative
Relative to a consumer or a hobbyist with average income, paying over $10,000 for a camera is absolutely not worth it. Especially digital equipment that improves very fast.
Relative to a professional who uses this equipment to make money, it absolutely could be worth it for various reasons:
- Extra features that saves time (ND filters, form factor, monitoring, jack pack, etc.)
- Performance that the client requires
- Robust construction/reliability/service
An extra $10,000 is peanuts for a professional or a production, depending on what level they are at. They will pay for reliability and features that saves time or gets the shot because it's astronomically more expensive to shut down or delay a production due to equipment limitations.
To put this into perspective, broadcast 2/3" HD cameras still go for $30,000+. The lenses that go on these cameras alone can cost $20,000 each! But professionals can pay these prices because they charge the appropriate rates to cover their expenses.
Last edited:
Michael Olsen
Veteran
And, depending on the market, there's also perception. For instance many producers will look at a GH2 as some kind of "knock off 5D" regardless of demonstration or attempts to convince them otherwise. Why? They perceive the 5D as the DSLR to shoot professional work on.
Let's say that the crew that put that feature together on the GH2 got an offer to shoot the same project, but with a big budget. Camera choice wouldn't cost them anything, because it will be subsumed as part of the expenses of the film, which will be repaid. Would the DP, Director, and Producer choose to continue to shoot on the GH2? Or would they leap at the opportunity to shoot film? Or Alexa? Or RED? Or maybe test out the F65?
And I think that's just it - as soon as cost is off the table because it will be returned (ROI) - camera choice becomes about more than value or getting a great deal. It becomes about choosing what's right for the project (or studio/production company, if we are talking about owning). And that's when I believe more people will start buying/renting the "unnecessarily expensive" digital and film cinema cameras.
Let's say that the crew that put that feature together on the GH2 got an offer to shoot the same project, but with a big budget. Camera choice wouldn't cost them anything, because it will be subsumed as part of the expenses of the film, which will be repaid. Would the DP, Director, and Producer choose to continue to shoot on the GH2? Or would they leap at the opportunity to shoot film? Or Alexa? Or RED? Or maybe test out the F65?
And I think that's just it - as soon as cost is off the table because it will be returned (ROI) - camera choice becomes about more than value or getting a great deal. It becomes about choosing what's right for the project (or studio/production company, if we are talking about owning). And that's when I believe more people will start buying/renting the "unnecessarily expensive" digital and film cinema cameras.
The points Piolet and Michael make are very valid one's. I shot with a 5D (along side my EX1) for a year. Was very happy with what the 5D offered while very aware of it's shortcomings. As soon as the AF100 came out I jumped on it because I needed the features of a 'real' video camera and my clients realized they did as well. I never even flinched at the 7K I had to spend for the AF and accessories because it was a necessity for my business. Jump forward a year and I feel the same way about my F3 purchase. Myself and my clients understand what it offers that other cameras do not and they tend not to flinch at the added expense of using it. Plus depending on their needs they can pick from a number of options with the F3, XDCAM EX to SxS @ 8 bit, ProRes 10 bit to KPM or 444 to uncompressed recorder. I've had a number of clients who at first wanted to shoot with a DSLR, after convincing them of the virtues of the AF and now the F3, their experience on location and in post usually leads them to saying things like "that camera is great, we didnt have to deal with syncing sound, transcoding, we can grade it really heavily if we like, etc."
Nearly anything is 'doable' with a DSLR but there are caveats and challenges at the same time. Like Michael said about the crew that shot the Musgo feature, if given the opportunity to use more advanced and flexible cameras in the future, they'll probably take it. But once again, their trailer is proof that the camera doesn't determine the quality of the film.
Nearly anything is 'doable' with a DSLR but there are caveats and challenges at the same time. Like Michael said about the crew that shot the Musgo feature, if given the opportunity to use more advanced and flexible cameras in the future, they'll probably take it. But once again, their trailer is proof that the camera doesn't determine the quality of the film.
Not really. The GH2 and AF-100 are two worlds apart. The GH2 with the patch is capable of 175mb/s video which has near RAW-like flexibility in post (if RAW was sampled down t0 4:2:0, of course). There is absolutely no artifacting and the GH2's sensor never line-skipped. It's captured as a full 16mp image and properly downsampled to a full 1000-line image. Not to mention the all INTRA capture makes amazing motion-quality similar to Red or a film-DI. It's quite amazing for a $800 body and with the level of tech in it... it honestly makes the AF-100's lowly 24mb/s codec a joke. I know I'm sounding like a broken record over here... but after working on a few projects over the last few weeks with the 175mb/s INTRA codec (doing whatever I want in post) the C300 at it's current price is just insane. It's a $4500 camera at best. Even then, I would still want 60fps in full 1080p and at least 100mb/s.
Also, if the AF-100 has 10-stops or DR... then the GH2 is a solid 11.
Yea, "pro" cameras seem like mostly smoke-and-mirrors these days... at least quality wise. I think in the next few years the term "professional" is just going to refer to how much time a device saves... and not really the look or image.
+1
I was going insane with everyone here pretending like the C300 is some sort of magical god-send camera. It's just a XF300 with a large chip. I think it's just basic psychology at play here... people tend to "fetishize" things that are priced higher, and even create irrational justification, solely on their conditioning that higher priced items are better. It's the "pro-gear" stigma.
Last edited:
I have a GH2 and love it, the 176mbps patch is great.... but RAW like, 11 stops DR? I hope you are joking. Even the actual RAW still image files are struggling to hit over 11 stops DR... maybe 12 at a real push.
Canon's claim of 12 stops seems quite conservative to me, after seeing the footage (admittedly, they may have spent an age lighting and in post to achieve the look of higher DR... but time will tell).
Nope... with the right lenses (i.e. not the Panasonic ones, they're not very good) it bet it easily hits 11. It's got a good stop over the AF-100 in the highlights, and if that was measured at 10... then do the math.
11 stops is not that difficult for a modern sensor.
And as far as the 175mb/s codec goes... I've tinted the high-lights neon green and shadows purple, turned up the saturation all the way, and still didn't see any artifacting. So, in that sense, I consider it pretty RAW-like.
Yea, your probably right... the 12-stops looks pretty conservative. I wouldn't doubt if it's around 13.
Last edited:
You have no idea what RAW is capable of. You have been "grading" a good looking 8-bit jpeg. Raw is something else. Have you tried making masks based on chrominance? Changing white balance? Tinting colors ain't exactly that demanding. There's a reason photographers shoot RAW instead of jpeg.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
This thread has obviously run its course -
It was intended as a thread to discuss C300 pricing for those interested in the camera.
Warnings had already been posted... and multiple posts had to be deleted.
Now we're going down the same exact road again.
We've gone around and around the same topics regarding the GH2 multiple times now.
If you would like to discuss the GH2 feel free to do so in the GH2 forum.
That's why it's there.
Thanks.
It was intended as a thread to discuss C300 pricing for those interested in the camera.
Warnings had already been posted... and multiple posts had to be deleted.
Now we're going down the same exact road again.
We've gone around and around the same topics regarding the GH2 multiple times now.
If you would like to discuss the GH2 feel free to do so in the GH2 forum.
That's why it's there.
Thanks.
- Status