C300: Cinema 5D Test Claims 12.3 stops of DR for the C300 MKII!

Their testing methodology is conservative as what determines useful stop isn't a hard science. I guess as long as they are consistent at least all of their numbers are equally conservative.

I don't know why people are surprised that the C300II has similar performance as the FS7. The specs indicate they are pretty much the same with the FS7 more 4K framerates. I think the choice is down to what what colour and ergos you prefer. I'm coming up on a year owning an FS7 and it has been a fantastic earner for me at $8K.
 
That puts C300II in an extremely hard spot at this price point. The only advantage of it versus fs7 I see is it's AF and colours maybe. Is this worth additional $8K?
 
steve phillipps said:
I think most people would be surprised simple because of the price difference. As others have said here and as I thought at the outset, it's a hard sell for a lot of people at that price.

Steve
Click to expand...
If they would lower the price substantially, to at least like $10-12k it could be up in the game again- best camera for gimbal. New cameras coming out that will diminish C300II exclusive features. FS5 has a very fast AF with face detection, same goes in A7RII.
 
Cinema5D/Sebastian Wöber said:
I must also mention: Curious about the 120fps (crop) mode in 2K I found that it’s actually very soft (think 720p) making it much less usable. Personally I expected much more from the Canon C300 Mark II.
Click to expand...

With no 4k60p most will turn to 2k60/120 & this is without a doubt the most depressing thing about a camera in this price range.
 
Here is an earlier article that Sebastian Wöber who wrote this article wrote comparing dynamic range on various cameras.

https://www.cinema5d.com/dynamic-ra...ira-canon-c300-5d-mark-iii-1dc-panasonic-gh4/
Cinema5D said:
The Canon cameras [5D Mark III and C300 Mark I] come in at 10-11 stops of usable dynamic range. This is still a very strong dynamic range rating, but in comparison to the A7S the Canon’s are way behind.

Why did the C300 perform worse than the 5D mark III?

Before we go into details about how we test let me explain why the Canon 5D mark III outperformed the C300 and 1DC in our test. As mentioned before we’re measuring usable dynamic range. This means we’re observing actual dynamic range relative to the noise ratio of the signal. In other words, we only measure dynamic range where the signal still upholds a certain quality which is measured in noise.

This is where the bad resolution and codec of the 5D mark III gets a few extra points of dynamic range rating, because its softness blurs the visible and measurable noise. While this might be deemed unfair, the worse quality also gives the viewer an impression of a cleaner image in view of its actual resolution.
Click to expand...

It basically sound like they are very conservative in their definition of "usable" in relation to noise and dynamic range. Anyone who has shot with a 5D and C300/C100 knows the C300/C100 has better dynamic range, even if the shadows are noisier. Those nosier shadows are still usable, at least in my opinion, while Cinema5D seems to be not considering a lot of the common shadow noise as usable. I believe compared to the original C300's 12 stops two of the extra stops of the C300 Mark II are relegated to the shadows, and just one more in the highlights, which corresponds to Cinema5D saying the C300 Mark II has just one extra stop of dynamic range over the original C300, while not counting anything towards the extra dynamic range in the shadows which they deem as unusable.


To quote from a few comments discussed on that article...
Dom said:
The review is interesting but your methodology leaves a lot to be desired. What do you mean by “signal still upholds a certain quality which is measured in noise.” What is that quality? It seems you are making a subjective decision and presenting it as objective.
Click to expand...
Sebastian Wöber said:
Hi D, It is objective as all cameras we test undergo the exact same tests with the same variables and the results are being published. We made sure the testing parameters give you the best possible feedback on cameras. The noise is measured by the software according to internationally accepted standards, not by us. We decided on a quality factor we found acceptable and applied it to all cameras.
Click to expand...
Dom said:
"We decided on a quality factor we found acceptable and applied it to all cameras.” Notice you said “We” not “The software”. What is the quality factor? If you don’t articulate it and explain WHY that is the level of one can consider quality then YOUR conclusion is undermined at best. You are probably right but without transparency and good methodology, scientific and technical tests have lower value
Click to expand...


And a comment from the current article on the C300 Mark II...
Jeff Regan said:
Geoff Boyle of CML tested the mark II at 14 stops and used it for a commercial(pre-production unit). He was also impressed with the autofocus features. The mark II is supposed to be 10db cleaner than the FS7, 67db vs. 57db, which in turn is supposedly a little quieter than an F5. It’s clear that Canon has the preamp gain set higher than Sony, explaining the 1-stop difference in sensitivity.
Click to expand...

Philip Bloom seemed to think it lived up to the advertised dynamic range as well. Guess we'll see who's right as the camera gets in more people's hands.

In the meantime, I suggest everyone cancels their pre-orders until we find out the truth; that way I'll get my pre-order shipped out earlier.
 
Last edited:
Here's what I put on CanonRumors:
Okay, I think this has gotten a bit out of hand....I'm gonna say I'm 99.9% certain that Cinema5D had one of the prototype cameras....ones that were built in March, not a production run camera. The first production run cameras were just delivered at the end of last week here in the US and I don't think any have been delivered in Europe (where they are located) yet. What they are talking about in terms of the black noise was on 3 different prototypes that I had my hands on. They had good range but we didn't bother testing it because we knew it would not be accurate compared to the final, production run version. I know there is a TON of tweeks, adjustments, etc that have been made to the camera to get it ready for release. The bottom line is, I'd put a lot more credibility in the ASC DP, Gale Tattersall (who shot the demo film "Trick Shot") who says there are definitely 15 stops vs. Cinema5D's test.

I have a query into Cinema5D asking when they did their test and was it a prototype or a production run camera....

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
 
Doug_EX said:
Indeed...quite disappointing.
Click to expand...

I put $12,000 down 3 months ago. There is no way I am going through with this purchase now, too much money, too many grey areas.
Dynamic range was why I was happy to pay the extra money. I could have been operating an FS7 for the past 12 months instead of holding out for the C300MKII. Unbelievable - surely my scenario (cancelling order) will be repeated everywhere. Cinema 5D would want to be 100% confident in this test and their procedures because if it eventuates that they are wrong I hate to think of the legal implications. I will be speaking to consumer affairs today to see what options I have as Canon are absolutely misleading the consumer with false claims and false advertising.
 
"In the meantime, I suggest everyone cancels their pre-orders until we find out the truth; that way I'll get my pre-order shipped out earlier."

Eric!...."you funny guy"........I think we should call you....."The Manipulator"

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
 
Plexi Head said:
I put $12,000 down 3 months ago. There is no way I am going through with this purchase now, too much money, too many grey areas.
Dynamic range was why I was happy to pay the extra money. I could have been operating an FS7 for the past 12 months instead of holding out for the C300MKII. Unbelievable - surely my scenario (cancelling order) will be repeated everywhere. Cinema 5D would want to be 100% confident in this test and their procedures because if it eventuates that they are wrong I hate to think of the legal implications. I will be speaking to consumer affairs today to see what options I have as Canon are absolutely misleading the consumer with false claims and false advertising.
Click to expand...

What?......I'd suggest you take a breath on this for a day or two......
 
Don't worry, Jim. If you read into Plexi Head's melodramatic tone you can see he's just being more subtly manipulative than I was.
 
Plexi Head said:
Cinema 5D would want to be 100% confident in this test and their procedures because if it eventuates that they are wrong I hate to think of the legal implications.
Click to expand...

Not to disparage Cinema 5D, but I would suggest waiting for more information and tests before taking their posts as infallible.
 
Red Dragon costs a lot more but I didn't hear much of people talking about "legal implications" and speaking with "consumer affairs" when the the Dragon's advertised 16.5 stops of dynamic range ended up being less. Plus we're talking about unverified reports which sound rather sketchy. I highly doubt Cinema5D could face any legal charges from Canon if they made technical errors in a simple unpaid camera test they posted online; if that was the case then no one would ever post camera tests again. Dynamic range is rather subjective based on different testing methods, so I think it's pretty clear that no one should be buying a camera purely on advertised dynamic range.

12 months ago Canon never guaranteed under legal obligation they'd make a better camera than the Sony FS7, so those who waited waited at their own discretion.

For myself, dynamic range isn't the main selling point to me. If I could get the FS7 in the ergonomics of a C300 Mark II body, the FS7 would be much more appealing to me. Compared to my C100 or an original C300, the improved auto-focus is the main selling point to me, along with 4k, significantly better internal codec for post manipulation, and dynamic range; certainly not just dynamic range, though.

Even so, Cinema5D is still saying that the dynamic range is a stop or two better than the original C300, and the same as the FS7, so it's still a marked improvement, and I'm guessing since their tests seem to be skewed, that it's also better than the FS7. So at the end of the day, it's not all that much to get worked up about, at least for me. In any case, the FS7 was always advertised as 14 stops and the C300 Mark II as 15 stops, so with just one stop difference in advertised dynamic range, I'd hardly consider dynamic range to be the only selling point of the C300 Mark II over the FS7.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
Red Dragon costs a lot more but I didn't hear much of people talking about "legal implications" and speaking with "consumer affairs" when the the Dragon's advertised 16.5 stops of dynamic range ended up being less. Plus we're talking about unverified reports which sound rather sketchy. I highly doubt Cinema5D could face any legal charges from Canon if they made technical errors in a simple unpaid camera test they posted online; if that was the case then no one would ever post camera tests again. Dynamic range is rather subjective based on different testing methods, so I think it's pretty clear that no one should be buying a camera purely on advertised dynamic range.

12 months ago Canon never guaranteed under legal obligation they'd make a better camera than the Sony FS7, so those who waited waited at their own discretion.

For myself, dynamic range isn't the main selling point to me. If I could get the FS7 in the ergonomics of a C300 Mark II body, the FS7 would be much more appealing to me. Compared to my C100 or an original C300, the improved auto-focus is the main selling point to me, along with 4k, significantly better internal codec for post manipulation, and dynamic range; certainly not just dynamic range, though.

Even so, Cinema5D is still saying that the dynamic range is a stop or two better than the original C300, and the same as the FS7, so it's still a marked improvement, and I'm guessing since their tests seem to be skewed, that it's also better than the FS7. So at the end of the day, it's not all that much to get worked up about, at least for me. In any case, the FS7 was always advertised as 14 stops and the C300 Mark II as 15 stops, so with just one stop difference in advertised dynamic range, I'd hardly consider dynamic range to be the only selling point of the C300 Mark II over the FS7.
Click to expand...

As a guy who has written technical reviews and articles in various magazines/web over the past 25 years I have always made sure that whatever was printed was 100% on the money - always. If Cinema 5D have made technical errors in their review they absolutely should be held accountable. If Canon advertise a camera as having 15 stops the camera should have 15 stops. Basic expectations.
 
We're talking about subjective testing methods since there is no purely objective method for measuring dynamic range. Subjective by its nature means it can't be "100% on the money - always." Canon could do a test with their methods and truthfully come up with 15 stops while Cinema5D does a test using their methods and comes up with 12.3 stops. Since it's subjective testing methods it's difficult to say one is right and the other is wrong. The only reason they would need to "be held accountable" is if they are a) outright lying or b) doing a terrible job regarding their subjective testing methods, with b being a bit harder to prove. This isn't like shutter speed numbers, existence of waveform, etc., which are purely objective.

You also mention the FS7 as a benchmark and are upset at Canon that the C300 has, according to Cinema5D, 12.3 stops instead of the advertised 15 stops. Why, I wonder, do you not seem so upset at Sony that the FS7 has, according to Cinema5D, 12.4 stops, instead of the advertised 14 stops?
 
Last edited:
I think there needs to be a touch of calm first off.

Like any camera, Ill test it myself before I (most likely), pick one up.

Just to clarify a few points here as well

And a comment from the current article on the C300 Mark II...
Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Regan, Cinema5D commenter
Geoff Boyle of CML tested the mark II at 14 stops and used it for a commercial(pre-production unit). He was also impressed with the autofocus features. The mark II is supposed to be 10db cleaner than the FS7, 67db vs. 57db, which in turn is supposedly a little quieter than an F5. It’s clear that Canon has the preamp gain set higher than Sony, explaining the 1-stop difference in sensitivity.
Click to expand...

That may be quoted - but its second hand as well. Below is what Geoff Boyle actually had to say - quoted from CML.

Shot tests during prep today and I’ll publish them next week but I’m too busy to do it at the moment.

However, I can definitely confirm the 15 stops latitude, possibly more, actually probably...

I’m shooting both XAVC at 410MB internally to CFast and RAW with an Odyssey. File names match :-)

I’m shooting this commercial at 4K because there will be a lot of repositioning in post, it’s a lot of overlapping dissolves and doing it this way lets the editor move the images around to make the dissolves work best.

I think that this is going to be a pretty cool camera.

Cheers
Geoff Boyle
Cinematographer
EU Based
www.gboyle.co.uk
+31 (0) 637 155 076
Click to expand...

Over the years I've seen lots of different people do lots of different dynamic range tests and rarely have I ever seen two tests of the same camera agree. There was an early DR test of the C300 V1 that gave it ten stops. Now I know from my experience I can pull 12 stops out of it on nearly every shot.

At this point I'd be far more inclined to lean towards the vast experience and eye of Geoff Boyle and that's no slight in Sebastian either, however I'll be waiting to get my hands on one to test for myself.

Plexi Head said:
Melodramatic? I guess $22,000 (Australian) is just pocket change to you Eric?
Click to expand...

Where from? You're paying too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top