Perth?
C300: Cinema 5D Test Claims 12.3 stops of DR for the C300 MKII!
- Thread starter puredrifting
- Start date
Plexi Head
Active member
I am not in Australia (although, I do have relatives in Melbourne). The current exchange rate to the US dollar is .70c per AU$, which does come out to ~ AU$23,000, if the unit sells here for $16,000.
But, seriously, I was joking about Perth (being spelled with L and C). And even more serious is your take of the C300 MKII review by Cinema5D. "Dynamic range" is a nebulous concept, not even accounting for the potential error in tests, hardware and, most importantly, their own lying eyes.
Plexi Head
Active member
Oh I see what you did there. L and C. My best Homer Simpson "Doh"
Of course I should feel somewhat a little deflated by the DR finds in the latest Cinema5D post but after having a good look around the site I was able to draw some conclusions that are along parallel lines to your final comment.
There is enough footage out there already that is able to demonstrate the cameras DR and my eyes are not lying. Looking forward to picking up C300 in the next couple of weeks and once again feeling positive and trusting MY instincts and experience.
steve phillipps
Veteran
The only thing that is subjective is the choice of methodology, as long as that methodology is held consistent than the results are objective, ie relative to to other cameras tested. The only possible objection to this would be if the testing methodology favoured certain types of cameras and skewed the results in their favour somehow, or if the test used less than optimal settings for a camera - not sure sure if that was the case here?
Steve
Surf it Mike
Well-known member
Outside of Cinema 5D's whacky DR claims ...................as an Aussie the real issue is the falling exchange rate between $AUS & $US.
Given the f...ing around with delivery dates I would bail out, as the AUS is only going to go lower, forecast currently 60c AUS maybe even 50c. cents to the $US.
Seriously given what's coming down the road in exchange rates & camera development, do you want to spend at least 24K for this camera ( however great it is for Docs/reality ) ? Can you re-coup this amount through the work you do with it ( with a profit margin ) ...... only you can answer that.
Food for thought.
Given the f...ing around with delivery dates I would bail out, as the AUS is only going to go lower, forecast currently 60c AUS maybe even 50c. cents to the $US.
Seriously given what's coming down the road in exchange rates & camera development, do you want to spend at least 24K for this camera ( however great it is for Docs/reality ) ? Can you re-coup this amount through the work you do with it ( with a profit margin ) ...... only you can answer that.
Food for thought.
Cinema5d did measure the 5d iii having better dynamic range than the C300 which was frankly - quite bonkers.
steve phillipps
Veteran
So maybe their methodology is flawed somehow? I haven't looked at it so I don't know.
Steve
indiawilds
Veteran
I have Canon 5D Mark III as well as C300. And their claim of 5D Mark III having more DR than C300 is complete joke. Even they know that and have mentioned the reason why their test gives more DR to 5D III as 5D III has more noise. Noise is counted as usable DR. So any camera with better high ISO ability ie less noise will be penalised by the Cinema5D tests. They know that and are still using it. You draw your conclusions why they are still using that "methodology". They are behaving like a night blind person looking a Miss Universe in the night and commenting that the Miss Universe is not beautiful.
I will believe Geoff Boyle's tests. He has been doing it for years and has the expertise to talk about those cameras.
I found lot of Sony fanboy posts in that blog. Look at this article comparing C300 Mark II with other Sony cameras. http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...examine-ecosystem-impacts-of-changing-climate
Sensational claims often result in more traffic, so with increasing competition between blogs the cinema5d kind of article will continue to get posted.
indiawilds
Veteran
I have Canon 5D Mark III as well as C300. And their claim of 5D Mark III having more DR than C300 is complete joke. Even they know that and have mentioned the reason why their test gives more DR to 5D III as 5D III has more noise. Noise is counted as usable DR. So any camera with better high ISO ability ie less noise will be penalised by the Cinema5D tests. They know that and are still using it. You draw your conclusions why they are still using that "methodology". They are behaving like a night blind person looking a Miss Universe in the night and commenting that the Miss Universe is not beautiful.
I will believe Geoff Boyle's tests. He has been doing it for years and has the expertise to talk about those cameras.
I found lot of Sony fanboy posts in that blog. Look at this article comparing C300 Mark II with other Sony cameras. http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...examine-ecosystem-impacts-of-changing-climate
Sensational claims often result in more traffic, so with increasing competition between blogs the cinema5d kind of article will continue to get posted.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
I don't know why people are so upset with C5D. They pretty much said that the C300II performs similar to the FS7. The specs on paper are similar so that was to be expected its not a shock and people were only fooling themselves to believe there would be a huge different in chart tests. If you like the Canon colour (I'm curious how Clog2 performs), DPAF and like the Canon form factor and its worth an extra $8K to you then get the C300II and you will love it. If these aren't important and it doesn't make business to spend more get an FS7 and you will love it. Learn its quirks and it rewards. (I'm a fan) Invest that extra monty into more important things than gear... or lenses. 
If your in no hurry to purchase and ND isn't important and you want a small body with raw options that can be built up to suite then grab a Red Raven. Or cheaper still an Ursa Mini 4.6K. Both cameras have great colour science.
Grab whatever camera makes the most business sense. Because unless your some trust fund kid (Weapon or nothing) we are all in this to make money and grow our businesses. There are so many fantastic options in every price bracket and with every range of options. Things are good.
If your in no hurry to purchase and ND isn't important and you want a small body with raw options that can be built up to suite then grab a Red Raven. Or cheaper still an Ursa Mini 4.6K. Both cameras have great colour science.
Grab whatever camera makes the most business sense. Because unless your some trust fund kid (Weapon or nothing) we are all in this to make money and grow our businesses. There are so many fantastic options in every price bracket and with every range of options. Things are good.
C300 MKII does have a Dual-Readout, so one should expect a better dynamic range than FS-7.
Hi Eric,
The 5D mark III has a very bad effective resolution while C300 has a 4K sensor. Add to that a codec on the 5D that does to noise what a heavy noise reduction would. This is the reason why ANY (not only our) DR test of the 5D will come out in favour of the camera. The C300 and 5D are really very similar in terms of dynamic range. The heavy lack of detail on the 5D gives it the advantage in a DR test. So yes, while it performs slightly better at dynamic range it is lightyears away from the kind of detail the C300 can resolve.
I think people misjudge their own ability to subjectively evaluate a DR difference between two cameras. I doubt you can see a 1/2 stop difference of DR between two cameras simply because you have worked with both. If your camera can handle the scene also depends on the contrast between highlights and shadows and your eyes will always adjust to this.
ReelWorksMedia
Well-known member
This is just terrible. Terrible.
Real world experience shows the 5D3 and C300 are not close in DR...if your tests tell another story...well...I guess thats not what most experience.
I have Canon 5D Mark III as well as C300. And their claim of 5D Mark III having more DR than C300 is complete joke. Even they know that and have mentioned the reason why their test gives more DR to 5D III as 5D III has more noise. Noise is counted as usable DR. So any camera with better high ISO ability ie less noise will be penalised by the Cinema5D tests. They know that and are still using it. You draw your conclusions why they are still using that "methodology". They are behaving like a night blind person looking a Miss Universe in the night and commenting that the Miss Universe is not beautiful.
I will believe Geoff Boyle's tests. He has been doing it for years and has the expertise to talk about those cameras.
I found lot of Sony fanboy posts in that blog. Look at this article comparing C300 Mark II with other Sony cameras. http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...examine-ecosystem-impacts-of-changing-climate
Sensational claims often result in more traffic, so with increasing competition between blogs the cinema5d kind of article will continue to get posted.
Hi indiawilds,
I explained the reason for the weaker results of the 5D mark III above. Please make a DR test with both cameras, come back here and show me how you pull it off and how you create a standard you can apply to all cameras. There is NO DR test that does not take noise into account. It is the way sensors and processing work. In fact when you go into the true science of it you will find how complex and almost organic the behaviour of a sensor is.
When we started with these tests it was our mistake to compare a C300 to a 5D in terms of dynamic range. We did not even write about this specifically, it was just a number in a chart that came up on a totally different test, but now you judge the credibility of our tests because we published a number you do not understand. We will not attempt to include cameras with such low resolution (as the 5D) in our tests as the the results are often not understood without explanation.
Our tests are not skewed and they are undertaken with a lot of research, time and care in order to give people a perspective with new cameras coming out so quickly and manufacturers juggling with imaginary numbers that mislead the customers and us. We do not take this lightly. There are many aspects to consider when making a unified test and DR is one of the hardest one to make objectively.
Lastly, we are not dependent on the traffic alone, in fact writing negative things about a camera are not good for us either, but we decided to go along with this no matter if the outcome is good, bad or neutral. We are happy when we have something relevant to say and people look on our site, but our business model and values are not based on unfounded sensational articles and claims.
Dino
Veteran
The C5D testing has been questioned for not de-logging the different log curves, causing noise to be more evident in the blacks, where most of the Mark II range has been added. More noise seen in ungraded Log means less DR.
Here is Geoff Boyle's DR test video: https://vimeo.com/137221219
Here is Geoff Boyle's DR test video: https://vimeo.com/137221219
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I understand your methods, I just don't think it is a good method that takes into account practicality. By this method you could probably find some super compressed smart phone camera and say it has better dynamic range than an Arri Alexa because all of the noise is smeared in the compression, and since it's then super soft but not noisy, it would get written off by you as "usable dynamic range." And while that test may be, using your methodology, technically accurate, of what benefit would such a test be to professional camera users? We all know the Alexa has better dynamic range than a smart phone, so the only conclusion to draw would be that your test does not provide very useful information to professionals and favors lower quality (lower resolution with more compression and default in-camera noise reduction) cameras in terms of dynamic range.
It also doesn't take into account that noise reduction can be added in post to make shadows more usable (while still retaining adequate sharpness), as well as that noise reduction can be added in-camera (for example, I always have my C100's in-camera noise reduction set to 3 (default is at 0), thereby, by your methodology, increasing my C100's dynamic range). I gather you tested the C300's dynamic range at default noise reduction (zero) with no noise reduction in post, and concluded that the noisy and sharp shadows didn't count towards the dynamic range, even if those default settings aren't necessarily the best settings for the camera.
But ultimately, as I already suggested, your idea of "usable" is in my opinion way too strict. It sound like all you need to do to improve your methodology is to become less strict on what you subjectively consider to be usable dynamic range in regards to noise. Remember, this was a subjective decision that you came to in the testing process.
I may not be able to notice a half stop difference between two cameras, but the C100 is probably more like 2-3 stops more dynamic range than a 5D, and all one has to do on set to see the difference is point at a window and see on the C100 it still retains detail in both the highlights and shadows while the 5D is completely blown out mess of white in the highlights. I'm sure I've seen many cases like that before while working with both cameras on set.
Last edited:
ReelWorksMedia
Well-known member
Anyone who has ever shot concert lights with a 5D3 and a C300 would think that the notion of a 5D3 having better or equivalent DR is laughable.
No test needed. Its just not accurate. Not trying to be rude. Sorry if it comes across that way. I shoot both all the time. Its just not correct in any real world experience.
No test needed. Its just not accurate. Not trying to be rude. Sorry if it comes across that way. I shoot both all the time. Its just not correct in any real world experience.
Please do show us your real world 5D3 vs. C300 comparison. I don't see many people going around claiming what you're claiming.
Here's the software we're using by the way: http://www.imatest.com
Their algorithm is what judges the S/N in each patch. We rely on its evaluation and I think it's doing a good job as an industry standard tool.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
To bad he didn't have an FS7 to test at the same time to see how the method and results might differ.
I have no doubt that using absolute stops the C300II is a 15 stop camera and FS7 is a 14 Stop Camera. What is usable is up to each person and their workflow. When you get to interpreting usable stops I would expect all cameras to lose a stop or two to noise. Marketers go for the biggest number that is technically correct.