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

I read and respect Cinema5d, but I have to ask the question why do your tests garner different results than others. For example another very trusted source rates the camera as 15 stops along with picture evidence to support the claim.

http://www.cinematography.net/C300-2 first look.html

And the assertion the the 5d actually has more latitude than the C series seems obviously incorrect to anyone who has worked with footage from both.

Im just asking, in a non-accusatory way, how you account for that...
 
I just wish Cinema 5D would put their chart of the C300 up against the C300 II so that we could see a comparison using their methodology. The Radiant Image test with the C300 II back to back with the C500 was probably useful, but they didn't post what profiles or color correction they used, and they obviously did not have the Sony cameras set up correctly for that type of test.
 
Last edited:
Do a comparison C300 VS C300 mk2.. then we will see the difference, otherwise I cant take for granted your test is correct, either that or its a bad production model.
 
The C300 Mark II could have just 10 stops of dynamic range or could have 17 stops, but no matter what it truly is it wouldn't change that Cinem5D's testing methods are flawed and of little use to professionals. As mentioned, you're excessively disregarding minor shadow noise as unusable dynamic range (along with not taking into account in-camera noise reduction and post noise reduction possibilities) which no one else seems to be doing in their dynamic range tests. This results in various cameras you test getting lower dynamic range numbers than what they truly have, and favoring lower quality cameras which have higher noise reduction and image smearing built-in as default.

Worst is, with people repeatedly mentioning this particular issue, whenever you respond, you ignore that criticism. If you wanted your tests to be taken with more legitimacy then you'd address the why and how you "decided on a [noise] quality factor [you] found acceptable and applied it to all cameras." You never replied to that person's comment on your website where they said, "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," nor did you respond to mine. Rather, with each response instead of addressing this issue you just say things like, "you can see with your own eyes," which we do, and which is why we conclude your tests are flawed.
 
The Canon apologists are a ferocious bunch... Just wait and see, the camera will be shipping soon.

Dynamic range is not something that can be perfectly measured as noise falloff is subject to taste. Suggesting that DR you could recover in post should be counted natively for the camera is silly though, to me. The noise smearing in high contrast has happened to me on the mki and I learned to live with it, but it's for sure real.

Cinema5d may be click baiting with their article but you are just feeding into it by getting so indignant about a camera you've never even used. I highly doubt they're out to sabotage you, and they were extremely positive about the mki even though it was unpopular when announced. They don't have an incentive to slam some product for no reason.

MOST importantly, who cares? Go shoot something and give it a rest. The outrage on camera forums is so so tiresome.
 
Last edited:
cinema5D said:
I find it remarkable how our test results get washed out in some of the comments here, so much I feel it’s pointless to respond. It seems many people simply “want” the C300 mark II to be awesome and thus resort to accusing us of conducting our tests wrongly, calling it “claims” or criticizing single irrelevant points in this or past articles.
Click to expand...

I'm more in the camp that if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. However, as soon as you apply subjective criteria in your analysis you are establishing a claim rather than a measurable and repeatable result. Any other tester should be able to apply your methodology and derive the same results within a reasonable margin of error. Also, you aren't doing yourself any favors making contentious remarks regarding those questioning your methodology. It may be that your selected methodology may be deficient in the analysis of dark, high noise images.
 
J Michael said:
I'm more in the camp that if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. However, as soon as you apply subjective criteria in your analysis you are establishing a claim rather than a measurable and repeatable result.
Click to expand...

The C5D method is repeatable and measurable. They just have a stricter method on 'what is usable noise' which is fine as long as the same standard for all the cameras they test it will give you an idea of where it stands. DR is such a subjective measurment as everyone has different ways of measuring but as long as the same criteria is applied to the same cameras the results can be compared but can't be compared to other tests and other testing methods.

For example Red Dragons claim of 16.5 stops with their own testing method. Most tests I have seen fall short of that number so the C300II or FS7 falling short of the 15/14 stop range isn't surprising.
 
remsyatassi said:
The Canon apologists are a ferocious bunch... Just wait and see, the camera will be shipping soon.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of Canon apologists just want to see a decent comparison the dynamic range difference between the C300 and the C300 mkii. We all know what the C300 has to offer, so we would like to see if the improvement on the c300 mkii is worth the extra rental or purchase cost. Cinema 5D based their test on this idea of a competition the FS7 and the C300 ii and that isn't really a very useful frame of reference for the people that have an interest in learning more about the camera and have a problem with the test.

Of course, if their testing methodology led them to the conclusion that the 5D has a higher DR than the C300, I'm not really sure what the usefulness of their test results might be.
 
cpreston said:
The vast majority of Canon apologists just want to see a decent comparison the dynamic range difference between the C300 and the C300 mkii. We all know what the C300 has to offer, so we would like to see if the improvement on the c300 mkii is worth the extra rental or purchase cost. Cinema 5D based their test on this idea of a competition the FS7 and the C300 ii and that isn't really a very useful frame of reference for the people that have an interest in learning more about the camera and have a problem with the test.

Of course, if their testing methodology led them to the conclusion that the 5D has a higher DR than the C300, I'm not really sure what the usefulness of their test results might be.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong... I have a C100 and use the C300 all the time, I like Canon. I bet the IQ is gonna be really great on the mkii either way. At the same time I would not be surprised if the DR is overstated because every camera manufacturer does the same thing.

Whether it is worth the difference in cost from other brands is ultimately up to the person buying the camera. I'm still not sure which camp I am in on that.
 
remsyatassi said:
Whether it is worth the difference in cost from other brands is ultimately up to the person buying the camera. I'm still not sure which camp I am in on that.
Click to expand...
Well. how could you be sure? We still don't have a decent comparison with either the original C300 or other cameras. The Radiant Images test is interesting, but they seemed to have screwed up the Sony cameras.
 
I think the Radiant tests were good. Well thought out. I'd agree the FS7 should have faired better - does anyone have hard facts on how they shot with it? I'd be interested to know. The C300MKII held up strongly to much higher priced competitors as well (this is the EOS forum, so that's what we're concerned with here).

Its not today, nor tomorrow, but after 7 October, I will be able to do some side by side with C300 and C300 MKII if anyone's interested - if its not already done by then as well.

A couple of other notes. Please note this is in the Canon Cinema EOS part of the forum - we don't need people who aren't even interested in the camera to be postulating here.

cinema5d - you guys do a great job, no need to defend your tests here. They are what they are and as usual people will debate any camera test, that's par for the course. We are seeing some varied results from the MKII at the moment and thus this is causing some angst and confusion for forum members interested in this camera and I can understand why.

Lastly to all, please stop with inflammatory remarks towards users f particular cameras, testers etc. Play nice - discuss the C300MKII.
 
Noel Evans said:
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



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



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.



Where from? You're paying too much.
Click to expand...


Interested in why you say I am paying too much! Unable to find anywhere in Australia that the C300MKII is less than what I am paying. If you could kindly direct me to where it is that you know I will get a better deal it would be greatly appreciated..
 
Found this, while it doesn't help with the thread topic, it might give some extra insight:


Description: "A very quick edit of a simple 4K camera test of the new Canon C300 Mark II.Download the "original" for the best quality version in the Download link below.
Filmed with out-of-the box settings and no post grading
using Tokina 11-16 and Canon 24-70 lenses."
 
Plexi Head said:
Interested in why you say I am paying too much! Unable to find anywhere in Australia that the C300MKII is less than what I am paying. If you could kindly direct me to where it is that you know I will get a better deal it would be greatly appreciated..
Click to expand...

I've done some checking as well - was away in Japan prior to that posting and have been busy last few months. Seems that price is pretty par for the course.

The upside to Lemac, is the excellent follow on service.
 
Noel Evans said:
I've done some checking as well - was away in Japan prior to that posting and have been busy last few months. Seems that price is pretty par for the course.

The upside to Lemac, is the excellent follow on service.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response Noel. Agreed, Lemac are and have been nothing short of sensational for my company so far as advice and customer service.
 
Cinema5D finds the H.264 5D image to have more dynamic range than the C300, that being 100% incorrect, simply invalidates any DR test they perform using the same incorrect methodology in the future. Just discard.

Most C300II testers so far see it has 15 stops of DR.

Cinema5D is a great source to read, just ignore their DR testing tool. They have many good reviews and accurate tests on other parameters, just not DR.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
Most C300II testers so far see it has 15 stops of DR.
Click to expand...

I hadn't seen any DR tests posted from other sources yet which is why I assumed this one caused such a stir. Can you post links to some of the other tests?

I'm actually surprised there hasn't been floods of footage out there since the camera is out and about in users hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top