First Impression

Well, I'm going to assume the C300 is like the XF300/100 with the amount of control you can set to custom profiles. If so, you can spend years making CP's on this camera as they have so many adjustments you can make.
 
dustylense said:
Well, I'm going to assume the C300 is like the XF300/100 with the amount of control you can set to custom profiles. If so, you can spend years making CP's on this camera as they have so many adjustments you can make.
Click to expand...

It is. In fact, the menu system feels almost identical to the XF305/300 I've used.
 
I had some time late last night and this morning to play around with the C300 (thanks to Texas Media Systems and my friends Chris Curl and Luis Caffesse). Here are my initial impressions…

This camera begs to be handheld. The layout and ergonomics are probably as well thought-out as any camera I've ever used. It feels comfortable in the hand, even with a good-sized 70-200mm lens on it. The only "gripe" would be the fact that it seems like you have to use the Function button to toggle through ISO, WB and Shutter settings. I wish shutter and ISO had their own dials or controls, but this may be programmable in the setup. (Again, we only had the camera for a short time.)

I understand that people have varying deliverables and post budgets, but if (or when) I get a C300, I don't think I'll ever shoot anything but Canon Log. We set up a shot of the downtown Austin skyline, and exposed for it in Canon Log. Then we switched over to EOS Standard, and the zebras were all over the place! Now, when we looked at the two clips quickly on the monitor, the EOS Standard clip certainly looked nice, and if you were in a situation where you had to hand off footage to an editor and you weren't sure color-correction was going to happen, dialing in a look via the Custom Profiles can save a lot of hassle. But Canon Log really impressed me.

We also shot a good bit of night-time exteriors, and while we shot at up to 10,000 ISO, I think I'd shoot for a bit less than that as the upper limit of what I'd be most comfortable with. Still, to even be having the discussion of whether or not 10,000 ISO is usable is hilarious when you consider how much more sensitive cameras are now as opposed to three or five years ago.

As I have more thoughts I'll share them, but I think we all came away very, very impressed with the C300.
 
Oh, and one more thing…

The ability to have the on-camera LCD on, as well as feeding monitors out of the SDI and HDMI ports simultaneously is nothing short of awesome.
 
Last night I saw an independently produced MTF chart with nyquist from the Canon EOS C300 and the Alexa overlapped. Now all that essentially shows is sharpness and aliasing in the form of a chart. Sharpness is not resolution.

Canon C300 with EF L lens. Alex with unknown lens (but I can find out - didnt think to ask). Bottom line is the C300 performed beyond the Alexa on the MTF and on the nyquist - well nyquist showed it beyond measurement meaning almost 0 aliasing. Way above Alexa on the chart.

Be careful however MTS only measures sharpness and as I said not resolution, it also does not measure many other components that make an image a whole. But the results on the MTF and nyquist were simply outstanding.

Also remember I am on no way shape or form an engineer and am simply relaying the information I viewed and the persons explanation of the data. I hate those kind of charts however, if it looks good it looks good (if you are subjectively viewing the image and not letting any form of emotion sway it that is). Remember theres a reason the Alexa is one of the most sort after cameras in the digital cinematography arena.

But, the C300 impresses me.

EDIT TO ADD: Agree with Stephen above - its probably one of the most comfortable units Ive ever picked up for the first time hendheld.

C300NCJE.jpg
 
Glad you guys are seeing the light. I was lucky to get a heads up last Dec on how awesome this beast of a camera was. The person I spoke to was telling me about their Alexa sensor comparison. I can't say who but I can say that they told me the c300 is the tip of the iceberg and this sensor will appear in more canon bodies to follow.
 
Heard the same thing from someone credible--this sensor will likely be in a range of new Canon cameras.

Stephen--did you do any rolling shutter torture tests? I was impressed with the results from a few whip pans and an 85mm. Definitely snappy.

I'd like to see if the XF 50 mbps is actually any better than a Nano at 50 mbps. While the internal codec is decent, I don't think it's bulletproof. I'd still use an outboard recorder for anything motion challenged or super high ISO. Nice thing is Canon Log works in all frame rates and HD outputs.
 
Now if anyone has one or can get one - not that its the be all and end all - but Id like to see that camera shoot a lake where theres enough wind to create lots and lots of surface movement. Thats what Id consider the toughest torture test of the codec.
 
I think the only thing that stresses a camera more than water like that is when they shoot out the confetti at the end of the superbowl. :) I wonder if Canon should have used a slightly more powerful OLPF in the C300? Given how different they are using the sensor than others, it will be really cool to see how this technology expands (and ends up in other cameras).
 
I know its not 4k cmos, its quad hd cmos, so every pixel in the 1080p final is made from 2 green, 1 red, 1 blue
 
You guys getting any requests for rentals immediately in your areas?

I'm wondering how the rental situations' gonna pan out.
 
Rick Burnett said:
I think the only thing that stresses a camera more than water like that is when they shoot out the confetti at the end of the superbowl.
Click to expand...

There's a confetti shower at the end of this C300 video (4:58)
I'm not sure if there is a higher quality version available for download.
 
Postmaster said:
So what´s the point of spending $$ on expensive, supersharp glass, if you have to soften it or get moire?

And even if you can dial it in, that it is a wee bit sharper as cheaper glass, what´s left of that, after an aggressive delivery codec run over it?

Frank
Click to expand...

Well, I think there are often a lot of benefits to sharper, and more importantly, more expensive glass - better contrast, edge to edge performance, and color rendition just to name a few. Typically you'll get better bokeh performance and have fewer aberrations. And more expensive glass usually has better build quality and handling - not to mention wide apertures.
 
cowpunk52 said:
There's a confetti shower at the end of this C300 video (4:58)
I'm not sure if there is a higher quality version available for download.
Click to expand...

Thanks for finding that. Man, the wide shot detail is awesome, that and the rolling shutter performance are just REALLY good. The artifacts in the confetti isn't horrible, I've seen WAY worse. I only notice it around the yellow helmet when playing, but when I pause, you can certainly see it. And before anyone comments, realize that I look at this stuff for rotoscoping purposes, which codec artifacts in motion DO matter. That said, again, the C300 really did a really good job on almost everything.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Thanks for finding that. Man, the wide shot detail is awesome, that and the rolling shutter performance are just REALLY good. The artifacts in the confetti isn't horrible, I've seen WAY worse. I only notice it around the yellow helmet when playing, but when I pause, you can certainly see it. And before anyone comments, realize that I look at this stuff for rotoscoping purposes, which codec artifacts in motion DO matter. That said, again, the C300 really did a really good job on almost everything.
Click to expand...

How can you guys possibly judge the confetti artifacts? Vimeo's h.264 encoding probably makes it look much worse than it really is. I think the only way to get the idea is too look at the camera original.
 
telecam said:
How can you guys possibly judge the confetti artifacts? Vimeo's h.264 encoding probably makes it look much worse than it really is. I think the only way to get the idea is too look at the camera original.
Click to expand...

No doubt there, it's just, right now, that's not an option. I've spent A LOT of time uploading VERY difficult scenes to Vimeo where I break the H.264 quite a bit, so I am very familiar with what to expect. I think the C300 did rather well compared to other situations, and very true, Vimeo could be making it a lot worse. Until these are out in the wild in quantity, we are still going to discuss what little we can see. And, as you point out, illustrates important considerations on not only IQ judgements, but also, that content delivery can be an important factor in final IQ as well.
 
Good to know. On the other hand, I got the camera to record quite a bit of moirée yesterday shooting a fine pattern fabric but once uploaded to Vimeo, gone. I guess Vimeo uploads can also have a soothing effect...
 
telecam said:
Good to know. On the other hand, I got the camera to record quite a bit of moirée yesterday shooting a fine pattern fabric but once uploaded to Vimeo, gone. I guess Vimeo uploads can also have a soothing effect...
Click to expand...

This still really perplexes me. I wonder if the production version will have a stronger OLPF. I'd rather be a little softer and not deal with moire. Was this in 1080p?
 
ARen't these all production versions, though?

I'd like to see a still of the moire/aliasing... that's my biggest concern with this camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top