C300: from C300 to C300 Mkii or C500 Mkii

New_Zealand

New_Zealand

Veteran
I have been filming a project that takes place 3000 years in the future and have been shooting on the C300. I have drag it from New Zealand to Arizona, Nevada, California and now heading to either Canada or Oregon next. It has been a great work horse. We are done with the first chapter of the film and are now getting ready to start the next chapter.

I have been trying to decide do I get the C300 mkii due to it 4k res making it a bit nicer for visual effects to be done or should I bite the bullet and jump to the C500 mkii?

So many different reasons to stick with the C300 mkii due to price and already knowing the functions but also the thought of going with the C500 mkii might be good and a camera that I won't have to change out but does one need 6k res?

I'm sure this question gets ask many times as people try to decide what is the best move to make - kind of like playing Chess (maybe).

Any feed backs are good.
 
The C200 should also be considered as I think most people would be deciding between that camera and the C500 Mark II (if choosing Canon).

If a noticeable visual upgrade in resolution is one of the only deciding factors, you may be disappointed with the C300 Mark II vs. what the other two provide.

[There's also the 1DX Mark III coming in a few months.]
 
The C300 MKii is getting a little long in the tooth, coming out in the 4th quarter of 2015. The C200 on the other hand was released 2nd quarter 2017 I believe, so it's newer tech and for narrative the RAW might serve you well...
 
New_Zealand said:
I have been filming a project that takes place 3000 years in the future and have been shooting on the C300. I have drag it from New Zealand to Arizona, Nevada, California and now heading to either Canada or Oregon next. It has been a great work horse. We are done with the first chapter of the film and are now getting ready to start the next chapter.

I have been trying to decide do I get the C300 mkii due to it 4k res making it a bit nicer for visual effects to be done or should I bite the bullet and jump to the C500 mkii?

So many different reasons to stick with the C300 mkii due to price and already knowing the functions but also the thought of going with the C500 mkii might be good and a camera that I won't have to change out but does one need 6k res?

I'm sure this question gets ask many times as people try to decide what is the best move to make - kind of like playing Chess (maybe).

Any feed backs are good.
Click to expand...

If you can, used C300mkii after the C500mkii has made more of a foot into the market. That should drop the prices on a C300mkii 2nd hand. I’d imagine the file sizes, resolution, and dr from the C300mkii to feel really comfy after a C300mk1.

But as other’s mentioned, the C200 has Canon raw. Might be a cheaper and better upgrade path. Might hold percentage of value better too.

C500mkii footage and tests should start hitting the web sooon. And after the initial shipments have gone out, might be easier to get hands on for your own testing. I wouldn’t go for something in that price without getting hands on. Even with getting to test before buying, i get a little post buying remorse. Can’t help it.

Normally, i never tell people to wait, but in this case, WAIT! Only a few weeks away from wider spread C500mkii use and availability.
 
If you don’t need time code and want to work with CRL, then the C200 is a better choice for narrative it also has 60P. I’d you are working in 2K, the C300 mkii has a great 2k recording mode. It also has a 10 bit raw output at can get you very close to the look of CRL. I have the c300 mkii, but I’m upgrading to the C500ii mostly because I want to the 4K 60p
 
Consider:

  • The C300 I has a 4K sensor creating clean 2K
  • The C300 II has a 4K sensor creating (fake) "4K" which aliases badly on fine fabric (had one, sold it)
  • The C500 II has a 5.9K sensor which creates (real) 4K (the Sony FX9 has a 6K sensor making real 4K)

If you need high quality AF, the C500 II and FX9 make sense. Otherwise I'd seriously look at a used Alexa or Amira. Amira 4K (upscaled from 2.8K (3.2K for XT etc.)) or Alexa upscaled to 4K is going to look much better than C300 II "4K". I'd rent/test the C500 II against an Alexa/Amira upscaled to 4K- I wouldn't be surprised if you preferred the upscaled ARRI footage. Skyfall was shot in ARRIRAW 2.8K and upscaled to 4K (before the 3.2K open gate firmware was available). Also compare slomo options/quality. Alexas in good shape are down to $6K now. Alexa Minis are still in high demand and are retaining their value. The Alexa Mini LF is currently the most desired 4K camera on the market (pro level).
 
jcs said:
Amira 4K (upscaled from 2.8K (3.2K for XT etc.)
Click to expand...
Amira 4K is upscaled from 3.2K as far as I'm aware.


I haven't noticed bad aliasing from C300 Mark II footage.

I'd agree that a used Amira would blow any C-series out of the water in terms of a camera for narrative use. After getting accessories and such you're still looking at at least $25k, which is still a bit more money than a packaged out C500 Mark II.

Alexa Classic is the best bang for the buck out there in terms of a top notch image at a low cost. The only downside is if you do freelance client work for clients who know cameras, many don't want old tech so the Classic doesn't rent well. But if it's just your own project(s), then go for it.
 
Used Alexa’s are such an indie filmer dream come true. Crazy value right now, for those that have the extra cash to also get the right support gear for such a heavy power hungry beast.
 
Re: C300 II aliasing- if you never shoot fine suits/clothing you may not notice C300 II aliasing. You can’t get alias-free (true) 4K from a 4K Bayer sensor. That’s why everyone has gone to >= 5.8K for true 4K. I’d expect ARRI to use a strong enough OLPF to prevent aliasing since 2K and ARRIRAW is the best in the market. Thus it might look a bit soft, though I’d expect it to sharpen nicely in post if desired.

Looks like the Amira also got the 3.4 => 3.2 open gate to 3.8K mode too: https://www.productionhub.com/press...how-it-will-get-4k-uhd-from-the-amiras-sensor

How does Amira 4K compare to C300 II in perceived detail?
 
New_Zealand said:
I have been filming a project that takes place 3000 years in the future and have been shooting on the C300. I have drag it from New Zealand to Arizona, Nevada, California and now heading to either Canada or Oregon next. It has been a great work horse. We are done with the first chapter of the film and are now getting ready to start the next chapter.

I have been trying to decide do I get the C300 mkii due to it 4k res making it a bit nicer for visual effects to be done or should I bite the bullet and jump to the C500 mkii?

So many different reasons to stick with the C300 mkii due to price and already knowing the functions but also the thought of going with the C500 mkii might be good and a camera that I won't have to change out but does one need 6k res?

I'm sure this question gets ask many times as people try to decide what is the best move to make - kind of like playing Chess (maybe).

Any feed backs are good.
Click to expand...

Why don’t you keep using the c300? Will your audience find the VFX so problematic that it’s detrimental to the project? I doubt it... Or do you just want even better (potentially valid reason)?
 
rob norton said:
Why don’t you keep using the c300? Will your audience find the VFX so problematic that it’s detrimental to the project? I doubt it... Or do you just want even better (potentially valid reason)?
Click to expand...

This + 1

Stick with what you’ve been shooting on
It’s a friendly travel cam and 2k is great

I just shot a 2k project (on super 16mm film) excellent!
 
For visual effects work some shops like to have the highest resolution possible to work with. So in this case the C500MKII at 5.9K might be a better choice if you want to stay with Canon.
 
I shoot with a C300 MKII at work and the UHD is soft. It drives me crazy. I still use it in 4K since nobody notices it other than me. LOL. The benefit of reframing is important to me so I live with it.

C200 has excellent UHD. I don't see the detail lose as I do with the C300 MKII. If I had the money the C500 MKII would be my choice. If not the C200 would be. Raw light or external recorder is a good option but the internal codec is surprisingly very good.
 
In my mind, I'm pretty positive the C300 Mark II was never supposed to be a 4K system.

But I think Canon had no choice and "firmware'd it" during the final stages of development after seeing 6+ months of figures for the FS7.

Pure hindsight speculation, but would explain so much about the camera including its superior 2K modes and no 4K/60p (too late in the stages for hardware to change, but 4K/24p would have been a simple addition).
 
If you want the extra detail, the raw output on the C300 II gives you that extra resolution of the C200. The detail loss seems to be due to the noise reduction and general softening that Canon has incorporated in to the XF-AVC processing. You also get more aliasing, though. Unlike jcs, I have never seen any aliasing in the C300 MK II footage.
 
C300 II aliasing/moire, start at 2:00:

https://vimeo.com/196783643 (sorry, won't play embedded- play full screen)

Compare to the Amira which is alias/moire free.

I don't have an AI search assistant to dig up footage where I had to apply tracked/masked blurs to deal with annoying fine-fabric aliasing/moire (shot hundreds of projects). From a purely mathematical sampling perspective, a 4K sensor is at the 2x Nyquist limit, it needs to be > 2x, which needs 1.5x more sensels (e.g. 3840*1.5 = 5760), so we know it's going to alias with detail near the sensor resolution limit. The above example isn't that bad- with fine detail (in focus with a sharp lens e.g. 24-70 F2.8 II) it can ruin a shot / take / interview. After owning the aliased 5D II, which was fixed with the 5D III, seeing aliasing with the $16K C300 II was a major disappointment. I didn't do enough homework before buying the camera- my fault. Never again.
 
The Amira isn't showing aliasing in UHD which kind of throws the Nyquist limit theory out. The C300 II shows really bad aliasing in the video when it is compressing the UHD down to the video's 1080p render. The worst footage I noticed was some moire from the Sony cameras at 1080p. Almost every camera has an anti-aliasing filter and some type of image processing that compensates for most issues, unless it is taking the cheap way out like the 5D II. Any camera can show issues under the right circumstances, especially if there is any type of sharpening. I'm not saying that you weren't seeing aliasing, but it isn't a common complaint with the c300 II. I do agree, however, that the C300 II is a much better 2K camera than a 4K camera and I always suggest clients shoot that way rather than wasting hard drive space on the 4K.
 
I discussed the Nyquist sampling resolution directly with ARRI- they are well aware and the ALEV III sensor was designed with this in mind. 2880/1.5 = 1920. Also note most new pro cameras use 1.5 oversampling. The new LF cameras use 4.4K which don’t alias, however the image is softer than 6K => 4K cameras. The Amira example is very soft / low detail.

I viewed on a computer at full rez- all aliasing is from the cameras.

We can’t arbitrarily throw out Nyquist when sampling an image. We prefilter to prevent aliasing. If we don’t start with at least 1.5x oversampling, we can optimize to reduce aliasing giving a soft image, or get a sharper image with aliasing. The C300 II was soft and it aliased on fine fabrics for my use case; if you’ve never seen an entire shirt flicker - you are lucky!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top