New_Zealand
Veteran
After wanting one of these cameras since they first were release I'm finally getting one next week. If anyone wants to share their feedback on this camera please do. Any info is very helpful.
C300: Getting the C300 mkI
- Thread starter New_Zealand
- Start date
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I LOVED mine. One of the best cameras I have ever owned. Rugged workhorse with a great picture. The only thing I hated was no 1080 60p and the stupid clamshell monitor setup.
indiawilds
Veteran
I am still using my C300 Mark I to earn money on paid projects. I estimate it will continue to get client demand for the 1080p material for atleast another year and half if not more. It makes no sense for me to sell off the original C300. The more you can stretch your camera, the better returns you get. There are lot of clients who don't care for 4K yet. One client saw the details in the C300 files and said your camera must be 4K. There is a lot of money to be made from the masses who don't understand and take decisions only on the basis of specs.
AndreeOnline
Veteran
Well, half an argument can be made that it actually is. Or at least a proper 1080p camera with its 4k sensor.
I'm sure you've all seen Yedlin's videos about resolution. I think he makes an interesting point, even if there are a few things in the videos that I would have liked him to phrase differently.
But a solid 1080p images goes a really long way—even today with 65" 4k panels in a lot of homes.
Anyone compare the C300 I to the C300 II 1080p? I wouldn’t be surprised if the C300 I resolved more detail, and might even surpass the C300 II 4K downscaled to 1080, perhaps even with less aliasing. The C300 I uses a 4K sensor which averages two greens and takes red and blue as is from the Bayer array- no deBayering, so no Bayer artifacts. Not aware of any whitepapers for the C300 II, so it’s not clear how the C300 II works. All I can say is both the 4K and 1080 are low detail / soft (1080 shouldn’t be soft) and alias more than one would like at that price point. The good news is a future camera can be released with at least a 5.7K sensor with quality downsampling to 4K and 1080. Soft is fine for closeups/people, though it’s better if we can control detail with diffusion filters or post blur.
AndreeOnline
Veteran
NMSK
Active member
Sure the internal 4K could look sharper, but I'm extremely happy with the 1080p on the C300 MkII, I truly love shooting with it. I find it very detailed without looking oversharpened, very flattering on skin also. Teamed with the Mark II's better colour science, I would choose the Mark II over the Mark I any day of the week. Will be interesting to see where Canon go with the Mark III/C400.
Wouldn’t you need to shoot both cameras for the same shot, with the same lens? Others found the C300 II soft compared to the C300 I: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...KII-shooters-what-are-your-sharpness-settings
In order to remove sharpness settings as a factor for actual resolution testing, we’d need to shoot a resolution chart. This would also give us data on aliasing performance.
I use default in-camera sharpness (which is soft), then sharpen in post. What lead me to suspect actual resolution being lower than expected was the presence of aliasing. As I recall the C300 I 1080p test charts were near the theoretical maximum.
http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/02/...ebu-tier-1-standard-for-hd-and-tier-2-for-4k/
C300 II 1080p shown to close to max limit on a chart. Given my real world experience with aliasing in 1080 (and 4K), would be interesting to see both cameras on same chart/conditions.
Last edited:
AndreeOnline
Veteran
Honestly, at this point I don't think so. Been looking at images for so long that either the image stands out as "soft" (for its category) or it won't. It's not relative to another camera.
I would compare it to my mental picture of my own 4k cameras and other footage I've studies over the years such as RED and UMP and similar. I also always shoot with zero sharpening, so that would be my preference.
Footage from C300 mkIIs that has passed through my hard drives has not been soft relative to my expectations.
For the record: by 'soft' I mean footage that never truly resolves pixel level detail. Like if you have a strong aliasing filter. I consider most RED footage soft at 1:1 (I need to check some files from the newest sensors to see how they look). But it has nothing to do with sharpening, as in adding halos to increase edge contrast.
Footage will of course be equally soft with or without sharpening added, it's just that the halos hide it.
PS. And yes: it goes without saying that we're not just measuring a camera's sensor, but rather a lens+sensor combo.
bill totolo
Veteran
i would never classify the C300 MKII as soft, in fact I'm always trying to get it a little softer.
