Image Quality C70 vs C300 iii (both in Raw)

I

Ilinpelin

Member
Hi,

does anyone have any observations as to how the image quality of those 2 cameras compares to each other? The sensor specs seem identical, yet what about the results? There's some contradictory info out there.

Many thanks for any feedback,
i
 
I have both and did some unscientific tests when the C70 got the RAW update. In a nutshell I found the image quality virtually indistinguishable. The C300mk3 RAW files are less compressed and show ever so slightly fewer artefacts, but I could only see this on an unmoving image at 400%.

Shooting XFAVC there is no difference.

I prefer using the C300mk3 body but end up using the C70 more often simply because I travel by air a lot and it’s so portable.
 
lacuna said:
I have both and did some unscientific tests when the C70 got the RAW update. In a nutshell I found the image quality virtually indistinguishable. The C300mk3 RAW files are less compressed and show ever so slightly fewer artefacts, but I could only see this on an unmoving image at 400%.

Shooting XFAVC there is no difference.

I prefer using the C300mk3 body but end up using the C70 more often simply because I travel by air a lot and it’s so portable.
Click to expand...

lacuna, I rented the C70 to try out the form factor. The image quality and latitude in the digital negative is great, even in XF-AVC.

I did experience some problems with IS on my EF 24-105 and a native Canon EF-RF mount. Unlike when using it on my C200, it seemed like stabilization was off/not working on the C70. Have you seen anything similar? (C70 + EF 24-105 is ideally the ultimate travel package.) I guess Canon wants me to buy RF lenses.
 
Hi Norway,

The 24-105 has been practically married to my C70 since I bought it, usually paired with the .71 adapter. The IS works just fine on mine - perhaps check you have the latest firmware for your C70, the lens and the adapter.

I also use the digital IS quite a bit; if you’re careful with it the results are good.

I’m actually selling the 24-105 at the moment for an RF24-70 as I got a good deal and want the 24-70 for stills, but the 24-105 is a great match for the C70
 
lacuna said:
Hi Norway,

The 24-105 has been practically married to my C70 since I bought it, usually paired with the .71 adapter. The IS works just fine on mine - perhaps check you have the latest firmware for your C70, the lens and the adapter.

I also use the digital IS quite a bit; if you’re careful with it the results are good.

I’m actually selling the 24-105 at the moment for an RF24-70 as I got a good deal and want the 24-70 for stills, but the 24-105 is a great match for the C70
Click to expand...

Hi lacuna, thanks for confirming. I will check the firmware version!
 
lacuna said:
Hi Norway,

The 24-105 has been practically married to my C70 since I bought it, usually paired with the .71 adapter. The IS works just fine on mine - perhaps check you have the latest firmware for your C70, the lens and the adapter.

I also use the digital IS quite a bit; if you’re careful with it the results are good.

I’m actually selling the 24-105 at the moment for an RF24-70 as I got a good deal and want the 24-70 for stills, but the 24-105 is a great match for the C70
Click to expand...

Does the .71 adaptor change the FOV of the 24-105? Does it become the equivalent of something like a 16mm-70mm give or take?
 
Lkorver said:
Does the .71 adaptor change the FOV of the 24-105? Does it become the equivalent of something like a 16mm-70mm give or take?
Click to expand...

The C70 sees it as a 17-75 2.8, which is a very useful range. It even displays it that way on screen (eg, when wide open the display says “17mm, f2.8”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top