C300: It's obvious now, I will never understand the Sony crowd.

[AndreeOnline]

A video was posted recently where the Sony FS7 and A7s is compared to a C300. It is a "by Sony users, for Sony users" kind of thing meant to make the Sony cameras come out on top. That's OK.

But even under those circumstances I would wish that the C300 at least be shot competently (in Canon Log), which is wasn't, but at the end of the day it almost doesn't matter.

At 2:32 minutes into the video, you clearly see the differences in color matrix and approach to log encoding.

 

[Liam Hall]

Andree, I'm a long time Canon user. Got shelves full of Canon cameras and lenses in my office. I used the C300 right up until my FS7 was delivered. This is the first Sony camera I've owned in about 15 years - I'm not a fan of Sony by any means. The fact is the FS7 blows the C300 out of the water. There is no comparison. It may be that Canon come back into the game with a C300mkII and if they do I'll probably sell the FS7 and switch back, but until then you've just got to suck it up.

 

[AndreeOnline]

My statements about the Vimeo video aren't so much about the camera. I am positively sure that the FS7 can produce outstanding results. In the right hands, most of the new cameras from Sony, Canon or RED can. Blackmagic… hmmm... to some extent, but they seem to have some real sensor problems. ARRI, obviously.

And then there are the raw specs. FS7 has those down. After all, that is what Sony does: release a couple of cameras a year, each one pushing the spec bar higher. They sell cameras like PC manufacturers sell their hardware: GHz, amount of memory… hard specs. Sony even pre-announces specs. Selling cameras based on features to come.

Specifications are important. You need the right amount of the right ones. Good to have. Some need to have.

Anyway, the headline here was "…Sony crowd" not "…FS7". Because people aren't commenting on the camera's potential, but on the actual footage in the video. Apparently, there are those who like what the Sony cameras produce in that video.

My comment was about my realisation that there are groups of people looking for completely different things from their cameras. And it seems like there will never be a consensus.

And then there is the constantly present overhanging theme that there is some sort of competition going on. These aren't just various tools for various jobs. It's a competition with a winner, and more importantly, a loser.

…but until then you've just got to suck it up.

Is that what this comment is about?

 

[Liam Hall]

I get you Andree.

Half the problem at the moment is the gear is better than a lot of the point and shoot operators that can now afford it. The plethora of bad test films we see daily are testament to that.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I get you Andree.

Half the problem at the moment is the gear is better than a lot of the point and shoot operators that can now afford it. The plethora of bad test films we see daily are testament to that.

Haha… yes… couldn't agree more.

I know you made an informed decision and based on what you wrote before—the camera seems to be a good fit for you! That's the only thing that matters.

Make the camera sing, Liam—happy shooting!

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

This is not a brand specific thing as your title makes it seem its a new camera issue. The same thing happened when C300 was released and the 1DC or any Red etc. When those cameras are released the user group makes a huge buzz about how much better or what their camera offers that the pre-existing doesn't. The moment that cameras specs are old news that same group becomes defensive about tech not mattering and that the camera isn't important etc.

Its a vicious cycle but it has nothing to do with a brand specifics or people who use their products.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Specs mean nothing.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

Specs mean nothing.

They do if a spec is needed and a camera doesn't have it but if the camera makes nice images and meets your clients needs then the rest shouldn't matter.

As I said above its the same cycle. The crowd who touts the specs of their camera when its released tend to be the same people suggesting specs don't matter when their current camera is nearing its life cycle. I'm not saying you I'm saying in general that seems to be the trend. It has nothing to do with brand identity like the thread title is suggesting. Every user group is guilty of this cycle.

 

[Liam Hall]

Specs mean nothing.

They do and they don't.

I liked the specs of the RED One. I bought a C300 because I liked the picture. I bought the FS7 because I liked the specs. Luckily I like the pictures too.

 

[Michael Thames]

They do if a spec is needed and a camera doesn't have it but if the camera makes nice images and meets your clients needs then the rest shouldn't matter.

As I said above its the same cycle. The crowd who touts the specs of their camera when its released tend to be the same people suggesting specs don't matter when their current camera is nearing its life cycle. I'm not saying you I'm saying in general that seems to be the trend. It has nothing to do with brand identity like the thread title is suggesting. Every user group is guilty of this cycle.

This is somewhat true, but, Canon has been at the top of the game for a number of years now, and it's a game of "King of the Hill". Every comparison video that has come out since the GH4 and A7s has only one objective..... to de-throne the 5D3. I've seen a number of comparison videos with the 5D3 where people have some serious deep seated psychological issues with Canon they need to work out on YouTube...... somehow this gives them a feeling of power, the personal power they believe Canon robbed them of. These comparisons videos are rarely done without some bias one way or the other..... but I do see an abnormal amount directed at Canon...... it's everyone against Canon, but Canon is really the "Apple" of cameras it's just cool to have have one. The FS7 will disappear in a year or so, when everyone will still be using their C-series Canon cameras. Look at how quickly the Sony FS-100 headed down in price, and that was really the C-100's only competition.

BTW, that video sucked! The girl wrote down something on a piece of paper and she held it up and down faster than my brain could take in the info. very badly done.... I guess I could have put it on pause but I didn't want to.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

When I say specs mean nothing I don't mean it litterally, of course specs do mean some.

But the point is, that specs don't reveal the whole picture therefore mean nothing in comparing or choosing a camera.

For example a T2i has a 1080p 4:2:0 8bit h.264 APS-C image, identical specs to the C100, but we all know how they conpare in actual real life.

A GH4 with an Atomos is a 4K 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes camera, does that mean it's better than say a Sony F35 which is only 1080p 10bit ProRes? Or better than a C300 which is only 8bit 1080p MPEG? Is the Galaxy Note 4K better than a C300 because it's 4K?

I wish spec lists contained every actual parameter that affected image quality, not just resolution, and even that one is presented is a misleading manner and not actual effective resolution.

What makes high image quality is:

-Resolution (in the final image not the amount of pixels on the sensor)
-Sensor size/format
-Colour depth, fidelity and colour science
-Noise amount
-Noise pattern and structure/motion
-Dynamic range amount
-How the highlights transition from mids to clipping, and same with shadows.
-Compression quality
-Lack of all image artefacts like (Aliasing, moire, rolling shutter, macroblocking, CCD streaks, sun spots, etc)

these are the technical specs that determine image quality and I really wish they'd be clear on spec sheets. Sadly most of these key factors are not mentioned and are not discussed clearly. Other factors that don't show up on spec sheets are the cameras' ergonomics, how it feels in the hand, how the button layout works with you mind, how easy it is to set exposure/focus/WB, how the LCD looks in daylight, how cheap/accessible the media is, how effecient is the battery, what does audio quality sound like, how do the features work? Any bugs? How does the camera deal with lenses, how much will you be able to re-sell it for, and many other factors including how the camera is percieved by clients and how much work you're going to get because of its reputation! These are never mentioned in a spec sheet.

You need to try a camera to give any kind of opinion on which one is better. Even if you see a 720p 8bit 4:2:0 camera vs a 6K 12bit raw one don't assume any one is better until you actually try them.

Sorry for the long rant.

(this is not about these specific camera I actually love the FS7 and think it's going to be the most successful camera is Sony's history, especially when they sort out all the glitches.)

 

[Jim Martin]

Andree...as usual, well said and well put on everything you laid out.....I see that the snow is trying to fly over there!...I'm looking forward to being there Jan. 29th, coming in on LX41!

Jim Martin

 

[niki]

for me...once the production company hires the director ...he calls the shots on which camera..it could be a arri lt arri 416 alexa..or a t2i....so specs really don't matter...the ad agency or production company have never imposed a camera...

 

[aalleexx]

Personally specs don't do much for me, I love the way the canon renders colors(as good or bad as it may be)
I gave sony a try once, but I could not escape the "sony look" it's probably me the problem
when I saw the footage from the c cams from canon I just knew that is what I wanted and have been shooting ever since.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I'm glad this thread hasn't derailed anymore than it has during the course of the day. I don't want to start a pissing contest between Sony and Canon. Hopefully, users in both camps makes informed decisions and enjoy their cameras.

I was a wee bit frustrated when I wrote the original post and I did edit some of the wording at the end (a few minutes after posting it), to make sure it wasn't inflammatory. I wouldn't want that. I wanted to change the headline too, but I don't think this forum software allows for that on a user level?

The moment that cameras specs are old news that same group becomes defensive about tech not mattering and that the camera isn't important etc.

It sounds like you have made this observation and it probably has some truth to it. But I can honestly say that this isn't what this thread was about.

I don't feel defensive at all about my camera, but I might feel that Canon is a bit misunderstood. I am a realist when it comes to specs and if anything we should embrace and be happy about new powerful tech creeping down in price, becoming reachable. If nothing else, I really hope the FS7 contributes to that.

Anyway: have you ever had the feeling when watching news on the TV, or reading a newspaper that they are reporting the wrong stuff? Death. Misery. Crime. Sneaky politics. Accidents…

An unimaginable amount of events takes place on any given day on this planet. Good and bad. Waaaay too much reporting is about the bad stuff. We get stuffed with it.

Stretching that concept a bit: following camera tech on Twitter and forums I get this creeping feeling that the wrong things are being discussed. People take the easy way out: hard facts like specs get the buzz. There's always something new around the corner.

I get the fascination with tech. It's very tangible and new products can be impressive. But I guess they're just a means to an end. I wish more of the discussion was about the image.

 

[indiawilds]

People love the colours straight out of the Canon cinema series and the C300 has been the defacto camera for broadcasts. The C100 became extremely popular. As a competitor Sony has to do something else. It wants to grab limelight by steering discussion on camera specs. So it announces cameras with features, even though some of them only start working after several months. It is following a kind of short gun strategy of announcing several cameras, each cannibalising the other, hoping that atleast one of those becomes a winner.

I am sure people who own Sony cameras have their own reasons to buy, however, I can't be happy if my camera were to be superseeded by another one from the same company after a year. The camera will not stop working, however, since I earn my living from this, it becomes difficult when a client asks for a latest camera and I don't have that. On the other hand Canon supports its cinema series cameras so that there is ample opportunity for folks to recover their investments. Remember a lot of us need to feed our family apart from buying equipment all the time.

It is important to do a analysis before jumping into buying a piece of equipment. Will a new camera get me new jobs? Will it increase my rates? How long will it take me to recover my new investment? After recovering my investment how long will it last as the "camera in demand" so that I can make money? If there is some X factor in a new camera and that X factor is only going to be fully functional after a few months, then do I immediately spend money in buying that camera or wait till it is functional?

As far as I am concerned, I shoot with a C300 and will continue to do so till there is demand from broadcasters for a C300.

 

[Miklos Nemeth]

4K vs HD in 2015: newcomers are seeking 4K capable/ready solutions for safe

4K vs HD in 2015: newcomers are seeking 4K capable/ready solutions for safe

People love the colours straight out of the Canon cinema series and the C300 has been the defacto camera for broadcasts. The C100 became extremely popular.

Hi Sabyasachi, this is a great bunch of excellent comments and ideas, from an experienced and talented filmmaker. My daughter is on her way to establish her professional photography/videography business mostly concert, music and events. She asked me to help to pick tools (cameras, computers, software, technical training) and give her help.
She is using a Sony A7 for photography, but she uses exclusively MF with high quality legacy fully mechanical lenses (FD80-200f4L, OM55f1.2, FD85f1.2L, MD16f2.8) for her photography. She does not use Sony E-mount lenses at all.
Unfortunately, she wouldn't be able to use these lenses on Canon cameras. Fortunately, for video assignments Sony is a "good/respected/accepted name" in my area.

As a competitor Sony has to do something else. It wants to grab limelight by steering discussion on camera specs. So it announces cameras with features, even though some of them only start working after several months. It is following a kind of short gun strategy of announcing several cameras, each cannibalising the other, hoping that a tleast one of those becomes a winner.

Perfect description of Sony's strategy. This is the only thing Sony can do to be able to bite out a significant portion from the established Canon-dominated market.

I am sure people who own Sony cameras have their own reasons to buy, however, I can't be happy if my camera were to be superseeded by another one from the same company after a year.

This is a tough decision from every maker. If they don't implement nifty features in lower models, the competition (Panasonic GH4 4K, Samsung NX1 4K cameras, for example) will do and eventually they loose customers.
Canon is seriously risking his dominance with this hold-back-feature policy. In our situation, for example, today in 2015 I'd buy a camera with 4K with affordable price. Sony A7S seems to be a terribly reasonable option, for example. The cheapest 4K camera Canon offers costs $10000, definitely a no-way for us startup videographers.

The camera will not stop working, however, since I earn my living from this, it becomes difficult when a client asks for a latest camera and I don't have that. On the other hand Canon supports its cinema series cameras so that there is ample opportunity for folks to recover their investments. Remember a lot of us need to feed our family apart from buying equipment all the time.

Normally you are right, but today (2014-2015) we are in a situation where a big change is under way: migrating from HD to 4K. A friend explained that customers start requesting 4K videos of their weddings, events, whatever. Even the brilliant FS100, C100, C300 (at least today) are disqualified for these projects/assignments.

It is important to do a analysis before jumping into buying a piece of equipment. Will a new camera get me new jobs? Will it increase my rates? How long will it take me to recover my new investment? After recovering my investment how long will it last as the "camera in demand" so that I can make money? If there is some X factor in a new camera and that X factor is only going to be fully functional after a few months, then do I immediately spend money in buying that camera or wait till it is functional?

Exactly this analysis lead me to the conclusion, however I hate 4K, today as a newcomer into this business, it's safer for us to buy 4K capable tools.

As far as I am concerned, I shoot with a C300 and will continue to do so till there is demand from broadcasters for a C300.

I think for you there is a huge advantage that Sony and Panasonic pushes technology into lower priced products: I guess Canon will announce an upgrade (hardware + firmware) for C300 owners for about $1000 - $2000. This is what would make Canon users so loyal. Of course, when Canon does this Sony will drop the price of the FS7 by $1000, immediately.
Again it was a pleasure to read your comments and thoughts.
Take care, Miki

 

[Grug]

I'm not sure I see the issue with the video - it seems a controlled and accurate test that shows exactly what you'd expect to see:

- The dynamic range on the Sony wipes the floor with the Canon (that's nothing new)
- The out-the-box colours of the Canon wipes the floor with the Sonys (that's nothing new)
- Sony's built-in picture profiles are godawful

The FS7 offers significantly better image quality over the C300. The images are 10-bit, dynamic range is four times bigger (2 stops), and with the appropriate colour-transform in post it can produce very nice colours.

The C300 offers the same great image it always has, so I wouldn't stress.

 

[wgtwo]

One thing to consider is that you can make great images with just about any camera - a good shot is a good shot regardless of whether it was captured by an FS7 or C300 - but specs allow new and interesting possibilities, much like ergonomics can. Slow motion, the A7s' low light ability. What I find exciting is that Sony is pushing the envelope in this regard; rather than a camera that's all about LOOKING PRETTY, they are geared more towards giving us camera people more options in what can be achieved.

 

[hscully]

I'm not sure I see the issue with the video - it seems a controlled and accurate test that shows exactly what you'd expect to see:

I think the OPs main objection is that they didn't show Canon CLog in the test, showing an obvious bias