New Camera Choice Quandary

[Run&Gun]

I hate to resurrect a thread that has been "sleeping" for a few weeks and a specific reply that is even older than that, but as a C300 owner, I felt some of the mis-information that was posted needs to be cleared up.

When we use cameras we all have our own list of 'givens' .. things that we think are critical to our shoot process.

The OP must work out her 'givens' and that will lead to the correct choice.

----

As for Canon being a mess - well to me a 'given' is the ability to have fine control of focus - that excludes IMO 90% of AF lenses.

At C300 money I would hope to rent proper cine glass for higher end jobs - not possible with the EF mount.

Another 'given' is when doing fast work is to have a zoom that can do a wide, a tight and a CU, 18-35-80

That option is only available in top end PL, or with a speed-booster and a 24-105 - EF mount allows neither. (or a 2/3 ENG lens and adapter - also not possible on EF)

The EF mount is designed to clear a mirror in a full frame stills camera, and fundamentally has the wrong geometry for motion imaging.

I have other 'givens' the ability to focus - this requires at least 720 monitoring - as the onboard canon evfs aren not 720 you must add another monitor or EVF - but you cannot take the Canon one off (because you lose another 'given' being XLR)

So you end up with a rig like a christmas tree.

Higher up the price scale one is looking for a thicker 10bit or raw file, lacking from the Canon options (excluding the excellent C500).

At least that is coming the way of the FS700

As for the F5 looking bad - well - the bust PL is unacceptable - and the image - to me it seems awesome in raw, sweet in SR, and somewhat challenging in Xavchd and Slog2

at least you can get awesome for those special jobs.

S

1.) At C300 money I would hope to rent proper cine glass for higher end jobs - not possible with the EF mount.

I guess "proper cine glass" is debatable, but Canon makes their own cine primes(and zooms). Great construction, manual iris and 300 degree focus barrel rotation with enough witness marks to keep any AC happy. Also, Zeiss cp.2's with swappable mounts for PL, EF and Nikon. And Schneider Cine-Xenar's are available in PL and EF. By all accounts the gen 3's are absolutely beautiful. I believe the Cine-Xenon's will be available with multiple mounts, too.

2.) Another 'given' is when doing fast work is to have a zoom that can do a wide, a tight and a CU, 18-35-80

That option is only available in top end PL, or with a speed-booster and a 24-105 - EF mount allows neither.

Again, Canon makes cine zooms in EF and PL. 15.5-47 T2.8 & 30-105 T2.8 in compact zooms and 14.5-60 T2.6 & 30-300 T2.95-T3.7 in larger cine zooms.

3.) (or a 2/3 ENG lens and adapter - also not possible on EF)

Incorrect. The IBE HDx35 mkII adapter sold by Abel CIne allows you to use a 2/3" B4 mount lens on an EF, PL or Nikon camera. It has user swappable camera side mounts. I demoed this back in late summer/early fall '13. I believe it's been out for about a year, now.

And although I haven't used one or talked to anyone that has, Fotodiox makes a PL lens to EF mount adapter and they say they guarantee infinite focus. If it really works as they say, then that opens up a LOT of options for people.

Now, do I think the C300 is perfect? God no. I have a laundry list of things that I think Canon totally dropped the ball on and should be called out on at every opportunity: No locking external power connector, only ONE HDSDI out(HDMI doesn't count, it's not professional or dependable), TC IN or OUT, not both at the same time(I guess they never thought that more than two would be used together at the same time), crappy built-in VF, severe audio issue with wireless receivers when cam and Rx are powered from the same power source and the most egregious of them all, that stupid, stupid, stupid "pod" that you have to use to get audio into the camera.

Now even with those shortcomings, I still think the C300 is a good camera. It makes a great picture and has a LOT of nice glass available for it(still and cine). I can just imagine what we would have done back in the "Sports Century" days if we had had these types of cameras available... I would have really liked to have gone with the F/55, but in my world, the C300 is THE S35 sensor camera of choice. There's an Alexa or two in town, but I can't really think of an A-list owner/operator that doesn't own at least one C300.

 

[morgan_moore]

1) You are technically correct of course. I meant 90% of glass that is sitting on the shelves of many local rental houses won't fit because it is PL not EF.

2) None of the canon zooms cover what I would call the 'critical range' of daily lengths 18-80 in one lens. To me I only want to be involved in zooms if they radically cut down lens changes per sequence. I find canons design choices odd in their zooms although I can see they have value on multi-cam shoots.

Fundentally ef is a physically weak mount that is not really strong enough to handle the rigours of film making where rotational torque is applied to the lens and lenses may be heavy. One of the first elements in successful film making is securing the relationship between glass and image sensor. The FFD of the EF mount has to impact negatively on the size/cost/performance of future lenses it is simple physics. Red Sony and Arri mounts are in a different class.

3) I stand corrected. Interesting.

An F5 owner can own stills glass and rent PL and a raw recorder for serious projects.
A red owner is in the same boat for glass but is of course shooting a serious codec by default.
The C300 owner seems to be in a much less flexible position for both codec and glass at a similar price point.
Your A list ops may own C300s but I guess they bought them before the F5.

 

[Run&Gun]

1) You are technically correct of course. I meant 90% of glass that is sitting on the shelves of many local rental houses won't fit because it is PL not EF.

2) None of the canon zooms cover what I would call the 'critical range' of daily lengths 18-80 in one lens. To me I only want to be involved in zooms if they radically cut down lens changes per sequence. I find canons design choices odd in their zooms although I can see they have value on multi-cam shoots.

Fundentally ef is a physically weak mount that is not really strong enough to handle the rigours of film making where rotational torque is applied to the lens and lenses may be heavy. One of the first elements in successful film making is securing the relationship between glass and image sensor. The FFD of the EF mount has to impact negatively on the size/cost/performance of future lenses it is simple physics. Red Sony and Arri mounts are in a different class.

3) I stand corrected. Interesting.

An F5 owner can own stills glass and rent PL and a raw recorder for serious projects.
A red owner is in the same boat for glass but is of course shooting a serious codec by default.
The C300 owner seems to be in a much less flexible position for both codec and glass at a similar price point.
Your A list ops may own C300s but I guess they bought them before the F5.

1 & 2: Fair enough and very valid.

I wish there was a cine equivalent of my 'bread & butter' ENG lens, my Fuji 13x4.5. That'd work out to about 11.7-153. You'd almost never have to take it off unless you needed the absolute speed of a fast prime or a long tele. Hell, I'd "settle" for a good 10-1 in the 12-120 neighborhood that was at least a T2.8.

I've heard the argument about the EF mount many times. It was never designed or intended for cine style use with HEAVY lenses. When you're shooting stills with a BIG lens, the lens essentially has the camera mounted to it, not the other way around. I think this is more of a problem in a rental/production environments than with an owner/operator who will be more gentle on the gear because it's theirs. But you will not get an argument from me saying that Canon shouldn't have a swappable mount system like Sony. I wish it did.

The IBE adapter is a nice tool to have, if you need it. It will cost you about 2 1/2 stops, but if you're outside during the day, it doesn't matter too much. I posted about it in the Canon Cine Forum.
C-Series with B4 Adapters & Broadcast Zooms?

I've said many times that the Sony 5/55 is a much more versatile camera and I would have preferred to go that route, but the C300 is the current favorite where I am and with my clients. I've had zero calls for the 5/55, but the C300 gets SPECIFIC calls for shoots and rentals all of the time. I JUST dropped it off with another shooter who needed a second for a two cam shoot in the morning. I also had a call for a rental next week, but I'm shooting with it for four days with three other C300's on multi-cam feature interviews. And I can think of at least three others in-town town that have their's booked most of the week, too. It all depends on WHERE you are and your client base. You have to buy what will make you money (i.e. what your clients WANT). I live on the east coast and more specifically the southeast and it's Panny and Canon, predominately. I even have a friend in Chicago who bought a C300 because he was LOSING work with his Sony. Clients would call, he'd offer it and they would turn it down because they wanted the Canon. I haven't bought a Sony camera since 2003. I have nothing against Sony, per se(Hell, I've given them my fair share of $$$ over the years) and I am NOT saying Sony isn't good and Canon and Panny are better(see above), but in the world I live in(network TV, not 'cine') and the networks I shoot for, that's what gets the calls, so that's what I bought. If it was 100% my decision and I could use any camera I wanted and still service my clients exactly the same, it would probably be a different story. Heck, I even know a few guys that have both.

I think we may have taken this down an unintended side road… Sorry.

To sum up: C300 and 5/55 are all good cameras capable of producing great images and you should buy what will work best for you in your given situation.

 

[IronFilm]

I'd repeat again what has been said about getting a Panasonic G6, is a fantastic little camera that can now be got very cheaply.Then keep all your spare cash aside for when the rumoured Panasonic AF-GH4K comes along, which is going to be a kinda GH3/AF100 succesor, and a competitor to the Canon EOS Cinema range. Is meant to be announced as soon as maybe even just next month. This way you'll be able to keep using all your great m4/3 glass that you already have

 

[morgan_moore]

I wish there was a cine equivalent of my 'bread & butter' ENG lens, my Fuji 13x4.5. That'd work out to about 11.7-153. You'd almost never have to take it off unless you needed the absolute speed of a fast prime or a long tele. Hell, I'd "settle" for a good 10-1 in the 12-120 neighborhood that was at least a T2.8.

In terms of an affordable rng lens the best that will probably come along is an 18-80/f4 or suchlike - a 2.8 zoom that covers S35 is way too big for RnG 27lbs.. http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_gb/cine_lenses/master_lenses/master_zoom.html

Sony had a crap go at an 18-80 for $500 It shows it is possible for $2k to make a nicer one.

That 18-80F4 is unlikely ever to be available in EF mount as the flange focal distance is so long that the design becomes far more complex.

Rember F4 on S35 lets in the same light/needs the same front element diameter, and has the same DOF as 2.0 on a 2/3 sensor (ish). F4 on S35 is fine and practical.

the C300 is the current favorite where I am and with my clients. I've had zero calls for the 5/55, but the C300 gets SPECIFIC calls for shoots

This is a very interesting point - I believe you - Sony could not market 'free gold' - their cameras are not cool, VLF/Bloom/Halibut do not use them - I was shooting on my 5d2 a load of jobs after I got my FS100 (which is way better especially for sound!!)- producers seem about 2 years behind the curve on camera choice. Canon is the producers baby.

I think it is important to talk to clients, maybe. When I was evaluating the F5/55 combo (I went used F3) it was fast becoming apparent that the 55 was 'cheaper' than the 5 .. ie it would rent more over a three year period and probably depreciate less.

 

[Run&Gun]

Sam, it's funny you mention F4 on S35 sensors. I just spent the first few days of this week shooting sit-down interviews for features with my C300. For years, we've been shooting at long(er) focal lengths and wide open(F/1.8 or close to it) on 2/3" cameras to get shallow DOF for the background. But with the 300's, we were stopping down to T4 to T5+ so that we could get the background to NOT be completely gone. I still wanted there to be some semblance of what was there. Super shallow DOF is over used, especially on the "video" side. There are those out there that say "there are no rules". Yes, there are. My biggest one: it still has to look good/look & feel "right".

 

[Zephyrnoid]

Keeping in mind the OP's distribution is "Web and some presentation"...
I feel sorry for the OP. She fits the very user demographic ( albeit, less the 'stills' hybridization ) that I've been lobbying for for three years.
As some of you know. I've been strumming my nose at DSLR's and the pricier mid-range 'video' cams for a while and with good reason. There's a GAP that needs to be filled and only through protest and ruthless trashing of the 'beta' offerings will the manufacturers fill it. I'm looking at you Panasonic, Canon, JVC etc.
Blackmagic and Digital Bolex are experiments in a rather old industry. I wish them and their early adopters luck

So I flaunt my ability to squeeze blood out of a stone as I openly trash Panasonic, Canon etc.
Use a full HD TAPE based camera and remove pulldown and then forget about dropped frames and all the other issues.
I have not found a single solid state camera in the $2K-$6K range that will not be dust in the next iteration.

 

[mcbob]

Keeping in mind the OP's distribution is "Web and some presentation"...
...
Use a full HD TAPE based camera and remove pulldown and then forget about dropped frames and all the other issues.

um... What?

Ditching HDV tape was one of the happiest events of my professional life. Tape was always far more fragile and prone to shriek-inducing technical faults than any solid-state media I've used (SD, CF, P2, SxS, SSD). I have no clue why you'd recommend this.

 

[Darren Levine]

i'd have to second that... what WHAT?

you'd rather go back to a system which has small, fragile, moving parts?

Tape is on the downturn because it has far more issues than solid state, it's only big plus is archive-ability.

 

[Run&Gun]

Tape? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy… Surely he's just joking. I started using a Nano Flash with my tape VariCam several years ago and bought my first P2 Vari back in 2011. Went pretty much full time P2 around the last three months of 2012 and have only shot tape twice in the last 12+ months. I hate tape. The only thing tape has/had going for it from an operator standpoint is that you can just hand it off and forget about it. But my main P2 client provides cards, so that point is largely moot for me, I still just hand off the media. And with C300 files, they transfer pretty fast with a USB 3 card reader and Thunderbolt or USB 3 drives.

And I have yet to have a tape jam, head clog or humidity warning/lockdown with a P2 cam or C300 I made a ludicrous amount of money with my tape VariCam, but I do not want to go back to shooting with that camera. Hopefully (HD)tape dies a quicker and more merciful death than SD(tape).