Now It Goes Sony F3 vs C300

eddavid

eddavid

Carbonite Member
Okay now thanks to the excellent test video by Jonathan Yi - the Canon C300 is getting a lot of buzz.

But what are the differences between these two cameras that we can tell besides the fact that the on-board codec does 4:2:2 50mpbs to compactflash 8 bit and doesn't have 10 bit 444 out of it or the Sony S log?

Or to that matter, the C300 doesn't seem to output 10 bit HD SDI , right?

Is the Canon sensor larger and better? It looks like it has a great rolling shutter and less moire and aliasing perhaps than we can see charts that compare the cameras. But in the meantime do any of you guys know that the internal parts are better before the camera comes out and tests can be made.

To me it looks like the C300 doesn't handle highlights that well - it clips them pretty aggressively. The skin tones look very nice on the C300 - which I think look better than skin tones you get with the Sony F3 using the matrix settings. But I'm still super happy with the skintones you can get with Sony S-log.

I.E. I'm curious if I need to start saving up for the C300. Of course this is all speculation and I should instead learn to use what I have and make it better and not care so much about whether or not I have the best camera. UGGG.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Save ur money for leicas....

At this point, cameras are gonne be closer and closer together. The difference between the c300 and F3 IMHO is less than 1%. But in either diirection...

10bit/8bit, EFcontrol, vs interchangeable mount, coke vs pepsi... etc
 
I would not start to save for the C300, with the C600 right around the corner. Better wait for the C600. Without a doubt it will be better.
 
Way to make up info and confuse people! C600?

Tell you what: Don't ever buy a computer. Or a cell phone. Or pretty much any other technology. 'Cause we all know they're gonna come out with something better.

I bet in the 1850s there was some wagonmaster in a saloon lamenting about buying a buggy whip from the Sears & Robuck catalog because he knew that the next year's catalog was sure to have a new model with a nicer leather handle.
 
I think Canon's lack of 10-bit on the C300 is the single biggest disappointment in it. In general I don't think 8-bit vs 10-bit is all that big of a deal, certainly not how it's portrayed in the forums recently; heck, "Planet Earth" and "Star Wars II and III" were shot on 8-bit. 8-bit's fine, but 10 bit is better, and when your primary competition (F3) has 10 bit, it'd be nice to have it as well.

But, Canon can't have 10 bit yet. It's using Digic DV III, their latest image processor for video, and that chip/system was designed for 8-bit, so ... 8 bit it is. That's what you get. Or you wait another year or two or three for them to develop a Digic DV IV. And yes, it's Canon, it will take them years to develop a new processor, that's how they work.

As for rumors of new products, I am certain we'll see a "C100" model about a year from now, and I am absolutely certain that it will also be 8-bit.

But, back to the technology -- is 8-bit that bad of a thing? It's been used forever in expensive high-end stuff, heck, Sony's $30,000 camcorders are 8-bit. I don't think 8-bit is any sort of death blow, but 10-bit is definitely an advantage.

Basically, I think it's pointless to obsess over technology that most of us here can't understand anyway. The way to evaluate these two products is to look at the footage that they generate, and to work with the physical camcorder bodies themselves and see which suits your needs.

In that Jonathan Yi video, the gamma and cine modes that the C300 produced were what moved me towards being a potential buyer. I am not a post guy, I don't obsess over curves and grading, I just want the images coming out of the camcorder to look spectacular. To me, that's what the C300 does. I've never been overly impressed with the images coming off of Sony cameras, I think they're clinical and sterile, and while the F3 is the most intriguing and most buyable of Sony products I've seen in 15 years, I think if I was buying between these two I'd probably lean towards the C300. Maybe.

I dunno, it's tough. At that price bracket I do think 10-bit would be reasonable to expect and it's disappointing the C300 doesn't have it...

Anyway -- don't obsess over the tech, obsess over the images and what the product can DO for you. If people obsessed over tech instead of images they may have never bought the HVX200 because it had 1/3 as many pixels as the XLH1, but they did buy it, they bought it in droves, over 100,000 of them sold, because the images were just lovely. Color science is important, color sampling is important, bit depth is important, resolution is important, frame rates are important, but they all serve to create the end image. If you don't give a flying fig what the end image looks like and you just want the flattest possible image for grading, you should be looking at a Scarlet instead of either of these; 4K res, 16-bit data, it's unbeatable in terms of giving you that gradeable image. But if you do care about what the images are that the camcorder delivers, without needing extensive grading, then I think the C300 is a pretty intriguing option. And if you're in the middle of those two extremes, that's where the F3 sits, because it has the potential for a very flat S-log for grading and it also can make nice in-camera images that (when recorded to an external recorder) are broadcast-ready.
 
I think that in some ways the fact that the Canon is not 10 bit simplyfies the possible choices.
The F3 gives people the chance to improve its already good qualities with the Slog, an external recorder and whatnot, and produce great pictures with it. In my opinion with the C300 people will not consider an external recorder a must. I see the C300 as a great camera to be used naked, as it is. Put it in a backpack with a couple of batteries, a couple of lenses (not even the fastest/fanciest ones) and a handful of CF cards, that's it. No PIX, no Gemini, no monitor, no Anton Bauers, no frankenstein rigs. A great cam for documentaries.
 
pietro jona said:
I see the C300 as a great camera to be used naked, as it is. Put it in a backpack with a couple of batteries, a couple of lenses (not even the fastest/fanciest ones) and a handful of CF cards, that's it. No PIX, no Gemini, no monitor, no Anton Bauers, no frankenstein rigs. A great cam for documentaries.
Click to expand...

I think this is what will endear people to the C300 once it gets out in the field. A lot of people like the image now since they've seen some footage. But half of the story is how does the camera handle? Once you start handling it and appreciating how clever it was designed, you're going to want to use it. It's a very "likeable" camera...long battery life, built in ND, cheap media, instant backup, usable monitors and useful shooting tools. But this is all very subjective, so I encourage people to try the camera out first. Still two long months to go, though....
 
pietro jona said:
I see the C300 as a great camera to be used naked, as it is. Put it in a backpack with a couple of batteries, a couple of lenses (not even the fastest/fanciest ones) and a handful of CF cards, that's it. No PIX, no Gemini, no monitor, no Anton Bauers, no frankenstein rigs. A great cam for documentaries.
Click to expand...

Agree, a great documentary camera but are they still charging $20K for the camera?
 
Some terribly biased facts I had written back in November in the "open letter to CANON" thread (some specs may have changed I have not verified this at the time of this writing):

- How many people know that the F3 has a built in auto-exposure tool called TLCS that will allow a user specific amount of gain or shutter speed to be introduced to automatically maintain exposure? Do you know how many uses that has from ENG, time lapse, etc..? The C300 does not have this.

- The F3 can be unlocked to 444 RGB output albeit with off-board device and battery - but it's an option. This makes it possible to go through serious grading and post production process with extreme pushing or pulling over 14.5 stops of dynamic range. This exceeds film in lattitude and gives you full post processing optons you would expect to have if working with film. The C300 does not have this.

- The F3 can shoot in variable frame rates from 1 to 60p and after 30p resolution drops from 1920x1080 to 1440x1080. However the F3 can shoot full 1080p/60p through SDI if needed. (...and there is a guy who made a video overseas and dragged around an Apple with dual SDI and generator to shoot it for cheap - lol). The C300 can only shoot 60p in 720p mode.

- White balance: presets on the F3 using picture profiles and ability to hold two custom white balance settings using AWB. The C300 does not have auto white balance period.

- 10-bit 422 on the stock F3 is a possibility, again through SDI if needed. The C300 no option.

- Lens mount quibble: F3 has E-mount for variety of lens mount options supporting Cooke/i and ARRIS LDS protocol. With C300 you decide which lens mount version to buy but are locked to which protocols it might support (ie.EF vs cooke/arri LDS) and thats even if the PL version of the C300 does support cooke/arri LDS.

On the "bit" thing and all that, I agree with BarryG for sure. 10 bit is not "all that". I am grading 8 bit 420 with the F3 and blowing my own socks off which is hard to do because I am so meticulous and picky. I haven't so far run into a situation where I really wish I had 10 bit 422 or 444. The biggest bang for the buck for me is the clean image from the F3 and the dynamic range it offers.
 
I'm a "Canon guy", and I've been generally boycotting SONY stuff for years (ever since the rootkit thing, and the garbage that followed).

...but as badly as it tastes in my mouth, I have to say that IMHO the F3, especially with S log, is a better camera than (what we know so far about) the C300. If I had to spend 16K on a camera, I'd grudgingly (because it's a damned SONY) get the F3; if I had 16K to spend on film gear any way I pleased, I'd probably spend it on glass and/or some lighting (still very happy with my AF100 and several vDSLRs, thank you very much).
 
I do not comment about a camera before I've actually had the opportunity to see it and preferably shoot with it. What I will say is that I do not regret my purchase of the F3. I hope to be able to get hold of one to evaluate.

Ned Soltz
 
Very well said, Barry and Ned. So after hearing these arguments I assume the sensor on the C300 and the F3 are pretty much the same size - both pretty similar. And we have to wait till tests to see if the camera has a sharper looking image and less moire and analyzing. But until then, it's all just speculation. I don't regret having the F3 either. I love the images it makes and I absolutely adore Slog. The external recorder to me is not a big deal at all - I actually love dual-recording. I feel so much safer on a shoot and it gives a good amount of counterweight to the front-heavy lens on the F3.

Whenever I don't dual-record nowadays, I'm kind of nervous and actually just did a shoot where the post producer almost lost b camera's interview if it wasn't for me backing up the images (a protocol they didn't have implimented).

Great news because I am quite happy with the F3. And I am excited to rent Timur's Scarlet when I want to shoot something that will be a max of 1 hour of footage in a day's work.
 
i'll have 4x 64 gig cards, so 24p @ QHD 6:1 compression is almost 2 hours or record time. not shabby.
 
C300 has timelapse recording and you can do AWB but not continues as far as I know. There's 3200K preset, 5600K preset, dial-in-Kelvin preset, A and B preset and an AWB setting to set your white balance. Just like any other pro videocamera.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top