Talk me out of buying the C300

According to productinformation from Canon C300 and C100 shares the same DR. I would expect to get about the same out of either camera.
 
philiplipetz said:
On the main C100 thread I posted images showing that the DR seen on the LCD was had much greater DR than the graded final product.
Click to expand...

Definitely grading choices made by the film-maker.

I expect the C100 to produce an image that is very close ( if not identical ) to the C300, through you may need to bolt on an external recorder to achieve this.
 
Editman Sweden said:
According to productinformation from Canon C300 and C100 shares the same DR. I would expect to get about the same out of either camera.
Click to expand...


then c100 maybe perfect for its price , - of course c 300 has much nicer LCD and EVF ..... 2 days ago i played with it at canon store - just WOW ........ i will say that again - WOW!!!! EVF - is kind of - perfect..... i have af101 now and its just no where near . c300 evf is soooo large that even i am (guy in glasses) could focus no problems..... its like watching on big tv screen! the monitor size and quality does meter - if say true i am not sure if i would need an external monitor - red peaking is very good there, and monitor its self is big! the only thing Canon L glass weights TONS..... , at first i took the C300 in my hands with out glass and weight really surprised me, but as soon i put 24-70 II on it - its felt like my af101 with sigma 18-50 is much lighter, and its already did not seemed like something handheld friendly! i really dont think i could do a handheld shooting with c300& that lens for a long time......

low light on c300 was great...... they turned off the lights in store for me.... so i could play with iso..... and its impressive..... much much better then i would get from my af101

anyway for that price c300 kind of sucks because of over and under cranking and 8 bit, its may be just my own opinion but its the way i feel.... from other hand the cam is ready to shoot with out any add ons!

but c100 with nanoflash is maybe perfect solution for the price,-

what does it means? C100 Body: Approx. TBA lb. / TBA g
is it - to be announced?
 
philiplipetz said:
It appears so, but no one has actually confirmed that the C100 HDMI is the same signal as the C300. The FS100 out is different from the F3 out even though they share the same sensor.

In his last video Jim, who is trying to do his best but is limited by what Canon tells him, mentioned the C100 as sharing C300 lowlight but unlike his previous statements didn't say the C100 out is identical to the C300, something he said before. Have things changed or was this a simple omission without significance? This is the critical issue with the C100's usability for higher level work.
Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing. Most people seem convinced that the C100 + external recorder will produce footage that is equal to or superior than the C300, yet no one has gotten to actually test this out yet.

However, Canon says the C100 has the same sensor as well as the same processor as the C300. Doesn't that strongly imply the HDMI out will be equal to the C300?
 
Philip-
We just had the camera for about a 1/2 hour so our video was unscripted....as far as I know or have been told, the HDMI out should be the same as the C300's HD SDI out and the C100 low light also should be identical to the C300....I have no reason to believe otherwise (and I think I would have heard something if it wasn't).

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
anatusa said:
not sure if 2000$ worth loosing a warranty and dealing with previously used equipment, and its about most savings i found so far ..... but its an idea..... btw canon gives some discounts now as well....
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839220-REG/Canon_5779B002_C300_Cinema_EOS_Camcorder.html
Click to expand...

Well, actually lately on Ebay there've been some PL mount C300's sold (and even unsold) for $9k. But only PL of course. If it's an EF mount for $8k I think I'd be willing to take the risk. Waiting for prices to fall.
 
I'm very grateful for all the responses this thread has attracted. After my research I've chosen to go with the C300 for a few reasons:

#1: The camera does everything I need/want it to do, without having to add on any extra accessories.
#2: While it may only be 8bit it behaves like 10bit because of the brand new sensor technology behind it.
#3: Professional connections, I'm so sick and tired of HDMI cabel on set.
#4: To me this is the ultimate small form HD camera. Aside fromthe F3 but the F3 is too big and bulky for my needs.
#5: With the introduction of the C500 canon is unlikely to come out with another professional Camcorder for a few years. Unlike Sony, I feel like Canon put the time and effort into it's "C-Lineup" to create a product that will stand the test of time. For a couple of years at least :)
 
Well, I have a Canon 5D Mark iii and a C300 --- the 5D looks better and you get an easier wide angle. The 5D fits on a cheapo monopod - my low cost solution to not purchasing a steadicam rig -- and the audio now is acceptable.

Sure, the C300 has built in ND, and a great monitor. But for 16k, really? Unless you have a stable client base and they will pay for that camera, it's not worth it at all.
 
Also have a 5D MKIII and a C300 and I would never use the MKIII for video it does not even come close to the C300. But the MKIII takes stunning stills.
 
Paul Cronin said:
Also have a 5D MKIII and a C300 and I would never use the MKIII for video it does not even come close to the C300. But the MKIII takes stunning stills.
Click to expand...

People make odd statements here. I've always shot with a bunch of cameras. Newest video I shot with the FS700, 5d mark III as the b-cam and the Sony nex-5n and canon 7d as c-cams. The 5d mark III has this odd habit of always looking great compared to all the others. Narrative shoots are though a different animal than documentary stuff (where the C300 excels).
 
Maarek that is not an odd statement that is my opinion.

Every time I have used my old MKII I could not use the footage. Sure it could be I don't know all the tricks with the DSLR for Video but that is why I own broadcast quality video cameras.
 
Last edited:
Everybody's got opinions and we're all entitled to them. I think the 5DIII can make really lovely images, but it would never be my top choice for any production. To me, 5D's and most DSLR's in general are the instagram cameras of digital cinema. Almost anyone can make beautiful looking images with them, but they won't unleash the potential of a more skilled hand like a dedicated cinema camera could.

This is not to say I don't like them, b/c I certainly do.
 
I was close to go for the C300 but felt it wasn't the right camera. I got a used Sony F3 because I saw greater potential with that camera. The highlight roll-off with the F3 is hard to beat. My 5D3 can be good and bad, sometimes it's superb and sometimes it looks to soft. When it's good I love it!
 
maarek said:
People make odd statements here.
Click to expand...

Probably because Paul has seen the difference between the two cameras. I also have both. I love my 5DIII, especially with the new radio transmitter and 600EX flash in a soft box for some very cool stills. But the video quality is iPhone + depth of field. I'm considering a BMC as a b-cam with comparable sharpness and dynamic range.
 
Paul Cronin said:
Also have a 5D MKIII and a C300 and I would never use the MKIII for video it does not even come close to the C300. But the MKIII takes stunning stills.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense. Video from 5d miii looks fantastic, it has another dimension. C300 is good video camera fot TV work.
Canon 1d-c will eat any c300...that i have seen with my own eyes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top