C300: The New Canon C300 Mark III and New 25 - 250mm Zoom Lens
- Thread starter Pascal Parvex
- Start date
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
ENG lenses don't cover full frame.25-250 doesn’t cover full frame until you engage the 1.5 converter
..making it nothing like an eng lens
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
No they enable shooting the sort of sequences that an editor would expect at the speed a director would expect
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I'm still confused about what you're saying. You're just saying that 25mm on Super35 or 25mm x 1.5 on full frame (effectively 25mm on Super35) is not wide enough to be "shooting the sort of sequences that an editor would expect at the speed a director would expect"?
We've always known that the larger the sensor, the larger the lenses often need to be to accommodate a large focal range. So, full frame or large format (Alexa 65, Red Monstro, etc.) would likely never have an equivalently broadcast friendly focal range in a lens of a reasonable size and weight for handheld.
But the 25-250 is a new lens that checks various boxes in a size and weight never offered before for the range it covers for Super35 and full frame.
I've used the 24-105 for doc and run n' gun work a ton, and 25 is pretty close to 24, while getting all the way to 250. I have the 17-120. So far I find I often prefer the 24-105 for run n gun work, as I like the autofocus, ability to throw on a Glidecam or basic slider, compared to the 17-120 which for run n gun limits me to just handheld or tripod while having a larger footprint and making lens changes time consuming (though you can often shoot all day without needing to change lenses).
We've always known that the larger the sensor, the larger the lenses often need to be to accommodate a large focal range. So, full frame or large format (Alexa 65, Red Monstro, etc.) would likely never have an equivalently broadcast friendly focal range in a lens of a reasonable size and weight for handheld.
But the 25-250 is a new lens that checks various boxes in a size and weight never offered before for the range it covers for Super35 and full frame.
I've used the 24-105 for doc and run n' gun work a ton, and 25 is pretty close to 24, while getting all the way to 250. I have the 17-120. So far I find I often prefer the 24-105 for run n gun work, as I like the autofocus, ability to throw on a Glidecam or basic slider, compared to the 17-120 which for run n gun limits me to just handheld or tripod while having a larger footprint and making lens changes time consuming (though you can often shoot all day without needing to change lenses).
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
As the two (camera and lens) have been launched together there seems to be confusion that somehow they fit together to make a RnG package leaving the 500 to the narrative stuff.
It is not the case
It is not the case
cpreston
Veteran
I was hoping for the wide angle compact cine zoom that had been rumored. Oh well. The 25-250mm would be a near perfect ENG and event lens. I am often using my 70-200 with an extender for events and this would be far more useful for a full zoom range to cover a full stage to a close up. Neither the 17-120 or the 50-1000 would really accomplish the range I am normally using. Even so, I am not the market for this lens. I can't afford it.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I did not see any implications that it's not suitable for the C500. The C500 can do both Super35 and full frame just like the 25-250 can.
NewsShooter has a fairly lengthy run-down on this, and states that the C300.3 runs at 31W (vs. ~65 for the C500.2, ~35 for the FX9). Can't quickly find pwoer consumption data for the C300.2, but I reckon it's out there
scorsesefan
Veteran
I don't like to use AF, Norbro. In certain situations with very fast action I'll use it, but I prefer to focus manually in most situations. There is some great AF being implemented today (Canon dual pixel, etc.) but it's just a personal preference.
The DGO sensor looks like it'll help with cleaning up C-log2. My main problem with the C300II was that that gamma curve could store so much DR but the lower stops were noisy, making lowkey scenes difficult. Having those cleaner shadows makes it easier to shoot with moodier lighting.
Also probably means that they avoided any aggressive noise reduction in camera.
Also probably means that they avoided any aggressive noise reduction in camera.
cpreston
Veteran
Yeah, when I heard about the dual gain sensor, I was concerned that Canon was going to try to cram some ridiculous amount of stops into their 10bit XF-AVC/12bit RAW. Instead, It looks like they are just trying to clean up the shadows and allow you to pull more color out of the whites. This always felt like a constant struggle when grading C300 II footage and run and gun footage never held up as well as I was hoping it would. I would often shoot in Clog 1 just so I knew I wasn't kidding myself on how much detail could be recovered in post.
rob norton
Veteran
Looks like EVF-V70 is $3,999 now, I think it was $5,999 before? - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1278100-REG/canon_1753c001_oled_viewfinder_for_c700.html
JPNola
Veteran
Yes. Better timing.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Camera looks great. Nice feature set, basically a C500 MKII without 6K and FF, both of which are kind of pointless for most users.
I'm a poor man and have the poor man's camera and love it. But if I was making some money, I'd already have pre-ordered.
I'm a poor man and have the poor man's camera and love it. But if I was making some money, I'd already have pre-ordered.
The FS7 has been #1 in its niche for years, the FX9 seemed like the natural successor to take the throne. But this C300mk3 might steal it away from Sony??
FX9 vs C300mk3:
Identical price. (ok ok, FX9 is one dollar less!)
Identical power draw. (35.2W vs 31W. Low power draw matters, the 63W of the C500mk2 is not a good thing when you're a solo operator)
C300mk3 has better DR
Canon has internal raw, vs Sony's external raw (need's an expensive external extension too!)
EIS with the Canon is done internally for a smooth handover to post, vs done in post for the FX9. That's a point for Canon.
I'll give the nod slightly to Sony for having the more versatile mount, but this is no longer the massive edge Sony used to have over Canon. Where with Canon in the past you were stuck with either EF or PL once you bought it (or sometimes, interchangeable but only by Canon themselves), but Canon now offers a user swappable mount between EF or PL (plus a bonus: or positive locking EF mount!! Giving you three options).
NDs, Sony gets the nod again with the eNDs.
AF, the FX9 has greatly improved autofocus for a Sony, but probably Canon might get the nod here.
Likewise FX9 has greatly improved color science, but perhaps Canon might have the edge for the win here too?
Is FF alone enough to make the FX9 win over the C300mk3? I don't think so, the C300mk2 is in with a serious shot to make a claim for the #1 spot for cinema camera on low budget productions.
In a way, this coronavirus crisis is a blessing in disguise for Canon's C300mk3
A big factor in the failure for the C300mk2 to live up to the massive smash hit success of the C300mk1 was that the C300mk2 was released too late to the market. As by that point in time the Sony FS7 had already gained a strong grip on the market. (of course the C300mk2's high launch price and lack of 4K 60fps didn't help! But if the C300mk2 had came out a few months before the FS7 then the C300mk2 might have prevented the FS7 from becoming a runaway success)
Is the C300mk3 going to suffer the same fate again in being too late to the game? Perhaps not, FX9 has had a slow roll out due to needing a few firmware updates.
But additionally almost nobody has been making big camera purchases in recent weeks, and likely most will be holding off on a new camera purchase over the next few months while the dust of this economic crisis settles. Sony won't be selling too many more bodies between now and July 2020 when the C300mk3 is meant to ship.
Normally a company having most of a year as a head start over their competition gives them enough of a good solid lead that it is an uphill battle for anybody to overcome, but not this time. As much of that time has been lost in limbo while we're trapped by the impacts of the coronavirus. Canon C300mk3 has a real shot at this.
FX9 vs C300mk3:
Identical price. (ok ok, FX9 is one dollar less!)
Identical power draw. (35.2W vs 31W. Low power draw matters, the 63W of the C500mk2 is not a good thing when you're a solo operator)
C300mk3 has better DR
Canon has internal raw, vs Sony's external raw (need's an expensive external extension too!)
EIS with the Canon is done internally for a smooth handover to post, vs done in post for the FX9. That's a point for Canon.
I'll give the nod slightly to Sony for having the more versatile mount, but this is no longer the massive edge Sony used to have over Canon. Where with Canon in the past you were stuck with either EF or PL once you bought it (or sometimes, interchangeable but only by Canon themselves), but Canon now offers a user swappable mount between EF or PL (plus a bonus: or positive locking EF mount!! Giving you three options).
NDs, Sony gets the nod again with the eNDs.
AF, the FX9 has greatly improved autofocus for a Sony, but probably Canon might get the nod here.
Likewise FX9 has greatly improved color science, but perhaps Canon might have the edge for the win here too?
Is FF alone enough to make the FX9 win over the C300mk3? I don't think so, the C300mk2 is in with a serious shot to make a claim for the #1 spot for cinema camera on low budget productions.
In a way, this coronavirus crisis is a blessing in disguise for Canon's C300mk3
A big factor in the failure for the C300mk2 to live up to the massive smash hit success of the C300mk1 was that the C300mk2 was released too late to the market. As by that point in time the Sony FS7 had already gained a strong grip on the market. (of course the C300mk2's high launch price and lack of 4K 60fps didn't help! But if the C300mk2 had came out a few months before the FS7 then the C300mk2 might have prevented the FS7 from becoming a runaway success)
Is the C300mk3 going to suffer the same fate again in being too late to the game? Perhaps not, FX9 has had a slow roll out due to needing a few firmware updates.
But additionally almost nobody has been making big camera purchases in recent weeks, and likely most will be holding off on a new camera purchase over the next few months while the dust of this economic crisis settles. Sony won't be selling too many more bodies between now and July 2020 when the C300mk3 is meant to ship.
Normally a company having most of a year as a head start over their competition gives them enough of a good solid lead that it is an uphill battle for anybody to overcome, but not this time. As much of that time has been lost in limbo while we're trapped by the impacts of the coronavirus. Canon C300mk3 has a real shot at this.
Clermond
Veteran
I think you missed the frame rates in your list. What’s the maximum of the fx9? 4K60p?
As a former FS7 owner I can tell you that the handicap of the C300ii was the lack of 4k60p and the initial price point. FS7 vs C300ii was a difference of 8,000€ if I remember right.
C300mk3 is twice as power efficient as the C500mk2, basically the C300mk3 is almost the same as the FX9. Which is good, as if they're much more heavier with the power drain it starts to become unwieldy for a solo operator to manage over long days
But with the Alexa-like dual gain sensor that C500MKII doesn't have. With Sony already having played its trump card with FX-9, 300 MKIII might indeed set some sales records.
And used Red gear might be competing for the "Bargain of the Year" title with WTI.