C300: Upgrading from my DSLR

J

Joe Stas

Active member
Hi
Apologies for another 'which camera should I buy' thread. I've been researching for weeks as my location means I'm unable to rent to try new cameras out.

I currently own a 7D with a wide variety of lenses but it's got to the point where I feel the need to upgrade. Not only am I getting more freelance video work but I'm also upping the amount of short films and music videos I'm making.

I've been considering the C300 and the FS700... and partially the Scarlet and the Blackmagic 4k. At the moment though I'm not in any need for 4k - but you never know in the future, I suppose.

My paid work at the moment comes from the corporate side of things - interviews, run and gun type documentaries etc.

My real passion is in making films though - so I need something that will look great for that kind of thing. The slow motion on the FS700 obviously tempts me as I tend to use the s*%tty aliased slowmo on my 7D a lot.

So I guess I'm asking which camera will give me the best film like look but also be able to handle documentary work easily. I realise all the cameras I mentioned are better for different things (c300 is a beast for docu work I hear) but it'd be great to get opinions. Also, I don't want to buy something that is gonna be outdated anytime soon!

Thanks in advance!
 
Look at it this way...chip, codec, functionality...those are the three most important, overall things to look at in starting out. Slow motion is a nice bonus, but if you are not going to specialize in that, don't have it too high on your list. The FS700 is a good camera but it's codec is non-broadcast approved, Mpeg-4, 4-2-0 color space. More important is the everyday usage and that's where the C300 comes in for you. You already have EF lenses, the camera records on a broadcast approved 50mb 4-2-2 codec, it is the low light champ meaning you won't need as many lights, a 32 gb card gets you 80 mins per card, the batteries last a long time, and, depending on your settings, can give you a very cinematic look. Ron Howard's new feature about formula 1 was shot with the Alexa and the C300 (a good chunk is C300).
Basically, you want to move to a camera that makes it easier to shoot, not one that could add headaches that you don't need (reliability) or features you won't use on a regular basis.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
A 4K camera shooting raw will generate huge amounts of data, and that gets tripled of you follow the 3-2-1 backup/archive philosophy (no file exists unless it exists in 3 places, in two formats, one of which is offsite). I'm barely achieving that with AVCHD and ProRes at 1080p25. You could use ProRes on the BMCC, but that would miss the point. LOL... I'm not sure I'd be able to stay in business if the BMCC was my only/main camera. But a nice 'special situations' option.

The FS700 is a very clever camera with 'some ergonomic challenges' (ahem). The extra bits required to bring up the FS700 to a competent 12 bit RAW 4K camera can (with media) double the cost of the camera which makes it begin to rub shoulders with Scarlet and F5. Rub ankles rather than shoulders? Whatever. I know my clients don't want to pay for high end 'extra 20%' cameras if it doubles or triples the cost to them. They're happy with well-shot XDCAM-EX, quite frankly.

The C100 is its antithesis, a video camera ruthlessly boiled down to being a big DSLR with the right holes in it. You're in the EOS part of the board, so you'll hear plenty of people saying nice things about just how good the C300 and C100 are.

I'm in a similar sort of business - Corporate video, talking heads, event coverage (no take 2s, things happening out of your direct control), and the C100/C300 works better here than the FSx00 line. You'll be filming voxpops, then this 6 foot tall chap or chappess turns up, and you can't FREAKIN' see the FS viewfinder if you're going to avoid filmin up their nose. So you get an EVF and a rig to mount it on, and the battery system to power it, and the grips to balance it... or you get a C100/C300 and remain sane. But then you lose on things like slomo and - more crucially (I wish more people hooted about this) timelapse. The C100 doesn't have it and the C300 does a curious '2 frame' thing. I'm using timelapse for all sorts of things from GVs to 'how to make a dull thing less dull'.

Your heart may be set on the C300, but how quick will it pay back? Will it last until the next big thing? I went for the C100 to last me out - 'it will do', and it's doing very well. However, I'm still shooting half my stuff on EX1Rs so go figure.

There's one thing I know now that I didn't really take on board when I invested in the Canon - 10 bit is very, very nice and may be (long term) more important than one thought (good 10 bit HD that isn't Rec709 can look great at 4K). I'm happier with my C100 than my FS100, but I'm not splashing out big bucks on 'the one' (whichever that may be) yet.

You didn't mention the F5 - which sort of tickles the C300's price bracket. It's a serious tool which ticks a lot of boxes - apart from the one labelled 'cheap'.
 
IMO the C300 is a dead end compared to the F5 which has more onboard codecs from 50mbs corporate to 440mbs (or both?) onboard and can be expanded by renting buying a raw/recorder and swapping the lens mount if you ever go to cine glass for your shorts

The C300 was hot in 2011

S
 
Last edited:
MattDavis said:
.. then this 6 foot tall chap or chappess turns up, and you can't FREAKIN' see the FS viewfinder if you're going to avoid filmin up their nose. ...
Click to expand...

IMO the C form factor is the ultimate nasal hair cam, the rear EVF is so much higher than the lens

And the dinky onboard monitor is not really big enough to properly monitor, so you end up with that monitor that you cant take off (cos the XLRs are attached to it) and adding another monitor or EVF.. what a mess

The F5 has DC out to power its EVF or an third party EVF/Monitor.. as it should be
 
Thanks.

Tough choices to make when so much money is concerned. The F5 sounds great but it's slightly out of my budget (the C300 was pushing it). I guess future proofing is important so need to consider that to some extent.
 
Absolutely. Ive been waiting to jump to a camera that I hope I can live with for a few years - a camera that actually makes me smile when I shoot.

Personally when I bought my FS100 I could have afforded an F3 or C300 but felt best to get a 'temporary camera' and sit out a generation or so.

Personally I think the F5 is far more bang for the buck than the C300

I note the C300 is now about £8g however having dropped a couple of G in the shops - it is therefore more attainable than the 5 (and with the F5 you are going down on the media front for a G or so)

However for all those who got the 300 for £10g, the used value must already have dropped to £3g in a year at least (I mean used for £7g or new for £8g - I know which Id take!) also observe the used price of F3 - pretty horrifying depreciation.

Both those cameras miss a really strong codec option and are IMO not therefore 'keepers'

Will the F5 depreciate? - sure - but with a route to raw, 4k and more I guess it wont be butchered in the same way

You could of course make some ckeeky offeres for used C300 or F3, especially F3 which might be super cheap

​IMO
 
Last edited:
No such thing as future proofing.

Buy the camera which will meet you business needs now, because we all know that a better cheaper camera will be available in a year or two.
 
David W. Jones said:
No such thing as future proofing.

Buy the camera which will meet you business needs now, because we all know that a better cheaper camera will be available in a year or two.
Click to expand...

Of course. Sort of.

Coming from stills we did upgrades for years because the (newest,best) cameras were still 'flawed' (moire low ISO, low res, whatever), but then stills cams hit a level where they became good enough - yep upgrades come along with another one FPS or another 4mp - but frankly no one (professional shooter or client) cares. I think a level will be hit in video too where endless upgrades are only for people who want a camera as a piece of jewelery - but when?

My feeling of the F5 is if I had a recorder and 4k raw it will not be embarrassing to own in four years time - yep in four years you might get an F6 or AF300 or C700 for half the money, but none of those cameras will actually be that much better than the F5+Recorder, they will, however, be significantly better than the C300 or F3..

I suppose you either consider a limit of 50mbs 1080 30p 'flawed' or you dont - I do.

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
The C300 was hot in 2011

S
Click to expand...

You do realize that, aside from prototypes, the C300 didn't exist in 2011, right?

morgan_moore said:
My feeling of the F5 is if I had a recorder and 4k raw it will not be embarrassing to own in four years time -
Click to expand...

Totally puzzling statement - I have no idea why anybody would be 'embarrassed' to own any camera. If you knew how many "obsolete" cameras I've used over the past year on professional productions, you'd probably be mortified.

morgan_moore said:
I suppose you either consider a limit of 50mbs 1080 30p 'flawed' or you dont - I do.

S
Click to expand...

It's only 'flawed' if it doesn't work. The C300 is a camera that just works, every day, with no fuss - in a vast variety of different levels and configurations. I can only speak to the industry that I work in (broadcast production, mostly), but given the amount of work my C300 goes out on every week, I don't think the production world shares your same view.

It's a legitimate opinion to prefer the F5 over the C300, nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't change the fact that the C300 has a significant life ahead of it. It does what it does very, very well - day in and day out - and that alone makes it worth the price of admission.
 
Thanks for your input Brian. I'm still being swayed by the C300. As I mentioned before the F5 is just a little out of my budget.

Morgan you mentioned you can get a C300 new for £8k? Where is that?
 
morgan_moore said:
IMO the C300 is a dead end compared to the F5 which has more onboard codecs from 50mbs corporate to 440mbs (or both?) onboard and can be expanded by renting buying a raw/recorder and swapping the lens mount if you ever go to cine glass for your shorts

The C300 was hot in 2011

S
Click to expand...
Morgan....I think you are dwelling on spec sheets here....first, the C300 is still hot, still selling and on allocation here in the US, working on many shows and features so it is far from from dead. As for the F5, the camera was introduced in November (at the Sony Lot) as coming with many features, 2/3s would arrive with the camera when it was to ship in Feb-Mar '13 and the rest of the features would arrive through firmware upgrades by the end of '13. When it (and the F55) did arrive, it had less than 1/2 the features with the statement some additional firmware upgrades by the end of the year and others sometime in the future.
Getting back to the poster's request, he's not going to spend anymore money than a C300 costs so pitching something that costs more doesn't help his decision process.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
We are all different individuals with different needs and aspirations and perhaps insecurities. So what is good for one person need not be the best solution for the other.

I find C300 pretty good for documentaries, run-n-gun work where I can shoot barebones with just a lens and a microphone on top, completely handheld. An Epic/Scarlet will heavy, and the rig needed will make the shot impossible. With C300 one can easily "steal" shots in localities, which will otherwise become difficult in other cameras. The low light ability of the C300 really works well. Clients are happy. There are some clients who can't travel to my country. They tell me the idea and I Direct & DP the stuff and send them. They are fine with C300. They have never talked about raw. There are producers who have asked me which camera I shoot with and then have confirmed with their channels that C300 codec is broadcast approved and just works fine. Neither the producers, nor the TV channels consider it "flawed". We are supposed to be artists and not gear collectors that we would be "embarrassed" about our cameras.

I am now on a pre-production stage of one TV series which involves lot of green screen work. The C300 is good for such work if you ever put it to use for such projects.

I agree with Matt that the C300 doesn't do 50/60 at 1080p. However, we live with that and circumvent that need.

The C300 files are pretty detailed. The implementation of 1080p is very different in the cameras and the C300 files are very good. It will be used till the clients want it. Even today features are being made with 5Ds, so why do you expect C300 to be outdated?

As far as feature films are concerned, how many 2K and 4K screens are in your area? Unless those are changed to 4K, don't expect everybody to shoot with 4K cameras.
 
Joe - sorry to mislead - £9g - CVP

Yep your (and my) funds have a limit but there is finance to get you the rest of the way, if you are a cash buyer with the first 9. My humble advice, after spending a lot on kit over the years, is to get the right camera for you not fret about 10% of the cost...if you are really tight maybe don't stress and get a C100/nano or FS700 - no one should ever stress their budget

Of course the 300 might work for you with ergonomics or whatever reason you might just like it. Ive shot Scarlet,FS700,C300 and would say Scarlet is too heavy and other two are both just a bit strange and I'm not 100% sold on the F5 ergonomics either.

===

Lets put this question another way to all posters: if there was a C300 at £9g and a C300R at £10.5g (that had overcranking, allowed 4kraw output, and had onboard 400mbs and PL potential) I don't know who would be saying the extra £1500 is not worth it?

£1500 is £42 a month over a three year life.

==

Cowpunk
I dont want to get personal but going through the reels of some of the posters on this thread I see a lot of dodgy skintones, flourecent highlights and the like (I would include my on work in that critique) - surely we all crave a little more colour depth, True DR, and ideally want raw for the projects where we have the time and the data budget - which I understand is most likely only 5% or less.
And 2011 was indeed a joke :)
 
Last edited:
I don't see these two cameras as equals at all. First the price is way different. $2500 more for a base F5 without viewfinder or battery. Tack on $3200 for the viewfinder and $300 for one battery. The list keeps getting bigger just to get the camera out the door to shoot. I haven't even added media in yet.

It's easy to just tell someone the C300 is old news and get this more expensive better camera instead, but I don't think your advice is sound based on the OP's questions. I think to many people buy expensive cameras that their clients cant afford to pay you for. If you cant make the payments with the work you do then its the wrong camera.

The F5 is an awesome camera no doubt, but I don't think bashing the C300 and comparing it to the F5 makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Well - I wont go near the Sony EVF and there is (AFAIK) no need to - yep I mentioned media as a bummer (although offbrand cards on the horizon for up to 60p) - as a dslr shooter our OP may alsready have an EVF/Monitor and may even have Vlock batts too (or they can stack up price wise which is important to understand)

I think the comparison is 100% legit, but of course the OP must make his own calculations for his own business

I also think he should be considering the C100/Nano, FS700/Ody

I dont think the C300 is a bad camera - it is good - and as mentioned above by Jim it has an image that is kind of better than the 'paper spec', but if you see the sony in full raw mode it is in a different class and that as a rental option is to me ​big.

S
 
Last edited:
cowpunk52 said:
And the Sony or any other camera thread is immune from this?
Click to expand...

One hopes that, with the fatter codecs, yes, you can get a significantly more flexible image - I hope to be doing a full test with the F5 soon to clarify that -certainly you can (and Ive played with files) with the raw, but have less experience with the 220mbs codec which is what interests me as having a managable data load.. SRcodec is the F35 'Little Dorrit' codec famed for good colour.

Again I would suggest to the OP that with a purchase of this nature to rent/test the camera before purchase.

I did that with Scarlet (no go) and am shortly doing the same with the Sony... just ask (in fact demand) a test from your dealer
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top