C300: Used C300 vs. New C100 vs. New 1DC

[Shawnvfx]

Thanks for the comments, shawn. These comments partially apply to me, and partially not. I've got a full range of EF-L lenses that I've been using with my Mark III, so I'm already covered there. I think if I were to get a C100/300, the only additional lens I need is an EFS 17-55 so I can cover the wide end and also have IS. I could sell one of my 24-105Ls to cover it, so I think I end up neutral there.

My Steadicam Pilot, Manfrotto 561BHDV monopods, Glideshot jib, and all the other supports should work fine with the C300 given the weight and given what others in the thread have said so far. So, again neutral for the supports.

I agree that the extra 3500 could be put to good use, but I don't think it's for stuff that's NECESSARY to operate the C300 over my 5D Mark IIIs. I really could use a set of Kino Flos but that's a different discussion. I guess the main question really is whether I get 3500 dollars worth of benefit above and beyond the C100's price.

I dont know, C300 to me is just dated, it is essential to upgrade something that has longer life cycle, like the lens, rather than something refreshes every 3-4 years

to be honest, there is just a simple calculation for you, is that 3500 worth the money of

1. codec ? if you always need 422, and hate C100 always start naming files from 00001.mts

2. no need for SDs, just continue using CFs (which costs you $300 for two 64gb SDs for C100)

3. C300's used condition (this is crucial, you have to pay anything for fix since its out of warranty,although Canon is a pretty reliable brand)

4. heavier Setups ( RUN n gun, you have to mount a shotgun mic, or a Receiver on top of that handle or on the grip side )

5. better EVF and LCD (if you buy C100 you need a ZACUTO EVF)

6. harder to change NDs (mechanism vs push button and select)

7. some other software features than C100 lack of




to me its just a matter of taste, Id rather not spending that much on a camera which is going to be dated in 2-3 years.

But if you are on MAC, go for C300, $3500 means less headache for situations like Same day edit on a wedding.

 

[Shawnvfx]

New lenses lights, audio are you serious? its the same mount and almost the same size almost everything that works for a 5d works on c100/c300.

Also c300 has a 12 bit sensor is subsampled to 8bit just like BMC will be after encoding for the web. John Brawley BMC advocate has said it himself, if you do not intend on learning davinci thoroughly, then you should buy a c100. Its really going to be a pity how manu BMC owners will not use the camera to its full capacity. If you don't know what a secondary correction, limiter, dynamic, or mixer node is then its very difficult to justify a BMC purchase.

quote from Kholi on our forum " Blackmagic is 16-Bit Linear, stored at 12-bit, unpacked back to 16 in Resolve."

 

[Noel Evans]

I dont know, C300 to me is just dated, it is essential to upgrade something that has longer life cycle, like the lens, rather than something refreshes every 3-4

Can't really agree with as its one of the youngest pieces of sensor tech. currently available. Glass, good glass that makes a big difference is highly priced and far easier to rent on an as needs basis. Again though that's all defendant on you, your opinion on that and your market or in other words a case by case basis. Same theory doesn't apply to all and I'm certainly not going to add the hassle of bring highly priced glass that belongs to me on to a set when I can rent and after the shoot return it and not have to worry about the ongoing care after I drop them off.

 

[alpi69]

Ok, so my specific questions:

- How is the built in EVF on the C300? Can I use it all day the way I use a Mark III with a Zacuto Z finder?
- How compact is the C300? Is it small and tight enough to use all day on a monopod like a DSLR? Especially with the bulky handle with LCD? I'm quite certain that the C100 can be used DSLR-like, but can the bigger 300 do it too?
- How does the 24Mbit image of the C100 compare to the 50Mbit C300? Am I actually losing any real world picture quality?
- Anything else I may have missed?
- Besides audio inputs and waveform capabilities, is there anything that the C300 offers above the 1DC in terms of picture quality? Everything seems to suggest the 1DC as the ultimate picture quality Canon cinema camera (besides C500 of course). Maybe I should save money for that instead.[/B]


Sam
pictureandcolor.com

C300 EVF is much better than a Zacuto Z-finder which is just a loupe. It is sharp offers a lot of infos if you want and quite an accurate color/exposure reproduction.
If the C300 is light enough for a monopod is up to you. I often use it with stabilized lenses and no tripod/monopd at all. if you build on the LCD/audio without the handle, the camera stays very compact!
24bit AVCHD vs 50-Mbit XF-codec: again depends on your uses and your demands on post-production grading. every bit counts.
I hate the DSLR form factor since I use the C300. Mind you the LCD on the 1DC is not moveable, has no peaking and hence is basically useless unless you are on a tripod behind the cam. Once you move the cam above your head or below or you want another person to watch what you shoot while you using the EVF....no goes without add-ons.
The C300 offers HDMI, SDI and more connectors which you might not need often, but there will probably be the time when a director wants a screen attached.
The C300 allows for multi card recording to have a backup immediately.
The C300 is almost too light to use handheld with non stabilized lenses beyond 35mm. The 1DC would only introduce more shake with its weight and formfactor.
When people say "it is a DSLR so I can use it like a DSLR" I am confused. What in the world is nice about using a DSLR for filming?
And one more HUGE difference: the C300 has built in cooling for the chip. All DSLRs heat up eventually in long shooting situations in warm environments (concert halls etc). The trick Canon used with the 7D was to simply turn off the warning via firmware. Maybe the 1DC is better, but it still will overheat, because there is just no way a small weathersealed housing can get rid of the temperature it produces while dealing with all that data without getting hot outside. Physical impossible! They might trick us by not warning us, but I doubt it is healthy for the sensor to run on a 3 hour show.

If you don´t need 4K I see NO justification for the 1DC AT ALL! The F5 from SONY is a bargain in comparison!

 

[AndreeOnline]

quote from Kholi on our forum " Blackmagic is 16-Bit Linear, stored at 12-bit, unpacked back to 16 in Resolve."

Yeah, it's a great way to process images, I do it all the time:

Shoot raw, and then I save everything out to .jpgs and then convert those to .dng in lightroom for some raw awesomeness.

Saves PLENTY of space! Su-weeet!

 

[Gary Huff]

Yeah, it's a great way to process images, I do it all the time:

Shoot raw, and then I save everything out to .jpgs and then convert those to .dng in lightroom for some raw awesomeness.

Saves PLENTY of space! Su-weeet!

Wow, I just...wow.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Wow, I just...wow.

You get.... the irony.... RIGHT?

 

[Gary Huff]

You get.... the irony.... RIGHT?

I was hoping you were being ironic.

 

[Shawnvfx]

I was hoping you were being ironic.

hahaha

love it or hate it, people just live with it

But I cant, Im the one who hates BMC's ergonomics

just saying

 

[AndreeOnline]

I was hoping you were being ironic.

I assumed my statement was thoroughly overboard so that it would be obvious, but I guess it's hard to tell online.

It was an analogy to Kholi's shoot 16 bit, store as 12, and then somehow unpack the original 16 bits later... thus: shoot raw, save as jpg and then unpack the jpgs as raw again....

 

[Gary Huff]

It was an analogy to Kholi's shoot 16 bit, store as 12, and then somehow unpack the original 16 bits later... thus: shoot raw, save as jpg and then unpack the jpgs as raw again....

But what you said isn't anywhere near an analogy. The original quote was actually Brawley, and it states:

Dan it's actually 16 Bit LINEAR sensor data, recorded into 12bit LOG DNG, then unpacked back to 16 Bit.

 

[Kholi]

I assumed my statement was thoroughly overboard so that it would be obvious, but I guess it's hard to tell online.

It was an analogy to Kholi's shoot 16 bit, store as 12, and then somehow unpack the original 16 bits later... thus: shoot raw, save as jpg and then unpack the jpgs as raw again....

But what you said isn't anywhere near an analogy. The original quote was actually Brawley, and it states:

Thanks, Gary.

Hopefully Andree understands, now. If any further clarification is needed: The DNGS are 16bit Linear and Davinci treats them as such.

That should be a very simple explanation to grasp.

 

[starcentral]

I had a chance to work with the 1DC yesterday on a shoot, I've also worked with C300 a few times. Depending on what you're shooting and how I think either one is fine in terms of image quality, the main thing in your case might just be to look at features, money savings, etc.. I don't think you can say either camera is 10x better than the other for example. I do agree with many to go for C300 over C100 if you decide you want the XLR and few other features over DSLR.

As for BMC, I love what RZE said.. (if you don't know what secondary correction, limiter, etc.. is.. lol) this camera really is for specialty type shooting purposes and I would not really be using a raw camera from weddings, corporate gigs, or other situations where you might need a really fast turn around and not need to finesse the footage.

You can get some really really nice footage straight out of the Canons without even dicking around with it in post and even still there is still some room to move with it if you want. The shoot I was on with the 1DC (there was a 5D there as well) we were able to use the footage straight out of the camera and honestly the Canon really impressed me.

 

[Kholi]

As for BMC, I love what RZE said.. (if you don't know what secondary correction, limiter, etc.. is.. lol) this camera really is for specialty type shooting purposes and I would not really be using a raw camera from weddings, corporate gigs, or other situations where you might need a really fast turn around and not need to finesse the footage.

What's the difference between shooting C-Log, S-Log, and ProRes Log for any of those situations? I'm asking because I have very limited experience with the C Series camera and C-Log, and only a bit more experience with S-Log and Sony Cameras.

I have much more experience with Blackmagic's RAW and ProRes Log.

To get the best out of the Canon, isn't that a C-Log or Log type application? If so, doesn't that mean you have to color, anyway? Or are there better settings than Log? Again, lack of experience here. THis is why I won't do a comparison between Blackmagic and C300, even though I can walk over to my friends place and grab a C300 right now. I just couldn't get results out of the camera that I liked, and I am very sure it's an operator error and I definitely wouldn't want that to translate into any tests. >.<

 

[Gary Huff]

I do agree with many to go for C300 over C100 if you decide you want the XLR and few other features over DSLR.

C300 over the C100 for the following reasons:

1) You need 4:2:2 and don't want to use an external recorder. C100 with a Ninja-2 is still very lightweight, and is better than XF codec, plus you're recording to SSDs and not CF cards.

2) You need SDI out. I have the Atomos Connect with my Ninja-2 so I have it on my C100.

3) You need Genlock. The only way to get this on the C100 is with a Pix 240i, and then you're talking a total of around $10k where the price difference is starting to be negligible.

4) You need PL. Not available on the C100

Outside of those reasons, the C100 is a better deal paired with the Ninja-2 than the $16,000 C300.

 

[Dino]

What's the difference between shooting C-Log, S-Log, and ProRes Log for any of those situations? I'm asking because I have very limited experience with the C Series camera and C-Log, and only a bit more experience with S-Log and Sony Cameras.

I have much more experience with Blackmagic's RAW and ProRes Log.

To get the best out of the Canon, isn't that a C-Log or Log type application? If so, doesn't that mean you have to color, anyway? Or are there better settings than Log? Again, lack of experience here. THis is why I won't do a comparison between Blackmagic and C300, even though I can walk over to my friends place and grab a C300 right now. I just couldn't get results out of the camera that I liked, and I am very sure it's an operator error and I definitely wouldn't want that to translate into any tests. >.<

Hey Kholi,

C-Log is needed to get 12 1/2 stops out of a C300 or C100. C-Log is not as flat as S-Log, due to the 8-bit vs. 10-bit difference. C-Log represents about 800% DR, all that the sensor can produce, whereas, for example, a Panasonic P2 Varicam in Film-Rec gamma and 600% DR would be the max for those three CCD's.

I look at the C300 as more of a broadcast/cable/corporate camera, and baking in a look is my preference due to the 8-bit architecture. I do use C-Log if I have extreme CR to deal with and trust the person turning the knobs in post, but I have seen C-Log that I shot and exposed properly using an 18% gray card for every setup, come back looking noisy in the mid-blacks. So, I try to stay with the Cine gammas, Cine 1 and Cine 2 as often as possible vs. C-Log. Clearly, the BMC is a very different beast, and in the right hands in post, can do great things. It's the "in the right hands" that can be difficult.

Most of my corporate clients like to shoot in 30P, want some detail level, lots of saturation. The C300 does not look very filmic in that mode. I prefer desaturated, detail off, 24P, not too many wide shots when going for a filmic look. I also use a Tiffen Digital FX 1/4 filter when possible. YMMV.

 

[RZE]

What's the difference between shooting C-Log, S-Log, and ProRes Log for any of those situations? I'm asking because I have very limited experience with the C Series camera and C-Log, and only a bit more experience with S-Log and Sony Cameras.

I have much more experience with Blackmagic's RAW and ProRes Log.

To get the best out of the Canon, isn't that a C-Log or Log type application? If so, doesn't that mean you have to color, anyway? Or are there better settings than Log? Again, lack of experience here. THis is why I won't do a comparison between Blackmagic and C300, even though I can walk over to my friends place and grab a C300 right now. I just couldn't get results out of the camera that I liked, and I am very sure it's an operator error and I definitely wouldn't want that to translate into any tests. >.<

Since its a 8 bit camera, the possible luminance values are lower than 10 bit, You can't really get more than 12 stops out of an 8 bit space, so the sensors log output is not as crushed into the midtones hence potentially easier to delog for baked codecs. Slog is super flat compared to clog. I personally would prefer a log curve that preserves full sensor data but flattens as little as possible, its why I'm liking Canon so much. BMC, I'll see how deloging works with prores on tuesday. Just to be clear I have no intention of shooting the same shot with the same camera setting on each camera for my test. I just want to see where each camera has its strengths so I can better choose a camera format for each project. I know that if the look is underexposed then nothing will be beat RED, I know that if you're exposing normally c100 will probably be the best bet because of ease of use and portability. My assumption is that the strength of the BMC will be overexposure. But I'll have to test to be sure.

 

[RZE]

C300 over the C100 for the following reasons:

1) You need 4:2:2 and don't want to use an external recorder. C100 with a Ninja-2 is still very lightweight, and is better than XF codec, plus you're recording to SSDs and not CF cards.

2) You need SDI out. I have the Atomos Connect with my Ninja-2 so I have it on my C100.

3) You need Genlock. The only way to get this on the C100 is with a Pix 240i, and then you're talking a total of around $10k where the price difference is starting to be negligible.

4) You need PL. Not available on the C100

Outside of those reasons, the C100 is a better deal paired with the Ninja-2 than the $16,000 C300.

You are so right! Why does this logic seem to continuously be forgotten?

 

[AndreeOnline]

The original quote was actually Brawley, and it states...

Yes, that's a different statement.

Still sounds a bit like Shooting C100 12 bit linear sensor data, storing that as 4:2:2 8 bit log in a 10 bit container, and then getting 10 bit unpacked in FCPX, since FCPX will, of course, treat the 4:2:2 10 bit ProRes as 10 bit.

Anyway, with that clarification I'll just store that information away and look into it some other time. I know too little about the BMC workflow to comment on it.

 

[starcentral]

What's the difference between shooting C-Log, S-Log, and ProRes Log for any of those situations? I'm asking because I have very limited experience with the C Series camera and C-Log, and only a bit more experience with S-Log and Sony Cameras.

Funny how no one seems to have caught the actual context of your question :happy:

If folks want to shoot events that don't require the benefits of the format itself (like log or raw) then I guess they have every right to do so... but shooting log to maximize sensor dynamic range or shooting raw for the maximum flexibility in post for grading on a wedding or corporate video I'd say is overkill. 95% of what people need to shoot can be done on most modern cameras in standard gamma mode.

For me I like to use the right tool for the right job even if that means shooting having to learn/rent/own 5 different cameras. I know a lot of people are starting out and are looking for that "all in one" camera to do everything they need, but often that is tough to do.

To get the best out of the Canon, isn't that a C-Log or Log type application? If so, doesn't that mean you have to color, anyway?

I wouldn't call it "coloring" what you do to restore log footage back to "standard gamma". Log footage can be de-logged very easily with a plugin like LUT Buddy or even homebrew de-logging filters. Once it's restored to normal looking gamma you can color correct, grade, etc... but de-logging is not color correcting in my books.

C-Log is not as flat as S-Log, due to the 8-bit vs. 10-bit difference.

Dino can you explain this?