Dispelling the myths, is the Canon C300 worth $15,999?

[Andrew Reid]

[html]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/canon-c300.jpg[/img]

Whilst I still prefer the small size and ‘tourist’ stealth factor of DSLRs for the kind of shooting I do, I can recognise why a great many want a Canon C300. The handling, EF mount, image quality and low light performance – as well as built in ND, audio monitoring and build quality are worth the money to many professionals.

But actually there are some myths flying around about the C300 and the competition is far stronger sub $10,000, even sub $6,000 than people realise.

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/6876/dispelling-the-myths-is-the-canon-c300-worth-15999/"]Read full article[/url]

[/html]

[JimmyBrun]

"Canon badly need to respond and bring out a mini stripped down version of the C300 which is to the C300 what the FS100 is to the Sony F3"

1DX? 1/2 the price, intra codec, AF, an most likely better low light. Assuming they dont cripple it for video, but why have an intra codec then cripple the video.

[sandro]

S35 is 22mm horizontally?

[Andrew Reid]

You are quite right Jimmy the DSLRs are Canon's FS100, it is just we haven't seen any yet. Existing ones too long in the tooth to compete now.

Yes Sandro the usable area of Super 35mm is 21.95mm wide.

[matt2491]

Sony F100 -- Ergonomics -- Weird. Hahaha :P

[Sara]

This film didn't get a lot of attention but it was shot on the c300 as well:

[url=http://vimeo.com/33827416]OUT OF TUNES[/url]

I like it - however the skin tones (prehaps the original file is better) looks shit - not ripping on the C300 because I liked the mobius skin tone - obviously VERY careful processing is needed when dealing with a limited color space.

The super shallow depth of field gets annoying in the video quickly but oh well.

There was an original file somewhere but blogs around the web tore it apart - shame because the editing and directing was cool.  Canon pulled it and now all that is left is the streaming version on vimeo and the european Canon site.

Also this one:

[url=http://vimeo.com/35027294]The Ferry | Canon C300[/url]

But its subject matter is boring and simple.

[Andrew Reid]

Haven't seen those yet, cheers Sara. Out of Tunes is finally a video that pushes the camera. Very challenging lighting, lots of movement, high contrast backdrops. The C300 didn't handle the highlights as well as I'd have expected.

For the web and Vimeo any camera more expensive than a GH2 is really overkill. Nobody is going to notice the difference when it is streamed at 720p on Vimeo to a laptop screen. Though that is now the de-facto distribution method for video and one we all owe a lot too, so I am happy to see it thrive.

Often distribution channels drive camera technology. I have no idea how 4K is going to do, when there isn't yet the distribution infrastructure ready to support it outside a few $30k displays for home theatre and some upgraded multiplex theatres. This will change quickly but 4K is set for a VERY slow start in my opinion.

[gerardbotha]

Andrew
Long time, anyhow I went to the canon launch in Germany and must say there is a massive jump with this organic grain structure they used seeing the footage was shown on a proper massive cinema display. There is s a new trend in the industry that says there is too much numbers gibberish we only want proper pictures. Now working for a rental co as you know VMI, we have immense problems with the fs100 and external recorders. If you put the numbers together the c300 and a fs100 with either ki pro mini or nano flash will be the same where the post workflow could also become an issue. The price is not a massive issue for rental companies but it is a chunk for individuals and that is where the problem sets in seeing we have invested more money in optics than in cameras. They are both great machines but I would not recommend an fs100 with its dodgy hdmi out ( yes no bnc hdsdi) out with an external recorder.The hdmi is capped at 8bit and bnc is capped at 10bit so who knows what will happen in future firmware updates btu being a more reliable connector I recon the canon wins hands down. The stills from the Bloom looks like square pixels so there has been some post work done on it. I have seen it on a big screen and I can tell you I was blown away. Im sorry to say that in my personal view the frenchman with the black cap images which was commissioned for this launch the out of tunes clip Sara has is not my cup of tea and he had a lot of work done to make it look very digi beta at least it looked like that on the big screen but it is the short films which really stood out and was an eye opener as to what this camera is capable of.

[leftedit]

This C300 is WAY overpriced. But then again, everything is which is considered 'professional'.

[markm]

In my opinion the C300 and the F3 are not worth the money. Nor are the fs100 or af100. You have a choice buy something that can do most of what the big cams can do but are deliberatley crippled in a way that keeps you out of the big boys league OR buy something you know really isn't worth the money likely to be replaced shortly and maybe can ill afford but can get you near to a professional level. Why Sony doesnt just give SLOG instead of ripping everyone off for over £2000 for a little bit of software is beyond me. You'd think they would offer it free as an incentive to buy the already over priced F3.

I guess the good news is so much can be done much cheaper with the GH2 especially if the new firmware with better noise reduction gets hacked.

I guess for me is the C300 is a rich mans toy. Not professional enough for the pros or cheap enough for indie film makers. uNLESS they decide to bring the price down to about £6000 that could make it the indie camera of choice.

[Liszon]

Im really supriced that i cant see the RED Scarlet at least in the spec. comparison table. The Canon AL mount package cost $15,965, and the features (dynamic range, framerate options etc) are really putting the C300 into shade.
Yes, if you want to edit RED RAW 4K, maybe you want a RED Rocket card, but its not necessary, and you going to need a monster computer for serious video editing anyway.

Edit: Actually there is no dynamic range column in the comparison table too, and that value is more important in my opinion than the resolution.

[TJB]

Right now I think the C300 is the only camera that does almost everything required internally. As a freelancer workng for broadcast television, reliability is key. I'm not sure I'd be happy shooting daily with an FS100 or any other camera coupled with an external recorder.  Anything added on to a camera system can quite often be an invitation for problems on the job and expensive repairs. I need gear that I can trust day in day out under varying circumstances. Now if your shooting test video of your cat for Vimeo consumption then that's a different story. Broadcast standard gear is expensive. P2 cards are expensive because they meet military and broadcast standards. SD cards don't meet the same standards. Just try and name one camera under $20K that can do everything the C300 does straight out of the box. If I really needed to buy today and had the means - I'd grab a C300 without an after thought.

[Andrew Reid]

The article is really more about the GH2 and FS100 in a positive light than about the C300. Since from my perspective, working on my own projects, image quality, lenses and creativity are at the top of my priorities, whilst durability, convenience, pro workflows and broadcast safe codecs are right at the bottom of my list.

Remember who EOSHD is aimed at and decide what is most important for these people, because I do get a bit tired of commercial filmmakers thinking that the only needs in the world are the professional ones!

They are right for them and their work, but not for everyone. I am not working. I am creating.

[ewanthomas]

I think what people have lost proportion with is just what you are getting for that money. About 2 years ago I was regularly hiring a Sony XDCAM HD camera the PDW-700, they cost something like £30-40K to buy! You couldn't buy one! In fact you could only afford cameras like the EX1 and EX3 (wow they disappeared fast didn't they!) The image was not as good as my 7D (although the workflow was far better). 2 years is not a lot of time to now be able to buy a camera far far better (the C300) for what is about a third or a quarter of that price. And that's the comparison that should be made, what these cameras cost compared to what similar cameras cost in the past. Not what DSLR's cost. 

I think Andrew is right, for most of us Indie film makers it's the camera to dream about hiring for some projects but not one to buy. There's no way I could justify it. I paid back my 7D and 550D in a about a 2 months of camera charges for the production company I was working for, which was amazing. It would take a hell of a lot longer to pay back a C300. I think it has incredible virtues, but I can't justify it.

The FS100 has been getting a lot of praise recently (surprisingly), but I think there's a lot of issues for it. I hired it for a shoot for the 50FPS slow-mo (I now have a Nex-5N for that!) and I was really disappointed with it as a camera, clunky, rubbish for handheld with a very poor zoom lens on it and a laughable LCD, the results I got were almost always overshadowed by the 7D I used as B-cam. And the editing workflow was rubbish (with all the 50fps stuff). But it was okay because I was handing it back! The Nex is a wonderful camera, the results very cinematic and incredibly easy to use, with that E-mount to EOS adapter I think it'll be a serious proposition. And the slow-mo looks wonderful. The LCD is beautiful and people will not realise you are filming. Which is a real consideration as a Canon user these days!

The C300 will slot perfectly into the market and it'll do really well, I'll probably hire one in a couple of months (for a project it'll really add something to). I really think the codec, the form factor, the attractive price and the EF lens mount will make it sell by the bucketload. And the exciting thing for GH2 users is that their camera is not a million miles off in terms of image quality! 

[TJB]

I'm just responding to what you wrote not me. Your title reads, "is the Canon C300 worth $15,000?"
For what it's worth I gave my opinion like some of your other readers. It's not my job to try and understand who reads this blog and why. Although it's fairly obvious. I would imagine though that it's your job to realise that many different readers of varying backgrounds and experience frequent your website even if they don't login and register. You should be happy about that and try not to get too "tired of commercial filmmakers thinking that the only needs in the world are the professional ones!" I'm certainly not one of them. I shoot paid jobs on all sorts of cameras for different reasons. I also shoot home video. Maybe once you move from simply creating to creating and getting paid for it then you may see things differently.
I think your readers are capable of realising that there will always have differing points of view that conflict with ones personal situation. If I was to advise a friend about camera choice under $1K to purely "create" then I'd recommend  the GH2 or the 5DMKII. If I was on a panel to advise a national broadcaster then I would certainly not mention the GH2.

[markm]

[quote author=tjbates05 link=topic=190.msg1387#msg1387 date=1326892506]
Right now I think the C300 is the only camera that does almost everything required internally. As a freelancer workng for broadcast television, reliability is key. I'm not sure I'd be happy shooting daily with an FS100 or any other camera coupled with an external recorder.  Anything added on to a camera system can quite often be an invitation for problems on the job and expensive repairs. I need gear that I can trust day in day out under varying circumstances. Now if your shooting test video of your cat for Vimeo consumption then that's a different story. Broadcast standard gear is expensive. P2 cards are expensive because they meet military and broadcast standards. SD cards don't meet the same standards. Just try and name one camera under $20K that can do everything the C300 does straight out of the box. If I really needed to buy today and had the means - I'd grab a C300 without an after thought.
[/quote]

tj

Why would journalists pick a camera specificly designed for out of focus backgrounds that would be best used with a focus puller and more for film making? Surely an EX1 with its fantastic lens resolution 10 bit hdsdi would be better? If it was for sports even a zoomed in EX1 can give you out of focus backgrounds!  I'd be very worried about losing shots with a C300 if I were a journalist?

Another thing is why would a pro film maker buy a camera with 8 bit out when you could buy an F3 with s log 10 bit out to a nanoflash or even 4.4.4.

To me it seems the C300 is to expensive for indie film makers and not good enough for pro's.