5d III RAW vs C300

[zerocool22]

Hey,

I have a 5D III with ml installed on it. So the RAW image looks awesome but the workflow is a bit of a stinker. If i upgrade to the canon C300, i will have the same DR and even better highlight roll off as the 5D right and a easyer workflow. Or would you not suggest to upgrade to the C300 I? Also I do like anamorhpic and the 5D iii ML has some cool anamorphic goodies. The aim is for cinematic shortfilms and hopefully one day a feature.

Thanks!

[AaronChicago]

3 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

Hey,

I have a 5D III with ml installed on it. So the RAW image looks awesome but the workflow is a bit of a stinker. If i upgrade to the canon C300, i will have the same DR and even better highlight roll off as the 5D right and a easyer workflow. Or would you not suggest to upgrade to the C300 I? Also I do like anamorhpic and the 5D iii ML has some cool anamorphic goodies. The aim is for cinematic shortfilms and hopefully one day a feature.

Thanks!

C300 MkI or II?

[Policar]

I found the C300 to surpass the 5D Mark III's RAW in every category except the "punchy 3D" full frame look: it has better dynamic range, better low light performance, more even noise texture, far more resolution, less skew, and–most importantly–incomparably better ergonomics and workflow. True anamorphic options are pretty dreadful on the C300, however.

You could just rent an Alexa Mini and some Kowas and have something WAY better than both.

[zerocool22]

1 hour ago, AaronChicago said:

C300 MkI or II?

C300 MkI, yes not the biggest renting fan over here. As I rent a alexa mini for a week, its the same money as buying a used c300. But I get your point.

[AaronChicago]

That's a close call if you're just using it for films. The C300 would be hands down a better choice if you were using it for anything else where time is a big factor.

[Phil A]

Wouldn't a C100 with external recorder be an even cheaper and qualitatively equal choice?

[zerocool22]

1 minute ago, Phil A said:

Wouldn't a C100 with external recorder be an even cheaper and qualitatively equal choice?

Nah Dont think so, havent seen anything good on the C100 so far. Looks more like a documentary camera to me.

[Policar]

12 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

Nah Dont think so, havent seen anything good on the C100 so far. Looks more like a documentary camera to me.

Canon has insisted since release that the C100 and C300 have an identical image other than codec.

That said, a pro on reduser revealed that Canon admitted privately to him that the imaging pipeline on the C100 had been dumbed down relative to Canon's higher end offerings, and the image quality is objectively much worse.

Having used both, I can't tell the difference. It seems like, as is often the case, the cheaper cameras have a worse image because less experienced operators have their hands on them. But I never set them up side-by-side and I don't have access to Canon's engineers as did the guy on reduser. 

That said, it would be an enormous breach of consumer trust if Canon had in fact lied about dumbing the pipeline down and this is the ONLY documented case of anyone making the claim that there's a difference in image quality. At their current prices, I would take the C300 over the C100, though, for sure. The ergonomics are so much better and the image definitely isn't worse. The internal codec is a lot stronger, too.

Fwiw, I would consider the C300 a documentary camera and the C100 a wedding/videography camera. The lack of HD/SDI and timecode sync excludes it from anything remotely professional, except on the extreme low end and as a B cam. (That said, I own one and have shot b cam on features that were mostly Alexa and 10-20% C100. No one can tell the difference after the grade, although we had to work around the camera's limitations in dynamic range and shadow tonality by exposing a bit differently. Matching Red and F5 to Alexa proved much harder, however.)

[Andrew Reid]

4 hours ago, Policar said:

I found the C300 to surpass the 5D Mark III's RAW in every category except the "punchy 3D" full frame look: it has better dynamic range, better low light performance, more even noise texture, far more resolution, less skew

Does it heck as like

More dynamic range?!

Better noise texture? Really... Have a clue.

[Policar]

16 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Does it heck as like

More dynamic range?!

Better noise texture? Really... Have a clue.

I've owned the C100 since it was released, used the C300 extensively, and was one of the first to use the 5D Mark III raw (also one of the first to order the camera and be disappointed by the soft image). Even used the 5D Mark III RAW and C100 on the same shoot (for an anthology produced by NCB/Universal for cable) and intercut the two. I know these cameras well.

Better noise texture is subjective, but the C series absolutely has more dynamic range than the 5D raw. It's very close, but highlight recovery of the 5D Mark III in ACR loses color detail. Maybe under certain daylight-only conditions the two are tied, but introduce mixed lighting or shoot under tungsten and the raw footage begins to lose color detail as you attempt to recover would-be blown highlights.

To be fair, you have to use the chroma vs hue slider in Resolve and dig into super whites to recover a stop and a half of detail from the C series and correct the look of the highlights (which preserve color detail this way, but it isn't pretty), but any competent shooter knows this. At least you can recover it, unlike the chroma clipping in Sonys (excepting the new modes recently enabled in the F5/5, kudos to Sony there). You also need to meter properly, with an external light meter, or you'll tend to overexpose on the C series as Canon Log can't be monitored as though it were rec. 

I'm not sure what more I can say. Noise texture is subjective, but the C series has a more random noise texture and less color noise than the 5D in any mode. If you like clumpy color noise when pushed, I can see liking the 5D more.

I can understand liking the 5D's image more overall. The color looks great and the full frame look is very "3D" and smooth. It's "less video" straight out of ACR than ungraded video footage from just about anything.

[IronFilm]

6 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

C300 MkI or II?

No matter which I person is going for, I wouldn't been keen to recommend either.....
 

C300 mk1 is less powerful than a Sony F3, yet a Sony F3 costs much less.

 

C300 mk2 is less powerful than a Sony FS7, yet a Sony FS7 costs much less.

[Policar]

15 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

No matter which I person is going for, I wouldn't been keen to recommend either.....
 

C300 mk1 is less powerful than a Sony F3, yet a Sony F3 costs much less.

 

C300 mk2 is less powerful than a Sony FS7, yet a Sony FS7 costs much less.

Sure, but the images are much better looking on the Canons. My laptop is more powerful than both, but its webcam isn't great.

The above said, I wouldn't upgrade from the 5D to the C300 hoping for a better image. The difference isn't great and you lose the full frame look. I would purely for ergonomics or because clients want it (it's easy to get a $600-$1000/day wet hire rate with one, vastly more for experienced ops–the FS7 is popular, too).

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Allow me to give you all the facts about the subjects and you decide, rather than state my opinion. 

 

-5DRAW vs C300/100 

 

Image quality

-5D has more tonal and gradation precision at 14bit vs 8bit. This means no banding or stair stepping. Though the C300 shows very low banding in gradients for an 8bit camera.

-5D higher tonal precision will allow more natural gradients in the grading process, and the image is uncompressed vs 50mbps MPEG2 (c300) & 24mbps MPEG4 (c100).

-5D has a larger pick up area, Full frame vs S35 (1x vs 1.5x crop). This gives shallower depth of field and see the full edges of your Canon FF glass (I.e., the FF aesthetic). C300 is cinema standard size, s35/aps-c, this also comes with the advantage of cheap brilliant Canon APS-C glass.

-Cx00 has higher resolution and detail. It's a native 4k sensor downsample to HD vs Pixel binning of 21mp sensor. Both have no aliasing/moire

-Cx00 has higher luminance dynamic range. The 5D raw sensor caps at 11 stops vs 12 stops in the cx00 in C-LOG

-Cx00 has significantly less skew & rolling shutter, a huge difference here.

-Cx00 has significant low-light advantage at high ISOs up to 20.000 ISO, both less noise amount and finer grain structure with no chroma noise (hard to believe this in raw vs mpeg but true)

 

Ergonomics 

-5D is incredibly ergonomic in a small package and one hand operation of all settings, with ML it's a very nice camera to use.

-5D is smaller and lighter and better on drones/gimbals and lower muscled people

-5D is much less obtrusive to people 

-Cx00 has a better fully articulated screen, has a rotating/removable handgrip, top hande, 15 more buttons for every function on the camera, all customizable

-Cx00 has a much better waveform monitor & scopes (realtime fluidity), both offer peaking & zebras but the 5D has a more accurate Magnification punch in while on cx00 it works whilst recording 

-Cx00 has integrated ND filters behind the lens. Much higher quality NDs with zero loss in quality or IR contamination

-Cx00 can record unlimited periods. Can use both cards for instant back-up. 

-Cx00 has incredibly reliable Auto focus system and tracking and face tracking (C100ii). 

-Cx00 has XLRs with incredible in-camera audio quality & dedicated knobs removing need for external audio recorders.

-Cx00 has a high quality EVF 

-Cx00 has full HDMI with LUTs, SDI, Genlock, Timecode connections.

-Cx00 has a much, much better battery, 4-5 hours straight vs 45mins.

-Cx00 is bigger, will impress your clients

 

Important notions

-5D takes much better stills. Cx00 is the best 2mp stills money can buy though

-5D is more weather resistant due to lack of fans. You can never take a cx00 out to shoot in the rain while go ahead with a 5DIII. (Seriously never ever take cx00s in the rain)

-5D shoots enormous stills + speedlights and is a full fledged PRO still machine for high-end work

-Cx00 files are SO much smaller and much easier to play with yet maintains awesome quality (see IQ section)

-5D will give higher vertical resolution number for 4:3 anamorphic. 

 

Onto C300 vs C100II:

 

C300I is better in

1 -C300 has SDI and Timecode connections

2 -C300 has an internal 50mbps 4:2:2 broadcast codec (but no IQ difference, in fact the C100II is a bit better, and with a recorder you can get the same codec, more on it later)

3 -C300 is slightly higher end in built, the NDs are electronically moved vs mechanically, the LCD can be detached, camera is 20% bigger.

4- PL mount option

 

C100II is better in:

1- Better ISO performance and sharper image and less aliasing (the processing pipe-line is higher end vs the C300I, not vice versa!)

2- Smaller, 80% of the size & weight, articulating screen on the back, very cool form factor and much more DSLR like

3- Newer Dual pixel AF, with face tracking when using STM lenses

4- Internal WIFI functionality 

5- Great 1080p 60p vs only 720p 60p on the C300

6- LUT capability through HDMI for client/director monitor while shooting C-LOG

7- Internal microphone for scratch audio without the top handle so you can go small

8- small new neat features like counteracting variable aperture lenses, fast motion with slow shutter, mp4 container, internal slo-mo, faster start up time

9- C100ii is about 3 thousand dollars less, much better to invest them in some glass and lighting.

 

So the c300I is only on the market for those who need to shoot for broadcasters without an external recorder and who need the SDI/Timecode connectors, otherwise C100II is a better cheaper & smaller camera in everyway.

 

It's a neater form factor for a 5DIII user, very cool, small, easy, light, makes sense. C300 is more Video Camera bohemous-like.

 

 

[IronFilm]

On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 0:47 PM, Policar said:

The above said, I wouldn't upgrade from the 5D to the C300 hoping for a better image. The difference isn't great and you lose the full frame look. I would purely for ergonomics or because clients want it (it's easy to get a $600-$1000/day wet hire rate with one, vastly more for experienced ops–the FS7 is popular, too).

Exactly, you can get a FS7 for very similar money to a C300 (a bit more than a mk1, heaps less than a mk2) and you get a camera in the FS7 which is overall better than either.

Unless you have some special circumstances, it is hard to see the logic in going for a C300 over an FS7/FS5/F3 option.

[zerocool22]

5 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Exactly, you can get a FS7 for very similar money to a C300 (a bit more than a mk1, heaps less than a mk2) and you get a camera in the FS7 which is overall better than either.

Unless you have some special circumstances, it is hard to see the logic in going for a C300 over an FS7/FS5/F3 option.

Well the FS7 is a good camera, but I am not sure the FS7 beats the C300 on a cinematic image level though. The sony camera's are usually spechorses, not workhorses(not really in need for slowmo). Besides the used price is more then double, so it is out of my reach anyway. 

[AaronChicago]

I would would highly recommend renting a C300 before buying. It's an amazing camera but you have to be sure you wanna commit to the 8 bit files when you're used to Raw from the ML 5D. Not saying the C300 can't create stunning images, but the difference in the robust codec on the FS7 and the C300 are pretty big. It's worth trying out first.

[jgharding]

I'm looking forward to the C100 Mk iii. If that doesn't have 4K I may well eat one of my hat collection.

[hmcindie]

On 05/03/2016 at 3:53 AM, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

-5DRAW vs C300/100 

Image quality

-Cx00 has significantly less skew & rolling shutter, a huge difference here.

-Cx00 has significant low-light advantage at high ISOs up to 20.000 ISO, both less noise amount and finer grain structure with no chroma noise (hard to believe this in raw vs mpeg but true)

 

Disagree with these two. The ISO of 20.000 on the C300 is more like ISO 6400 on the 5d iii. 5d iii is better in low light. 5d raw was actually (in really low light) very close to the A7s (after denoising). A7s seemed to be slightly darker at the same ISO.

Rolling shutter wise, if the 5d is about 20ms (you can get this to about 16.8ms with magic lantern by fiddling with the timers) then the C300 is somewhere around 16 too. (Basically the same as any CMOS cam, FS7 etc)

 

[Policar]

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Exactly, you can get a FS7 for very similar money to a C300 (a bit more than a mk1, heaps less than a mk2) and you get a camera in the FS7 which is overall better than either.

Unless you have some special circumstances, it is hard to see the logic in going for a C300 over an FS7/FS5/F3 option.

That was my thinking when renting an F5 over the C300, only to find the C300 much better in every way except slow motion option.

It seems the FS7 is a big improvement over the F5 and some clients are happy to rent them. Where I work the demand for C300 owner/ops is very very high and most clients won't consider other cameras in that price bracket (definitely not dSLR or C100–no timecode sync or broadcast codec). Then again a decent operator with some experience can make $30k/month without a camera and if you're a business owner the camera doesn't matter, just that the client is happy. Sounds like that's the category this poster falls into (business owner) and there are plenty of affordable options with good images and better workflows than the 5D. But it does deliver the best image for the price and any step up short of an Alexa will offer mostly just a better workflow.

[QuickHitRecord]

Regarding noise between the Canon C100 and the 5D Mark III (shooting raw), I did a body-cap ISO test with both of these cameras recently, and applied the exact same curves to both (to make the noise more visible. To really see them properly, you'll want to download the originals: