Tempted? Should you get a $6499 Canon C300 or wait until after NAB?

[Andrew Reid]

Canon C300 EF now $6499 at B&H

Canon C100 (Mark I) now $2999

Many people aren’t ready for 4K yet. These people just got the bargain of the century with a massive Canon price reduction on the old Canon C300.

Read the full article

[Julian]

It's still a $6500 camera with an EVF from the devil's arse

[eleison]

"Bargain of the century"???  More like "bargain for the next few months"...Assuming no "game changing" cameras at NAB which I highly doubt.

[Christina Ava]

im selling my car  i will ride with the c300

this is extra tempting. or i would rather the 1dc.

obviously they are making room for something awesome.

lets see!

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

It's resolution may not be on par with the GH4, but the image seems much nicer. But the the $6500 doesn't really seem like a bargain as much as it just seems like closer to a sensible price.  

[Andrew Reid]

Just get a GH2

[Jimmy]

The C100 is a very good deal. Maybe some here haven't used a camera with simple luxuries like built in NDs and XLRs, but it is so liberating.

I'd not be buying any $6500 camera so close to NAB though.

 

[Andrew Reid]

im selling my car  i will ride with the c300

this is extra tempting. or i would rather the 1dc.

obviously they are making room for something awesome.

lets see!

 

​Get the 1D C instead. I love it and can't even think of a way to improve the image it gives, aside from in the future global shutter.

Practical side, yeah smaller file sizes and tilting screen with peaking would have been nice as would an EVF but it's lovely to use as a stills camera and easy to rig for video while keeping the weight down, still much smaller and lighter than an FS7 or C300!

[Simon Shasha]

Andrew, my favourite part of this article was the part about the GH4 at the end...

[dbp]

C100 for 2999$ seems like the steal to me

It's an amazingly pleasant camera to use, but it's so hard to justify when GH4, bmpcc, A7S etc... exist

[Astro]

It's still a $6500 camera with an EVF from the devil's arse

​That is totally hilarious!! Laughed long and hard!!

[Astro]

I'll stick with my trusty GH4...for now, its plenty versatile, and gives me great results.

An inbuilt ND filter would be nice tho.

[Andrew Reid]

Here's a clear way to think about it...

The C100 and C300 image quality is no better than the A7S in APS-C crop mode. It's a bit worse in fact.

The A7S is $2499 so cheaper than both and still cheaper than the C300 by a considerable margin.

Really, what you are paying for is:

• Built in ND
• Native EF mount
• More robust build quality
• Better audio and XLR
• Full sized HDMI and HD-SDI
• Video optimised ergonomics
• Longer run times on one battery

BUT with drawbacks of..

• Worse EVF
• Larger and heavier
• No stills capability
• No speed booster
• No full frame look

Think that sums it up.

[IronFilm]

BUT with drawbacks of..​​

You also left off "worse low light"!

No WiFi either, which is a gimmick for many, but very handy for others (I quite liked it while using the A7s).

[Caleb Rasak]

If magic lantern got at the c100 now that would be incredible. The amount of things they could do to a proper ergonomic camera at $3000 are endless. Now that it is a dated camera I feel like ML should get at this camera. 

[IronFilm]

Canon has hinted that if ML ever touched their cinema range they'd rain down on them legal hell. 

So nah, is not going to happen!

The ML team is moving on to work with Axiom and Samsung NX1 instead. 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Let's expand it because I think this is an important subject now (a7s kind of camera vs C100)

A7s advantages:
-Full frame look + S35 + s16
-4K option with external recorder
-Better low light performance above 12800 ISO
-E-mount, adaptable to everything, and vintage glass lovers
-Slowmotion ability
-Much Better EVF
-Stills capability
-Wifi capability
-Smaller size, weight and cheaper price

C100 mk I advantages:
-In-camera audio, with XLRs, great preamps, phantom power, full control knobs/dials
-Much more buttons (15 all customizable)
-Much Less Rolling shutter
-Built-in NDs
-Included top handle and side grip, both detachable 
-Log Gamma can go under 3200 ISO (with the same DR of a7s S-Log)
-More extensive control over picture profile parameters
-Better LCD, with a waveform monitor, vectorscope, better peaking, better focus/exposure assist tools overall (from my own usage)
-Larger size and heavier weight for those who like that vs Smart-phone shapes, steadier handholding without gear
-Native EF mount, with full support as in fluid 1/8s stops aperture control, IS, distortion/vignette corrections
-Full HDMI, proper timecode, 
-Perfectly usable Autofocus (in the center)
-Dual Media recording two SD slots
-MUCH better battery life
-Higher build quality
-Last one is a bit unjust but sadly true: C100 has a better reputation as a professional camcorder, for example it's broadcast-approved and loved by broadcasters (externally recorded) and the larger Canon Pro Camcorder will please/attract more clients, it just has a better reputation. It's a factor to put in for many.


These are the facts parts, other objective ones are like Colour science and overall image look, that's to be determined by the user. Personally, I disagree with Andrew on A7s having better IQ is APS-C mode, to my eyes the C100 image is vastly better than the a7s. Grading C100 C-log images with skintones vs S-log2 shows how far these images are. 

I think they're different cameras as in C100 suited for fast reliable production while a7s more suited for tinkering & "creativity".

[dbp]

These are the facts parts, other objective ones are like Colour science and overall image look, that's to be determined by the user. Personally, I disagree with Andrew on A7s having better IQ is APS-C mode, to my eyes the C100 image is vastly better than the a7s. Grading C100 C-log images with skintones vs S-log2 shows how far these images are. 

 

​Agree on this. Obviously subjective, but I find the color science very pleasing out of the C100 and it's very easy to get a pleasant image in many scenarios. I've seen a number of threads on forums complaining about the A7S color science. 

Also, Andrew mentioned weight. Not sure about the C300, but the C100 is surprisingly light. With the same lens, it might even be a bit lighter than most of the DSLRs out there. Physically it would take up more space though. 

Can't forget the ability to be inconspicuous, especially with something like a GH4. You'd draw attention for sure with the C100. 

[j.f.r.]

Let's expand it because I think this is an important subject now (a7s kind of camera vs C100)

A7s advantages:
-Full frame look + S35 + s16
-4K option with external recorder
-Better low light performance above 12800 ISO
-E-mount, adaptable to everything, and vintage glass lovers
-Slowmotion ability
-Much Better EVF
-Stills capability
-Wifi capability
-Smaller size, weight and cheaper price

C100 mk I advantages:
-In-camera audio, with XLRs, great preamps, phantom power, full control knobs/dials
-Much more buttons (15 all customizable)
-Much Less Rolling shutter
-Built-in NDs
-Included top handle and side grip, both detachable 
-Log Gamma can go under 3200 ISO (with the same DR of a7s S-Log)
-More extensive control over picture profile parameters
-Better LCD, with a waveform monitor, vectorscope, better peaking, better focus/exposure assist tools overall (from my own usage)
-Larger size and heavier weight for those who like that vs Smart-phone shapes, steadier handholding without gear
-Native EF mount, with full support as in fluid 1/8s stops aperture control, IS, distortion/vignette corrections
-Full HDMI, proper timecode, 
-Perfectly usable Autofocus (in the center)
-Dual Media recording two SD slots
-MUCH better battery life
-Higher build quality
-Last one is a bit unjust but sadly true: C100 has a better reputation as a professional camcorder, for example it's broadcast-approved and loved by broadcasters (externally recorded) and the larger Canon Pro Camcorder will please/attract more clients, it just has a better reputation. It's a factor to put in for many.


These are the facts parts, other objective ones are like Colour science and overall image look, that's to be determined by the user. Personally, I disagree with Andrew on A7s having better IQ is APS-C mode, to my eyes the C100 image is vastly better than the a7s. Grading C100 C-log images with skintones vs S-log2 shows how far these images are. 

I think they're different cameras as in C100 suited for fast reliable production while a7s more suited for tinkering & "creativity".

​

 

I agree mostly, but also one thing you must not forget is C100 does not shoot 60fps Progressively, which can be something major for most. No doubt the Sony A7s is the best SLR camera within it's price range

[Policar]

The CX00 line has the best image rendering available short of the Alexa (worse highlight rendering than the Dragon, but much better noise pattern and low light and color) and this is a STEAL. But the C300 Mark II has some features that are really disruptive (and oddly forward-thinking) so investing now might not be the best choice, especially among the IQ-centric audience that populates enthusiast sites.

Canon (and Arri) are after the "pro" market. Which is all about "good enough" out of the box, because when you're "pro" you get paid and so hiring a crew and post team costs money. The focus isn't image quality. A low bitrate is desirable, as is an image that doesn't need (or have) much flexibility for grading... It's decent 1080p that has small file sizes in an easy-to-ingest format that attract the pros. Not because they're better or more talented (clearly they aren't judging by the quality of reality tv) but because they care about money first and a camera with small file sizes, amazing ergonomics, and a great image out of the box gets you the most for you money. For enthusiasts who enjoy grading and 4k and want the best IQ (if you like raw, don't get Canon–I can't stand raw because it wastes my time, so I love Canon)... go with something that's more techie and more fun. For wedding videographers and professional shooters on the low end, get what your clients prefer (Canon or Alexa more toward the high end).

That said, I like to judge images based on images and not specs. Canon's 1080p is sharper than anyone else's (not sharper than others' 4k, though, but 99% of the world is delivering to 1080p) and their colors are better than anyone other than maybe Arri. Sony's images have been garbage until SLOG 3 started to fix saturation clamping and color matrices but it's still nowhere near Canon level. Dragon Color is quite good, however, on the Red side. But the saturation clamping, skin tones, etc from Canon... brilliant. WideDR is a fantastic color space and Canon Log is sort of functional for what it is. 

The C300 isn't an enthusiast product, it's for pros (who care about money they can make back over image quality and about ergonomics; this is why the 1DX is 18MP to the enthusiast's 5DSR's 50+ MP but the 1DX has killer AF and durability) and so it is hard to recommend Canon to most people on this forum.

Especially when the C300 Mark II outclasses the Alexa. But it won't come cheap.