Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

What I really wanted to know (pardon me for not asking it specifically), is why should I buy a Canon C300 instead of the Scarlet X?

If it does have an 'edge', then what is the advantage? Because of the 'Canon' brand name? Because it works straight out of the box? I apologise if my questions seem idiotic. But I can't seem to find this answer in this forum (having read the other threads)

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

I'd say you'd buy it if you wanted a straight forward no-nonsense approach for high-quality 1080 production - shoot, straight to edit, and a broadcast codec without external recorder. No need for extensive digital "developing" of a RAW file. That's likely to be attractive for a lot of broadcast organisations.

Maybe not the most suitable if you are relying on a lot of heavy grading - but for a lot of TV drama etc, that's not going to be the case - no time or budget for more than "tweaking"! And likely to be used by cameramen who are used to getting it right in camera.

Worth reading what Adam Wilt has to say - ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews

And from his comments, he says:

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Happy to answer your question, now that you've asked one... but David beat me to it.
I'll add in SPEED as a main reason for taking the C300 over any Red. Fast set ups, (assumed) no reliability issues, and much faster post production. All of that equals money and that adds up fast. And in the broadcast world that runs on tight deadlines, this is a deal maker. Need to turn your spot around by tomorrow night? You ain't shooting on a Red, any Red, ever.

Another problem is that you're comparing apples to oranges. The C300 is really a competitor for the Sony F3. If you aren't looking at buying an F3, you shouldn't be looking at buying a C300 either.

And since you brought up the 5D3 in another thread... here's a dose of truth. The 5D3 isn't going to do more than the C300... so if you think the Scarlet is a better camera than the C300, you're going to think it's a better camera than the 5D3 as well.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

On the edge side, let's add low light ability (from what I've heard anecdotally, the red starts to show a lot of noise around 800-1200 ISo.. Which is about the c300's base ISO. Larry Thorpe showed a chart during an interview yesterday showing virtually no loss of dynamic range or s/n ratio at 6400 iso' and impressive numbers all the way up to 16000.

On the 120 fps red 1k mode. Keep in mind that's on a windowed sensor. (2/3" or I think 6.24 x crop) so forget anything wide angle or even normal length unless you have ultra wide glass or go with pl lenses.

For me the primary issue comes down go workflow. I cost of capturing storing and processing raw video is substantial and time consuming.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Probably depends on what you're actually going to be filming.

If you're doing a movie thats going to be screened theatrically, or something that needs excessive grading then Scarlet might be the one.

If you're doing something for broadcast (or anything that will be finished in 1080p like Vimeo for instance), or documentary work etc, then the C300 might be better.

But the C300 and Scarlet are aimed at different markets really. A better comparison might be which should I buy: the C300 or the Alexa? Which should I buy: the Scarlet of the Epic? Depends what you want to film.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

The C300 also has an advantage if you're working away from power. The camera doesn't seem to be power hungry and you might get away with keeping the lower cost CF cards as master media, rather than needing to download and make back up copies.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

There are several important operational differences between Scarlet X and the C300:

Data
- Scarlet: Max data rate is 440 Mbps
- C300: Max data rate is 50 Mbps
- Conclusion: Scarlet will require up to 8X more data storage space for as long as you own it. That's an enormous amount of data that could be a burden in the long run.

Power
- Scarlet's Redvolts only last about 25-30 minutes and cost $195 each.
- C300's BP-955 last 190 minutes and cost $175 (OEM)
- Conclusion: C300 totally wins here. You'd have to buy over $1100 in RED batteries and swap them 6 times just to equal the one battery included with the C300.

Media
- Scarlet exclusively uses RED SSD. The least expensive 64 GB drive is $950 and gets you about 25 minutes of run time.
- C300 uses off the shelf CF cards (but must meet minimum speeds). You can buy a 2 pack of 32 GB CF cards for $145. If you don't make a backup, 64 GB will get you 160 min of run time.
- Conclusion: C300 media is almost an order of magnitude more economical. If you consider cost per minute of run time, it's almost 40X more economical. RED's high performance certainly comes at a price.

Media Slot
- Scarlet SDD side module only has one slot and the drive is not totally enclosed
- C300 has dual, covered slots. This allows relay recording or simultaneous recording for an instant backup.
- Conclusion: Advantage C300

ND Filters
- Scarlet has no built-in ND filters. There will be a future option for a filter tray in the sensor port, but you can't change it without removing the lens.
- C300 has three built-in ND filters.
- Conclusion: Advantage C300

Side Handle/Accessories
- Scarlet side handle can not rotate. Accessories and cover plates mount with screws, requiring tools.
- C300 side handle feels like a Canon DSLR grip and can be rotated. All included accessories can be removed or attached without using tools.
- Conclusion: Advantage C300

Boot up time
- Scarlet, if similar to Epic, boots up in about 8 secs.
- C300 boots up in 4 secs.
- Conclusion: Advantage C300

Monitoring
- Scarlet's Bomb EVF is very good, but it's not included and it cost $3200. The 5.0" touchscreen is larger then the C300's LCD, but it has had some reports of reliability issues.
- C300 comes with an integrated EVF and the LCD unit can be mounted and rotated in more ways than the RED touchscreen
- Conclusion: Advantage C300

Connections
- Scarlet requires third party XLR or PRO I/O module for an extra ~$3000 and it has no ETA yet.
- C300 has full jack pack and dual XLRs.
- Conclusion: Advantage C300

Autofocus
- Scarlet with Canon mount can autofocus Canon EF lenses
- C300 does not have autofocus or auto exposure of any kind
- Conclusion: Advantage Scarlet

Regarding operational aspects, the C300 seems to be more attractive.

Regarding max grading potential, Scarlet has the advantage with 16-bit RAW workflow.

Regarding 4K recording, only Scarlet has this.

Regarding frame rates, Scarlet is less attractive if you consider the sensor gets cropped further and further as the frame rates go up. 60p can only be done at 2K, which is a 3.47X crop factor. 120p is only 1K and has a huge 6.4X crop factor. It's very important to understand Scarlet's data sheet and all the implications shown here: Scarlet X Data Sheet

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Tim,

All these are excellent points and often understated. These clearly make the C300 much more appealing for TV and documentaty productions and also make it a better choice for handheld camera work.

Take care,

Thierry.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

It's harder to distinguish reasons for/against the F3 compared the C300. The F3 can actually be purchased now. It's unclear when someone ordering today can get the other two cameras.

The power issue with Red is remarkable in 2012. I wonder what in their design is so power hungry. I don't see how a camera with those power specs can be called upgradable. Replacing the sensor and the electronics isn't an "upgrade".

In practice if the Scarlet data rate is desirable, then the change of storage and battery may sync. But the needs of both make for a bigger kit. Especially for someone shooting alone that's an issue. But do we know if Scarlet has the same power issues as Epic?

To me Scarlet is distinct in features and benefits from the C300 and F3. If the decision is unclear then perhaps project needs require further evaluation. If in practice Scarlet will need to shoot 3 or 4K to get good 1080p then that's a PIA to do frequently.

At this point only the F3 is the proven system.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Regarding theatrical screening, I think Canon put this one to bed at the Paramount Event. Images projected on a 60ft screen in the big theater looked stellar and certainly didn't raise any red flags regarding image quality in this type of venue. There was no question in my mind that this camera can and will be used in "film"

Regarding grading. I think the best way to describe Scarlet-Xs advantage here is "flexibility in grading"...essentially allowing for a more neutral, less committed approach when shooting. For folks coming from a traditional film background, (accustomed to getting the look in camera) this might be considered lazy...for those coming from a digital still photography background (like Jim Jannard...umm...and myself) this could be considered an essential freedom.

Barry

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

I just spent a week pulling focus on an Epic for the first time. I can't compare the Scarlet yet but here's some first thoughts on the Epic. We were in studio and are heading outside next week.

The two things that jumped out at me were power consumption, media cost, and workflow.

Firstly the Epic is Power Mad - literally... this thing eats batteries. If Scarlet is anything close, you either better plug it in or buy extra,batteries

Media cost - at 5k and 5:1 compression we got about 30 mins on a 128gb card. We rotated 4 of them. I don't like reformatting non-replaceable media when it's not that critical, never mind critical stuff. We re-formatted the SSD daily. That is a little scary to me. The 128gb SSD are 1,800.00 each. So we were re-formatting about 7,500 worth of media daily. The Scarlet production package ships with 1-64gb SSD. You will definitely need to upgrade. Depending on compression rate - it's about 3.5k for an hour of media.

We shot with the Red 18-85 t2.9 lens, which is a beast at about 12 pounds. Set-ups were really slow. This wouldn't be an issue with Scarlet.

The Epic doesn't yet have in-cam playback (although any day now) and we had to review by pulling media and plugging into the proprietary Mag reader. I'm not even sure what that costs.

Basically, the Scarlet production package might list at 15k, but you will definitely need to add at least 5k more in basic upgrades, plus glass to have a functioning workflow.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

This was added yesterday :-)

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

You could be still using that lens on a Scarlet, it really depends on the lenses you're using on either the Epic or the Scarlet. Likewise you could mount this lens on a PL mount C300.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Yes...but why. It is a freaking beast.

Our Canon mount was ordered in August and is still not shipped. Supposed to be here next week. We had to add 10 pounds of counterweight to the back to try to balance it a little.

And yes... that is a carbon fibre matte box on the front. Kind of like eating a 3,000 calorie meal, but drinking a diet coke with it. :P

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

It's a cine zoom lens, with all the mechanical advantages over a stills lens when shooting films. These lenses are all about that weight

You need to rig it using the support bars and a bridge plate that the camera/len combo balances, in this case more or less somewhere under the lens. It's a set up you'll find when small cameras are used with the larger lenses. This arrangement commonly also happens with 2/3" TV cameras using very large zoom range lenses which are often fitted for sports coverage.

When properly rigged you can easily move the combined camera and zoom lens as one unit to the next camera set up.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Great summaries above about the pros and cons of the two cameras.

Under/over crank is an advantage for Scarlet. You can undercrank for action/fight scenes. For slow motion, rent an EPIC head and add it to your Scarlet setup and Scarlet workflow. The C300 supports 1080 @ 24/25/30 (I believe), but you can't dial it down to 18/20/22.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Brian I realize its a cine lens but i dont think that the future is in this style of glass. The director of the film I'm working on was really cursing the fact that the canon mount hadnt been delivered yet. We were trying to shoot some scenes handheld, and were crippled by the weight of this lens. Red has had an overwhelming response to their announcement of the canon mount.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

On the other hand, the question is more F3 vs C300. My personal take is to go with Sony all the way for the following reasons (all of which the C300 lack):

-60p @ 1080p
-3D link
-4:4:4 uncompressed 10 bit output
-LUTs
-Simultaneous SDIs with both LOG and LUTs
-AF/Zoom control for run and gun/ENG setups with the proper lenses
-Decades of Sony experience with Cinealta digital film cameras
-Firmware after fimrware, the camera gets solid newer features
-Mounts pretty much all lenses with the SAME camera
-Tried and tested, available now, cheaper, better balanced, better ergonomics

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Actually you can undercrank it. 1-30 frames in 1080 and 1-60 frames in 720P.

Barry

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

I hadn't seen that (or had missed it) in the write ups that I had read.

Nice feature, Canon! I hope to see that on the next gen DSLRs as well!

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

You don't usually shoot hand held with this lens, although it has been done in the past with similar lenses on 35mm film cameras because they needed to zoom in the shot. In the cases I've heard of they've put on 1000ft magazine for balance. For hand held 35mm work prime lens are the norm. The RED zoom is a workhorse for use on the tripod head.

The problem is that stills glass has a lot of disadvantages for shooting films. The issue is that is most commonly raised one is that of breathing (the slight zooming effect whilst focusing), but also many stills zooms don't hold their focus when they're being zoomed. That's not an issue when shooting stills, but limits the lens for motion picture work, because you have to eye focus and redo all the focus marks every time you change the focal length.

The other problem is that the focus scale on the still glass is compact compared to much more expanded cine scale. Some old cine lenses did have a more compact scale, but the expanded focus scale has replaced them.

The reason why many people are wanting the Canon mount is the lower cost of the mass produced still lenses. Although, some cine primes allow you to change their PL mounts to still, as do the new Canon cine zooms. However, the latter are a pretty similar size and weight to the RED zoom. Size will always enter the equation when you want a Super 35mm zoom lens that has more than a 3 to 1 zoom range with a f 2.8 max aperture. The compact large zoom range, low cost zooms now being brought out have very large aperture ramping (and not that fast), which is useful for certain applications, but they are a compromise,

The still lenses do allow the option for automatic focus, but how well this will work in practise on more complex scenes with the focus being precisely pulled with full emotional effect remains to be seen.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

I'm sure the Red support for significant feature films is very good. And that they make a real effort for everyone else.
But the unique environment Red has created, especially in their forum, has minimized the reporting of these problems. It's a shame that Chris seems to give Red special treatment. They're big boys now and should face the same critical analysis as the other brands.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

I think you're wrong, amigo. DSLR shooters are pushing more into the cine lens world, prices on used cine lenses are climbing fast. No, you wouldn't want to shoot a cine zoom handheld, unless you had a) the appropriate shoulder rig, fine tuned, or b) a large gorilla as a cam op.

Brian covered a couple of the reasons, but also:
* edge to edge sharpness. Most still lenses fail here.
* bokeh, still lens 6 blade iris = yuck
* real focus ring (focus puller suicide rates are skyrocketing!)
* sharper at full open, many still lenses are soft until you stop them down (granted, this is more a case by case than a rule)


btw, awesome t-shirt.

Weight of lenses
 

The discussion about wishing for cine lenses to be lighter is slightly off topic but a good one.

For folks coming from the DSLR world, cine zooms are going to be a shocker in every way--cost, weight and size. And they aren't getting much smaller any time soon. The new Canon zooms are around 10 and 13 lbs, and the Arri Aluras introduced this year are roughly the same (the longer one at 16 lbs). For about half the zoom range, the Angeneiux Optimos are definitely better suited for handheld, at around 4 lbs.

For the past few months we had my Alura 18-80 on the F3 with a good amount of accessories onboard in a handheld configuration and my operator was fine with it, but we are used to 30 lb+ cameras.

Balancing heavy lenses these days is a lot easier than it was in the film days, where you were locked to the position fore-aft of the optical viewfinder. Now you can set the viewfinder anywhere along the body you want, so just move it forward as far as possible and use a shoulder pad that can move anywhere along the baseplate ( or on the operator's shoulder). No need to add counterweight unless it has utility. I generally avoid the aftermarket shoulder rigs that include a cutout for the shoulder because it is rarely at the center of gravity of the system and thus useless to me. If one is pulling one's own focus then you need to be able to access the lens, which may crimp the ability to push the weight of the system backwards and still get your hand on the lens or a follow focus.

I'm sure we will soon start seeing cine-style conversions of still zooms to answer the need for inexpensive, lightweight PL mount lenses that will satisfy the needs of the DSLR migrators. However I don't expect these to truly compete with the "proper" zooms in critical ways. Unlike cameras, lenses are subject to the rather rigid laws of physics so it may be a while until we see radical changes in this arena. I do feel that the future does hold the possibility of real-time correction in the camera for optical issues (something like what still cameras currently do in terms of fixing chromatic aberration and distortion) which will pave the way for lighter, cheaper lenses to become viable.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

With an electronic V/F, there's probably no reason with a large zoom and a small camera, that you couldn't have a rig where the combo sits on your shoulder. this being designed so as to allow it to rest at the CG around the back half of the lens. This would involve mounting the V/F on the matte box area and with the camera module at the back of your head, where the battery has been traditionally located.

However, the down side to this arrangement is reaching the aperture ring for in shot adjustment.

There are some modified stills non varifocal zooms for cine work being made, but they are not DSLR lens cheap and I suspect they may never will be.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

I think we will see some big changes in lenses, thanks to advanced electronics. While lenses are constrained by the laws of physics, there are many things that electronics can do to simplify lens design making lenses lighter, simpler and more compact and with fewer elements. Fewer elements normally equates to better IQ as less glass means less flare and fewer aberrations (assuming a good design). Cameras like the EX1 and XF305 already make use of electronics to greatly simplify their lenses. In effect they have varifocal zoom lenses (like a DSLR zoom that does not track focus). An electronic look up table is used to apply an offset to the focus throughout the zoom range so that the lens holds focus as you zoom. In addition all the focussing is done with the rear elements, this eliminates breathing. Compare the size and weight of the 14x zoom on an EX3 to a typical 14x broadcast lens. The new Sony 14x18 zoom for the F3 has a similar zoom range to the Angenieux Optimo 18-252 lens yet is a fraction of the size and weight. Admittedly the Sony lens is no where near as fast, but it is also fraction of the price and incorporates image stabilisation, auto iris and auto focus. So I think we will start to see more and more electronically assisted lenses, possibly based on DSLR designs, that will track focus, won't breathe and offer good image quality at reasonable prices.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

The Angenieux what now?? You mean the 24-290?

The announced Sony lens is impressive in scale, but as you noted it's not fast, and the lack of consistent iris throughout the range makes it (for me) not a production lens, more suitable for a doc/news etc. It's cool that the new Canon long zoom has the extended range out to 300mm, but also at an exposure hit (past 240mm. It's a bit dangerous because there is always the possibility of nudging the focal length out past the point where the exposure will drop (if you have lit the set to less than the maximum aperture) and if you are moving fast you might not notice that you've lost stop.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Yes I meant the 24-290.

Not saying the Sony lens is perfect, but it is an example of the way lens technology is developing and bringing much smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses that can still produce high IQ.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

If RED have been having problems with the Scarlet fixed holding focus while zooming, it may be not so easy to track the elements for use with the larger sensors. Although, I'm sure that in the end this is just a development hic up.

The interesting thing would be doing this with an interchangeable lens, rather than a built in zoom.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

I read that the 1st Scarlet has been delivered, and is being used on an Epic shoot to do pick-up shots.

However, the user noted that a fully charged Red-Volt battery gave him 36 minutes of standby time! Going to need a lot of batteries for that puppy.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Thats exactly what weve been doing. The camera body works as a counterweight to the lens. Works great. Will post pics on Monday.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

The PMW350 kit lens performs similar tricks and performs incredibly well for the price. I was shooting with the kit lens and two HJ22s and the kit lens produced a sharper image, especially in the corners. It also had a lot less CA, doesn't breath at all and is very compact. It obviously doesn't have the range of an HJ22 and there is variation from one lens to another but it is a great example of Alister's point.

There are minor issues. For example, if you do a fast crash zoom the focus lags by around one frame. In real world shooting this isn't really noticeable unless you frame-by-frame in the edit.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

This forum topic lists a lot of +/- for buying/shooting with the Scarlet-X or C300, but what
I find interesting is that nobody is actually considering buying "one or the other".

Let me explain.

I have friends who shoot on the Sony F3, Sony FS-100, Red One, Red Epic and other friends considering purchasing the Scarlet-X, but I don't know of anyone considering buying a Canon C300.

Yes everyone's talking about both cameras, but discussions of whether to buy a "Scarlet-X vs C300" are purely hypothetical because prospective Scarlet-X buyers that decide the necessary accessories are too expensive are not going to be buying a C300 instead. The C300 is not their back up plan.

Canon C300 buyers are like the mythical "anonymous sources" quoted by reporters in news stories. People we will never know or see the face of.

Seriously, does anyone out there personally know anyone who is planning on buying a C300?

It's like the much hyped introduction of the Panasonic AF-100 (which some people own) however, Panasonic's AF100 sales have underwhelmed to say the least.

Canon has two things going for it with the C300.

First, if it bombs we will never know because Canon has pride and deep pockets and can absorb the production costs.

Second, speaking of production costs, the C300 appears to be pieced together from Canon's $3,000-$7,500 XF line, (granted with an improved much larger sensor), but realistically worth let's say $9,000, but price gouged up to $20,000 so again even if sales are slow it won't be much skin off of Canon's back.

Once again, without referring to mythical TV producers, does anyone know anyone who is going to buy a Canon C300?

I know a lot of people in Hollywood and as of Nov 20, 2011 I don't know anyone planning on buying a Canon C300.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

I'm sure I saw a reference to proper 3D support amongst the Canon specs?

And whilst the F3 may give out a 1080 4:4:4 signal to record, the sensor won't be capable of filling it with information. DeBayering gives resolution of about 80% of the sensor dimensions (2456x1372 in the case of the F3) for luminance, about 50% for chrominance. Hence you can predict about 1965x1100 for luminance, but only about 1228x686 for chrominance. Nothing wrong with those figures for actual usage - but to do justice to 4:4:4 recording the chrominance figure would need to be higher.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

I think Scarlet can control the autofocus lenses, just as C300 can, but doesn't have autofocus sensor to focus by itself.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

I do.

Seriously Andy, I know you probably have your finger on the pulse of cinema community in and around Los Angeles County, but I think you underestimate Canon, it's resources in terms of market understanding, and it's engineering and manufacturing prowess. There have been a number of people on this forum who are quick to point out the areas where the c300 trails the competition (while completely ignoring the very significant areas where the c300 rules the roost -- it think the point of this thread)...and thus arriving at the consensus that this camera simply cannot and will not compete.

I have no crystal ball that can forecast sales for canon but I can tell you this: As a still photographer who dabbled in video a long time before the 5dmarkII arrived, I can tell you that my business changed the day it did. All of a sudden my commercial clients were very interested in the video work I was doing and thus today most still projects I'm involved with include video as part of the package. Yet my experience with the 5dmarkii has left me wanting. In terms of video it reminds me a little of my first real digital still camera, the 10d, over a hundred years ago, a camera that was a nice entree into the digital world, but it was a poor substitute for the film world I was coming from. The high resolution digital backs from Hasselblad and Phase changed photography for me back then.

Today, the 5dmarkII as good as it is, and as polished as the work we've done with it is, is an unruly beast when it comes to color, exposure, focus...everything. I'll make a lot of money this year using a camera like the c300 because it will fit nicely in my existing system of lenses and accessories, and it won't require the wholesale rebuild of my workflow like the Red will. In fact it won't change the size of my kit at all, and as someone who already is carrying too much to a shoot...that's a great thing. That's why I'll be buying one. My guess is there are a few other people in my situation.

But to get to the main point, Canon has said that they built this camera for all the industry people who were essentially ripping their 5dmarkII's apart, mounting PL lenses on them to use in situations where their film cameras, alexas, reds etc were too big, or to expensive to place in certain situations. Those people already have a primary workflow and the c300 will make a great second (or even first) camera.

A true cinema camera with a nice codec and a simple workflow, that uses glass that is inexpensive, plentiful and probably already in your kit is a pretty big draw in the real world.

Finally, in the area of television, this camera is a no brainer. (And don't forget all those guys out in the valley who'll be putting these things to very important use.)

Barry

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

I considered one vs the other and I bought a Scarlet. But I'm in film (well mostly), so it appeals to my market more.

That's probably because your friends are all filmmakers, not broadcast people.


That's correct... because the two are different tools aimed at different markets. People in the market for a screwdriver don't go looking at a hammer if they don't find a screwdriver they like. Well... maybe Texans.

Yes, I know one major (well, for Canada) company looking at them.


What makes you think it will bomb? Because a dozen of your filmmaker friends aren't going to buy it?

I know a lot of people who drive cars, but as of Nov 20, 2011 I don't know anyone who is thinking of buying a Ferrari 599 GTO.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Dylan,

btw, that was the camera owner with the cool t-shirt. The Epic is his first Camera, and he rarely takes his hands off it. I'm pretty sure he sleeps with it.

Re: Lenses and focus. When we had our pre-production meetings i was told we'd have the canon mount, canon glass, and touch screen focus, and the Red 18-85 was 'just in case'. We also have the Red Clutch at around 7k. but handheld is barely possible.

I was seriously thinking scarlet for my next camera, but it's major overkill for 90% of my stuff, and while the initial cost is 15k, you really have to add 10 more for media, batteries, etc... but when you consider that a Betacam cost at least 60k (cdn) back in the early 90's, we are living pretty spoiled to have so many great choices today.

I remember Red used to say, 'we make obsolescence, obsolete' or something like that. Which is ironic, because the Red Ones seem to being kicked to the curb, and lots of good ones are for sale.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Great posts here.

The Canon looks like a much more useful tool than the Red in spite of the hefty price. The Red has some advantages for movie making, but surely people doing feature films would rent for the duration anyway?

And let's not forget this is just the beginning for Canon, and before long we'll see higher spec models appear with customary reliability and a solid support network.

Re: Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?
 

Producers doing broadcast TV drama tend to rent as well.