C300 Mark II announcement discussion

[Noa Put]

It's double the price, 8k for the fs7 vs 16k for the c300II according to B&H prices, I"m sure the c300 will particulary do well in rental houses.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Mat Thompson

Really ? - Why would you go for this when you can get an FS7 for £4000+ Cheaper and you get many more frame rate options.

I'm HARDLY a Canon fan, having owned Sony and JVC cameras exclusively for the past 15 years but what Canon does better than both historically is motion, especially in 24P. Sony's FS7 is struggling with aperture control on EF lenses and is a pain to edit right now in certain codec choices.

I PERSONALLY think it's a little high and the value isn't there for a price tag twice that of the Sony but for those with a catalog of Canon lenses and the ability to pay for the camera quickly through work, it's a pretty amazing setup.

Price ONLY matters if you can't recoup it.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Mat Thompson

"C300mkII actually looks a lot better than I had expected. I think they've certainly done enough to prevent a tidal wave of C300 owners switching over to the Sony FS7"

Plus the fact that you can actually buy an FS7 right now and the C300mkII will be... October?

[Ray Lee]

"Really ? - Why would you go for this when you can get an FS7 for £4000+ Cheaper and you get many more frame rate options."


For me I think its a little overpriced as well BUT for the big boys RAW output, color modes to match ARRI, even more dynamic range, 2k and 4k output simultaneously, and a PL mount are probably enough to justify it. Its priced like a GoPro when you think about what the large and medium budget movie types have into the Alexa kits. Seems like it would be cool to own a "cheap" camera that matches your ARRI rentals

If you have Canon EOS lenses, its probably worth the IS and lens communication


If both cameras were available a months ago, things what would have got me to at least look at the C300 even though its more than I really wanted to spend...

C300 the better screen and EVF (my $200 phone and 3 year old $500 iPad have a better looking screen than my FS7 and FS700) this is ridiculous and at some point when I can get a quality image EVF like the Zacuto Gratical (sans all the LUT's, outputs and high end processing) for around $1200 I will.

Better AF and more important for me better focus assist tools. Also being able to move the focus point and magnification area around is a big deal.

The color profiles... for the stuff I shoot people do not know what to do with SLOG and just ask for a baked in look so the WideDR look of the C300 (real color, high DR but a bit flat not LOG) sounds pretty cool... something I could deliver thats a step up for tweaking but so easy to grade a monkey could do it.

For the doc style sporting events I shoot being able to do 1080 to an SD card would be amazing... I could keep a copy on CFA$T and they could just walk away with the SD I need a swiss army knife, most people probably don't

Also I end up shooting in bright horrid direct sun (motorsports) so the low 100 ISO, 800 ISO base or the extra ND would be really nice



Starts to eat up the price difference once you factor the RAW back option and a new EVF, but I absolutely hate the super tall Canons with the audio/LCD tower on top of that. and RAW is a bit out of my league so its cool to not have to pay for it till I need it (or even just rent it)

[Dan Brockett]

Specs are way overrated. The Sony has better specs and it is much cheaper but it makes Sony pictures, bright, poppy colors, skin tones skewed toward blue-magenta, very unflattering. Have you seen any FS7 footage yet with good looking skin tones, motion characteristics, etc.? If you have, post a link.

The FS7 hits a great price point, about $10.5k with media and a good battery system. But the images look like a Sony. Canon images, especially of people, look considerably better to me, that's why I shoot Canons and only occasionally rent Sonys when the client wants that look. I rented the FS700 twice in 2014 and the F55 once, for a spot. They are not bad cameras but not flattering to people to my eye. That said, I am pitching a bunch of TV series. If we are lucky enough to sell a series, we may end up with three or four FS7s as I doubt we would have the budget for three or four C300 MKIIs. For cable TV, broadcasters love how Sonys look and I am fine shooting them although I much prefer the Canon look.

[John Wiley]

Originally Posted by Mat Thompson

"C300mkII actually looks a lot better than I had expected. I think they've certainly done enough to prevent a tidal wave of C300 owners switching over to the Sony FS7"

"Hot Cakes"


Really ? - Why would you go for this when you can get an FS7 for £4000+ Cheaper and you get many more frame rate options.

Reliability, compatibility & familiarity. On many productions (and in rental houses) price often comes secondary to factors such as these (provided the Image quality is there).

For people wanting to shoot RAW, the price starts starts to go up on the FS7 (still not into C300mkII territory, but notably so). You also don't need to worry about lens adapters with the Canon, which means one less thing that can go wrong on set.

Personally I'd prefer the FS7 but I can see why others would be happy to pay double the price for the C300mkII.

[Steve Struthers]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

The XC10 could be interesting for budget green screen work. It's 4:2:2. It's not 10-bits, but it is 4K. That could provide very clean detail for keys intended for 2K renders. (From an information point of view, quadrupling the pixels is similar to adding two more bits of information.)

Further, the 1-inch sensor is something like a 1.7x crop factor compared to APS-C. This may limit low light shooting and shallow DOF effects, but those aren't critical for green screen anyway. It's expected to light things well in a GS studio and it's generally better to keep the foreground object sharp for a crisp key.

Regarding the C300 mkII, it could be really sweet. I've rented the FS7 a couple of times and I love the high-speed shooting for b-roll, but I'm not in love with the look. It's not bad by any means, but there's something that says "electronic video" to me. With the new C300 offering 120 fps, killer dynamic range, less rolling shutter, native EF lens mount (I've broken a Metabones adapter), and the Canon look is a nice combination. I'll be curious to see the local daily rate...

I saw the video for the C300 MkII and it looks like an absolute powerhouse, with no less than 10 different LOG and tons of LUT settings, among other things. It looks like a worthy successor to the original C300, and Canon should have no trouble selling it to rental houses or well-heeled videographers.

I've always found Sony video to look much more 'electronic' and TV-like than anything Canon have ever marketed. Then again, Sony haven't been in the business of making higher-end still cameras for very long, but they've been making broadcast-quality ENG cameras for decades, so I would say their experience in this area tends to inform how their video output looks.

For what it's worth, I once bought a Sony FX7 camcorder that shot only 1080i and promptly sent it back because I didn't like the live-looking images it produced.

[Kyle Hawthorne]

Are you guys really getting a lot of requests for super slow motion?

95% of the content I see being produced is at normal frame rates and the other 5% is at standard slow motion frame rates (50p or 60p).

For those extremely rare instances when I need high frame rates I'll rent a phantom.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Personally, I thing having 120 fps for b-roll is perfect. Much faster and light gets scarce. 60 is perceivably slow, but it doesn't always stretch things out as much as I'd like.

My main use (with the FS7) has been for b-roll behind interviews. I work in a research lab and for a given project, the might be only so much interesting stuff to show. The researcher dialog often needs a lot of editing and it can be tough to find enough material to cover up the cuts.At 120 fps, I can milk each shot for all they can offer. I can also film micro expressions, such as the person in their work space looking at the camera and offering a quick, faint smile in a close up. I don't always need 120 fps, but it can be really helpful. When editing, it really helps stretch your coverage.

In a more dynamic environment, like a racetrack - or an NAB tradeshow, it's easy to get lots of content. (Of course, slow motion in a welding shop can make that content more interesting.) But when interviewing an engineer about some novel lines of code, finding good b-roll is tough and stretching it can save the day.

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

Specs are way overrated. The Sony has better specs and it is much cheaper but it makes Sony pictures, bright, poppy colors, skin tones skewed toward blue-magenta, very unflattering. Have you seen any FS7 footage yet with good looking skin tones, motion characteristics, etc.? If you have, post a link.

The FS7 hits a great price point, about $10.5k with media and a good battery system. But the images look like a Sony. Canon images, especially of people, look considerably better to me, that's why I shoot Canons and only occasionally rent Sonys when the client wants that look. I rented the FS700 twice in 2014 and the F55 once, for a spot. They are not bad cameras but not flattering to people to my eye. That said, I am pitching a bunch of TV series. If we are lucky enough to sell a series, we may end up with three or four FS7s as I doubt we would have the budget for three or four C300 MKIIs. For cable TV, broadcasters love how Sonys look and I am fine shooting them although I much prefer the Canon look.

You summed it up perfectly Dan.

I bought an FS7 four months ago, thinking it would become my main camera (with my existing C300 becoming the B-cam). Much as I try to like it, I just find the FS7 to be a lacklustre experience after using the Canon.

I just can't get the skin tones looking good in post (which is a breeze with the C300), the menu system is horrible, and the ergonomics (which I thought would be a strong point with the FS7) are awkward and unbalanced; I actually find the C300 much easier to use without a rig. The Canon has remained my main camera; it's just so hard working, reliable, and easy to get great images out of. You can concentrate on what you're capturing rather than trying to tame the camera.

As soon at the C300 mk2 hits the shops my FS7 will be out the door. This is just my personal experience of course, but for me the premium price is worth it for those shooting several days a week. The mk2 looks like a really nice step up from the first model while still retaining all the strengths / simplicity.

[Dan Brockett]

Thanks for your feedback Josh. Honestly, this goes way back to my HPX170 versus the EX1. I owned the HPX170 and shot with it. Yes, the images were a bit grainy but the color science was excellent. I had a client who owned the EX1 and always wanted me to shoot with it instead so I would. I agree, the Sony menu systems always suck and the images were super sharp, sterile and clean. My client liked them, I didn't. Having a clean, sterile signal is some people's idea of perfect but with me coming from a S16 background, I always preferred a bit of grain to the image and beautiful, flattering, lush skin tones and color.

Neither mindset are right or wrong, they are just preferences. My C100 reminds me a bit of the Panasonic, a bit grainy, not super clean or sterile but just beautiful, appealing color. Whenever I shoot with the Sonys, all of that "magic" disappears for me and I am left with super clean, clear, sterile images, even when shooting S Log, they just don't grade out to what the Canons give me.

[Jon Roemer]

Originally Posted by Mark Dobson

Thanks Jon. So that points to the other alternative for cash poor C300 owners - buy a C100 Mark II as a second camera and get some of the benefit of the OLED screen and new digic processor.

I think this new camera looks absolutely fabulous but am disappointed that the step up to buy it will be as great as the original C300. And to add to the cost is the need to build up a new set of batteries and cards. But it all seems like a natural evolution to 4K acquisition and editing. Having said that none of our clients have the ability to play 4K at the moment and large amount of end delivery is still at 720P!

There has been a lot of negative feedback about the price and maybe this will drop before the camera actually hits the street.

The original C300 was listed at $20k when it was announced but it never sold for that. It started out with a street price of $16k. I'm holding out hope that the Mark II's $16k list price will become a $12k street price (at the most?) come September.

Most of my delivery is 720P as well. My clients are the same w/4K. What appeals to me & what I wanted with the Mark II is 10-bit & 12-bit, higher frame rate options, the better screen, lower noise, better dynamic range, better AF, etc. But that said - I don't mind the long delivery window as I'll have lots of time to decide if I even want/need the C300 Mark II.

It wouldn't surprise me, too, if the C300 Mark II is not readily available until early 2016. With the C300 Mark I the cameras dribbled in over ~6 months before the supply was able to fill all the pre-orders.

[Paul Chiappini]

Originally Posted by Jon Roemer

The original C300 was listed at $20k when it was announced but it never sold for that. It started out with a street price of $16k. I'm holding out hope that the Mark II's $16k list price will be closer to $12k-$13k at the most come September.

From what I've read at various sites, I get the impression that the list price for the Mark II is $20k and $16k is street price.

[Mark Dobson]

Originally Posted by Jon Roemer

The original C300 was listed at $20k when it was announced but it never sold for that. It started out with a street price of $16k. I'm holding out hope that the Mark II's $16k list price will become a $12k street price (at the most?) come September..

Well some folk here in the UK are now selling for £9,900 + Vat. That is exactly what I paid for my C300 almost exactly 3 years ago. ( 8 days shy of 3 years ). I figure that with a bit of luck I might get £3.5K for my C300 which leaves just £6.5K to find for the new camera.

And if I look at that figure which is similar to the Sony FS7 and compare that with the C300 MK 2 I know which one I'll go for.

I'm still annoyed that Canon chooses to devalue my investment in such a dramatic way. If I do decide to upgrade It means that I will have paid around £2K a year to use my C300. However, looking the work we have done thats not actually too bad.

[Jon Roemer]

Originally Posted by Paul Chiappini

From what I've read at various sites, I get the impression that the list price for the Mark II is $20k and $16k is street price.

Paul - I haven't seen that on any sites. I've just seen the $16k number.