I've surfed the web for all the C300 footage I could find, and nothing is convincing me to even rent this cam. I own a 7D and a 550D (T2i). I occasionally use the 5D Mk II as well. But this cams footage is not that far off from what I already use. I love strong DOF. And the ISO settings aren't anything many of us can't handle in post. I hope I'm not coming of pessimistic. I know that there are perks with the above mentioned features, but does that justify the $20,000 price tag. Not at all IMHO. It's just the footage is essentially the usual Canon HDSLR stuff we've already seen. I'm actually thinking about a Sony A77 to experiment with the full 1080p 60p more so than this. Anybody agree?

I own a 7D and a 550D (T2i). I occasionally use the 5D Mk II as well.

The C300 isn't really pointed at 7D owners or Rebel owners. It's intended primarily for
broadcast television production. If you're not shooting for broadcast / satellite distribution,
if you're not shooting for Discovery or History Channel or HGTV for instance, then it's
probably not the right choice for you.

Unless you already own or are planning to buy some really expensive PL-mount cinema
glass or L-series EF lenses, you're *not* the target market for the C300.

I love strong DOF.

I bet you meant to say the opposite. Like a lot of folks, including me, I bet you love shallow DOF.

And the ISO settings aren't anything many of us can't handle in post.

Have to disagree. In my experience it's practically impossible to "simulate" a very clean high ISO in post.

but does that justify the $20,000 price tag. Not at all IMHO.

I'm not sure how many times I've said this now, but after the first month it *ain't* gonna sell for $20,000.

I'm actually thinking about a Sony A77 to experiment with the full 1080p 60p more so than this.

That sounds like an excellent idea, and at ~$2,000 it's much more in line with the
Rebel / 7D price range. I think we should probably host a Sony Alpha forum here.

I suspect if you projected the images from those particular cameras along side the images from the C300 on a 40 foot screen you'd notice the difference quite easily. You can't tell that much from highly compressed web video viewed on a computer, you can lose a lot during the compression process.

I once viewed 2 examples of the same scene, one was compressed and the other wasn't, but one looked sharper than other. It turned out the softer scene was the uncompressed, the compression process had removed the diffusion that the DP had used on the camera and made it look sharper.

The Moire test and the vibration tests in the test video here http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/new-canon-cinema-eos-c300-c300-pl-cameras/503136-nice-c300-peice-jonathan-yi.html show marked advantages over DSLRs.

The camera isn't being sold at $20k, it's just a price that Canon gave out at the announcement. Even in the UK you can order the C300 for less than that price, Canon haven't yet given out their actual US price yet and the street price could be even lower again.

Is this about the price again?
It is, isn't it.
Might need an "I hate the C300 list price" forum at this rate.

I kid, I kid.

But I must be reading the wrong blogs or something. The real question would seem to be "Does the C300 deserve the scorn?" based on what I've seen.

Once the camera ships in January, if all remains on schedule, there will be plenty more examples of footage out there. In fact, the production version of the camera may well solve some of the concerns raised with the footage that currently exists.

Hype is only effective if you buy into it. The C300 may not be the groundbreaking camera that we were all hoping for, and it is likely not to hit a price point that many DSLR users wanted, but it is clearly a solid contender and a much more user-friendly camera than the DSLR's in terms of form factor and flexibility. I myself got much more out of Jonathan Yi's demo clip than any of the ones that Canon used for the rollout, so safe to say that the hype didn't work on me.

Look at the C300 projected in a theater and then you will understand that it is meant to compete with RED and Sony F3, not with DSLR. Online with web compression, all of these camera platforms are comparable. In a theater or even with HDTV, it's another story.

Yes, it's worth the hype. Amazing battery life, incredible low-light quality, good form factor, and lens versatility. Ultimate cinema-ENG crossover.

I always use the word strong when speaking about shallow DOF.

@ Jad. I took my girlfriend to see Like Crazy a few weeks ago and to be very honest, her and everyone I talked to after the screening told me they thought it was shot on film or an expensive HD cam (Red, Arri, F35). The images were stunning.

I know that there are perks with the above mentioned features, but does that justify the $20,000 price tag. Not at all IMHO.

You make a very good point, and for many it will no way worth all that cash. The DSLR's are and will remain an amazing tool to give filmmakers on a low budget the ability to create images that resemble the more expensive cameras.

For me though what makes the C300 worth all that extra cash are the tools included and reliability it brings to the table. Obviously any improvements in image quality are going to be nice as well.

I spent some time with the C300 a couple of days ago and have written loads about why it's worth it to me on my blog if interested.

Canon C300 first look review | Paul Joy (http://www.pauljoy.com/2011/12/canon-c300-first-look-review)

DSLRs are amazing, but one shouldn't ignore their shortcomings: aliasing, limited resolution, rolling shutter, ergonomics, lack of pro features (XLRs, timecode, HD SDI, genlock, redundant media slots.) The C300 keeps the general "look" of DSLRs, but it does so with higher quality and a pro feature set. DSLRs simply don't compete when you compare the cameras beyond the general "look".

Also consider that the best DSLR footage avoids problem shots. Good shooters know a camera's limits, so they manage camera motion, dynamic range, and high-frequency content. Do that and a DSLR looks brilliant. Push the limits and the C300 will continue to perform well while the DSLR will fail to deliver.

It's really no contest. That said, if the budget only allows a DSLR, respect its limits and you can deliver great results.

Enjoyed your blog post Paul. I see many of the negative issues being addressed/understood more. And your biggest disappointment is the same as mine. With all this talk of 48 and 60 frames being the next step in cinema, I wanted to test out a full HD image at 60p. Thats why I'm looking into the A77.

I hope I'm not coming of pessimistic. I know that there are perks with the above mentioned features, but does that justify the $20,000 price tag. Not at all IMHO. It's just the footage is essentially the usual Canon HDSLR stuff we've already seen.
I'll repeat again what Chris says: "It's intended primarily for broadcast television production."

And it's important to ask yourself how a camera should be judged from their viewpoint. It's easy to think "well, the pictures should look nice!", but unfortunately (and quite apart from usability/ergonomic issues) that's just not good enough. Aliasing is a good example of why so. At a relatively low level, aliases can seriously affect the compressions used in the broadcast chain, even if not really visible in first generation pictures. To a broadcaster, they may mean that the broadcast bitrate would have to be higher for similar quality than if cameras with little aliasing are used in the first place. And aliasing on DSLRs is well above that level - typically it IS visible at the first generation.

DSLR pictures may seem OK at straightforward viewing - but fall apart sooner in the production chain. But it's impossible to generalise.

And to a broadcaster, the price difference between a fully equipped DSLR and a C300 is a drop in the ocean compared to other fixed costs. For that matter, it becomes pretty small compared to the amount of money that may be spent on a kit of lenses for higher end work. And that may be the reason for wanting to use a large format video camera in the first place.

You can't tell that much from highly compressed web video viewed on a computer...

Can so.

I have a 14" monitor; and I need to be critical. The 5D II, GH2, 1D X don't have the richness or depth of colour, nor the breadth of sharpness to softness that the C300 has. Even webcast.

And I can forgo the moire. Though I do love the jerkiness and the jello of those old cameras... if only they had the richness, depth, and breadth...I'll keep dreaming, and by the time I get a script together that's worthy of the C300's quality it'll. be 1/3 the price. Or, there'll be something better at less than that, such as the C300JJ ( for jerk & jello ), or whatever.

Yes, I know but not everyone sees it. Even in the windowed play outs you can see differences to the C300 images to those from the DSLRs, but as you say these become much more obvious (and with some more differences) when played full screen. Viewing on a large monitor or projected on a screen through a quality system recorded images from the cameras without the web compression will reveal even more.

Re broadcast, I speaking to an expert from a well known UK broadcaster during the month before the Hollywood launch and I got the impression that they may have been in the loop and he was holding back from discussing it.

As a follow up.

A short film I directed on 35mm film has an opening close shot of two people's lips moving into shot to kiss. The experienced DP and 1st AC lined up the shot and at the time I wondered if, with the variables, it would sharp be the way the were doing it, but I let them continue. During the edit the shot looked fine on the AVID and its large viewing screen, the neg was then printed onto 35 mm and then, when projected for the first time on a large screen, you could see the shot was soft. On the DVD copies it looks OK, but every time the print is projected you can see the soft shot.

I think the images from the C300 look beautiful. Brian brings up the projections issues and even mentions the "35mm kiss".

Last year, I contributed footage shot on HDCam to a film. The editors told me the HDCam material holds up beautifully as long as it is sharp to begin with. We had one other contributor who shot on another codec but was contracted for what is most easily described as "political" reasons. They had a hell of a time with the post on that stuff.

The number of pixels and lines of resolution are only good if the contrast and dynamic range can actually help resolve the final image. Too many people are hung up on the 2k, 4k BS. The image has to be seen and used to be effective. The colors need to be true. Soon we will be guided to cameras which will not need white balancing, and in my mind this is a difficult concept to play with. That being- just shoot it RAW and correct it all in post. After 20 years as a DP that is nearly offensive.

We already have cameras that don't require white balancing and in fact won't take it, outside of 3200 or 5600 (F3 in S-log, for instance). To me, that's not that big of a deal--baking in a warmer or cooler tone via white balance "cheat" or filtering is only a concern if you won't be consulted in the final color correction. That's the REAL offense and it's becoming more and more of an issue.

While it is "easier" to work in a raw or log mode that has a substantial amount more forgiveness than nailing exposure in a limited range environment (similar to negative vs reversal), as always the image is only as good as the individual behind the camera. I do get nervous about the wide range of possibilities for the final look that can now become a group effort, but at the same time, with budgets ever tightening and less crew and gear along with higher expectations, the higher dynamic range cameras do allow for better results with less "help".

Coincidentally I just watched dailies from a recent shot that started in backlit daylight, moved through 3/4 frontal daylight then through a door into a vast interior with no natural light. I elected to shoot it (on the F3) at 3200K with the knowledge that I could dial in the daylight correction in the opening section without any concerns, which allowed me greater lighting flexibility for the interior portion. I also had to do a remote iris pull from one end of the lens to the other during the transition from exterior to interior--T16 to T1.3 on a Superspeed--which was pretty hairy at the time but looks all but invisible on camera. Without the latitude of S-log, the exterior would not have contained itself at T16. Amazing to me that we can now pull off shots on relatively inexpensive HD cameras that rival or better the dynamic range of film.

Have you seen the quality at really high ISOs? I think it is worth the hype, I know I'd rather have a C300 over my 550D, if I had the money.

I'm guessing the main reason behind it not being worth the hype is the price? Yes, it's much more expensive then any of the current DSLRs, but it is better then the DSLRs as well.

Soon we will be guided to cameras which will not need white balancing, and in my mind this is a difficult concept to play with. That being- just shoot it RAW and correct it all in post. After 20 years as a DP that is nearly offensive.

I'm working with a Red Epic now, and that's all i hear. 'We're shooting RAW, we'll fix it in post'. Seems very foreign. Neutral density filters don't seem to be needed either. It's a new reality. That means quicker set-ups in a lot of cases.

To the original poster. After shooting 2.5 years and 18,000 clips on a 5d2, I'm definitely aware of its strengths and shortcomings and I look at the c300 as a giant leap forward. The price of the c300 is nearly that of my XLH1 - 5 years ago. And personally, for 90% of the work i do, 1080p (with a solid codec) is more than enough.

As far as price goes, you are either young or new to the industry. No offense intended. Go back a few years and look at camera price/performance. Besides, if this camera were priced too low, it would only add many more supposed professionals to the ranks of camera ops. Slightly tongue in cheek on the last part.

Soon we will be guided to cameras which will not need white balancing, and in my mind this is a difficult concept to play with. That being- just shoot it RAW and correct it all in post. After 20 years as a DP that is nearly offensive.

It's worth taking a step back for a moment and considering what white balance does on a typical video camera, something like a PDW-700, EX1, XF305, C300 etc. Light is filtered in to it's R G and B components, either via a prism or on chip filters. The sensor pixels themselves just capture the light falling on them and output a monochrome luma signal, regardless of colour temperature etc. Through signal processing a colour image is created by mixing monochrome, luma only output from the R G and B chips in a 3 sensor design or the R G and B photo sites on a single sensor. Then we have a colour image. The white balance process is done during the combining of the mono chrome signals that represent R G and B levels by adjusting the gain of the R and B channels relative to G, so white balance is simply a gain operation performed away from the sensor itself. So, if you do have either a raw sensor data output (like red) or an RGB sensor output, it really doesn't make a great deal of difference whether you white balance on set or in post.

Alisters post above is fundamentally correct - the photosites output values depending on the filtered light falling on them. White balancing basically just means altering the relative gains of RvGvB such that something intended to be white becomes it. If the exact values of the photosites can be recorded, it doesn't matter whether this gain changing happens in camera or at a later stage.

The only thing I may add is that it can be desirable to add a filter such that any one channel doesn't have to have excessive gain applied relative to the others - that would lead to noise. As example, it's normal for signal level balance to happen when "white" is about 3200K. Up the colour temperature to 6500K and the red channel will have a much lower output relative to blue. The addition of a daylight correction filter will put the nominal levels back in the right relationship - and that's also true whether the final balance is done in camera or subsequent post operation on RAW data.

I don't think the C300 was suppose to be compared to DSLR, but primarily to the F3. Unfortunately for Canon, many of us are not cooperating.
Find the best people shots from the F3, and compare them to any of the C300 clips we have so far. That's why the C300 list is ~ $20K.
I'm disappointed too that Canon hasn't evolved DSLR video. But from the videos posted I don't see the C300 as overpriced.

David is correct but the modern thinking is that if you normalise the camera for tungsten, when you electronically colour correct for daylight, you reduce the gain in the blue channel (which normally requires more gain than R or G even at 3200). This is highly desirable as due to this extra gain it is the blue channel that tends to produce the most noise. So electronic colour correction normally results in a reduction in noise. Using an optical CC filter would not bring this benefit. This is one of the reasons why the newer shoulder cams don't have CC filters in the filter wheel which used to be the norm.

In the same maner, I hope one day they find a way to implement electronic ND.

This is highly desirable as due to this extra gain it is the blue channel that tends to produce the most noise. So electronic colour correction normally results in a reduction in noise. Using an optical CC filter would not bring this benefit.
I'll try to explain my reasoning. The assumption is that none of the photosites see colour by themselves - that's down to either the on-chip filters, or the beam splitting of a three chip camera. As the light level increses, so the output level goes up, up to a certain point where limiting occurs. The total range will define the dynamic range of the sensor.

Now, start with "white" light, and each of the R,G,B photosites will give a certain output. To gain max dynamic range, in an ideal world they should all be a similar level - otherwise the dynamic range is being held back by the weakest link - the photosite giving the lowest output when the highest is near limiting.

Physically, "white" light will depend upon colour temperature - daylight will have more energy in the blue part of the spectrum than tungsten. Hence the optimum condition - R,G,B photosite outputs all reaching near limiting at the same time - will only occur at a single colour temperature. Hence the theoretical desirability of using CC filters to bring it about at other colour temperatures.

Of course, theory is one thing - how any camera actually does it another....... It was my impression that any absence of the CC filter wheel was more down to saving money than desirability though.....?

The B gain reduction and noise improvement was something I learnt from several Sony engineers from the Atsugi factory. They explained that even on the F800 that using electronic CC was actually preferable to using the built in optical CC filters. I can't claim to 100% understand all the colour/gain theory going on here and I'm sure dynamic range plays it's part too in the design concept, but the engineers were adamant that electronic correction had benefits over optical.

The problem with Canon is two-fold.

First, the 5D Mark III is long overdue and no where to be seen on the horizon.

Second, Canon marketed their Nov 3rd Event to the entire DSLR community, but then presented a product that DSLR users cannot afford.

If Canon had marketed the C300 similar to the Arri Alexa then we wouldn't be having the same discussion.

I just wish Nikon could step up and fill the void with a high ISO performing DSLR that does video right or Panasonic could somehow transition to an S35 sensor size.

I don't think holding a launch at Paramount Studios in Hollywood really gives the feeling that this camera was aimed at the DSLR community. Perhaps it's more they wished that it was and they were hoping for a 5D Mark III, which, by it's very model name, is a stills camera rather than a cinema camera.

Canon didn't market anything, just an impression was created on line of what it might be because of what people hoped for in their messages. However, Canon didn't say what was going to be there, only "Canon is making an historic global announcement." I guess viral marketing spread the interest, when people started speculating about what this was about.

Canon seem to be coming up with DSLR cameras that do better video. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/501724-canon-usa-introduces-eos-1d-x-digital-slr-camera.html

I spent most of the morning at the Visual Impact C300 open house. They had 3 C300's on show. One on a camera set alongside an F3 and an Alexa, the other was a very simple handheld configuration for people to play with and a 3rd on a stedicam rig.
What impressed me the most was how nice the camera was to hand hold and how good the rear viewfinder is. You certainly don't need anything extra to shoot with it.
On the camera set I was a little less impressed. For some reason the C300 looked a little soft or not quite in focus. No matter how I played with the focus, the edges of the image looked soft compared to the F3 next to it. Both the F3 and the C300 had Arri 32mm master primes so they should have been similar. I was told all the cameras were set up with standard gammas, but looking at the C300 it looked quite flat, so perhaps it was setup with the Canon Log gamma and the resulting lower contrast was making the image appear softer. There were so many people at the event that it was difficult to really get at the camera to figure out what was going on. I asked if I could record some footage but was told that this was not possible on this occasion as these are pre-production cameras. Shame, I had a pocket full of CF cards and SxS cards. Anyway I have been promised a test shoot very soon.

I really hope that the softness was a peculiarity of that particular camera or the way it was set up as the C300 would for me be fantastic for my storm chasing and extreme weather assignments. I'd love to take one up to Norway in January to see if it sensitive enough to shoot the Northern Lights without having to resort to slow shutters or long exposures. I've done the math, and according to my calculations it should just about be sensitive enough at 22,000iso with a f1.4 lens to shoot the Aurora in real time. It would be really cool to try and stream the Aurora live from Norway in January. On other assignments I could shoot using Canon L series glass or my B4 to Canon adapter and get broadcast ready material without needing an external recorder. I still think the Sony F3 with S-Log and an external 444 recorder is capable of a better image, but that's a significantly more expensive package and more cumbersome, power hungry etc. It's horses for courses. The C300 for me looks to be fantastic for simple, fast, easy shoots where shallow DoF is desirable, while I would continue to use the F3 where the extra bulk of an external recorder and the slightly more complex S-Log workflow will not be an issue as I think the ultimate image quality will be better.

I don't think holding a launch at Paramount Studios in Hollywood really gives the feeling that this camera was aimed at the DSLR community. Perhaps it's more they wished that it was and they were hoping for a 5D Mark III, which, by it's very model name, is a stills camera rather than a cinema camera.

Canon didn't market anything, just an impression was created on line of what it might be because of what people hoped for in their messages. However, Canon didn't say what was going to be there, only "Canon is making an historic global announcement." I guess viral marketing spread the interest, when people started speculating about what this was about.

Canon seem to be coming up with DSLR cameras that do better video. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/501724-canon-usa-introduces-eos-1d-x-digital-slr-camera.html

My take on this is that Canon's original launch was off-target, causing the question raised in this thread. Originally, they targeted the Hollywood movie maker -- pretty clear given the venue and videos shown during the opening. People in the blogosphere either endorsed this or complained that the camera isn't really a cine camera (mostly because of 8-bit). Now, I'm hearing things like "this was always meant as a TV/doco camera" (and thus no need for 10-bit, the benefit of in-camera 50 MBPS 4:2:2, etc).

I think this is a case of not managing expectations on Canon's part. The camera clearly looks to be fantastic, but, as is always the case, the initial presentation has to avoid "cognitive dissonance"

What impressed me the most was how nice the camera was to hand hold and how good the rear viewfinder is. You certainly don't need anything extra to shoot with it.

Alister: How long do you think you could handhold it? I ask because, having shot video with a DSLR (D3s) with a viewfinder, I find it's OK for a minute or 2 but then simply gets too heavy.

Thanks.

Well I'm used to shooting with EX1's and F3's so I guess Ive built up my arm muscles a bit. But it's quite light especially with a L series prime lens on it. Holding it up to your face with elbows tucked in, right hand in the grip, left hand under the body or lens, I would imagine that 5 minutes without a break would be fine. It's a great candidate for a monopod.

It sort of reminds me a bit of the Canon Scoopic in its arrangement. Of course, that only took 100ft loads, so was limited to 2 mins 47secs at 24 fps.