Anybody have an idea if the C300 will make a great wildlife camera? For my latest wildlife film released this year "Wildest of the Wild" I used the Canon XLH1. I'm now giving the XF300 a whirl, however even with a Century 1.6X attached it lacks lens power for the longer shots and the built in teleconverter degrades the quality and is useless in my opinion. I film in very rugged country and pack everything on my back so my camera can't be any heavier than around 12 pounds with the lens. Will this new Canon be able to shoot with a farily deep depth of field for fast moving subjects? What kind of lens will work for long range and still keep the camera/lens to 12 pounds? I just may buy this camera if it meets my needs. Shooting clean video in very low light has got me interested. I thank you in advance. I also would like to thank Chris Hurd for this great forum.

Leon Lorenz
Canadian Wildlife Productions
Canadian Wildlife Productions: Grizzly Bears, Bighorm Sheep in Alberta & BC Rockies DVD Videos (http://www.wildlifevideos.ca)

Hey Leon,

I don't think that the c300 was designed with your type of work in mind.

No large sensor camera will have the reach of a smaller, crop sensor. And the H1 has around 7.2x magnification factor when used with EF lenses. Also the large sensors produce a shallower depth of field by nature, though you certainly can stop the lenses down to give you extra depth. Though in traditional video cameras (with smaller sensors) you get inherently deep dof. Longer focal lengths will also give you shallower depth of field, but no where near as shallow as you would experience with a large sensor camera.

I use an H1 with an EOS adapter and a 70-200mm f2.8L lens, for a reach of over 1400mm. If its reach you want, just get a Nano flash for your H1, and you'll have reach, resolution, and CF card workflow for about $3,000.

Seems like a 4/3 chip would be a good compromise between angle of view and low light sensitivity.

Seems like a 4/3 chip would be a good compromise between angle of view and low light sensitivity.
Personally, I'd go for a 2/3" 3 chip camera. Bigger chips should mean better sensitivity (all else equal), but don't forget 3 chip versus 1 chip has an advantage as well (all else equal). The two factors tend to cancel out. In your case, wanting magnification through smaller chips, 3 chip has a lot in it's favour.

Likewise, all big cameras aren't equal for sensitivity. It's not just the size, it's how the data gets read out. Go for 4/3 and it effectively means the AF101, and it's well documented that it's far less sensitive compared to such as the FS100 than chip size alone would predict.

The first two I'd look at would be the Sony PMW350 and PMW320. Former is more expensive (but comparable price to the C300) and 2/3" chips, latter is cheaper and main difference is 1/2" chips - so lower sensitivity, but greater lens equivalent magnification. Both have a professional shoulder mount form factor and full connectivity.

I use an H1 with an EOS adapter and a 70-200mm f2.8L lens, for a reach of over 1400mm. If its reach you want, just get a Nano flash for your H1, and you'll have reach, resolution, and CF card workflow for about $3,000.

I also use the XLH1 with a nanoflash for filming wildlife. I used to shoot with both tape (for backup) and CF cards on the nano as the primary video. Recently I started filming without tapes (just recording to the nanoflash), and an interesting result is that the batteries on the XLH1 now last nearly twice as long (no moving parts). A nanoflash might be an intermediary solution as you get to continue using the equipment you are used to working with (plus the files will be similar to the files you are creating with the XF300 50mbs MXF).

Leon - when I posted before I was overlooking your comment about weight, and doubt that what I previously suggested would meet that criteria. I still think a 3 chip camera with interchangeable lens facility is probably the right way to go, together with adaptor to let it take long focal length lenses designed for stills cameras. And 2/3" or 1/2" chips will be far better magnification wise than 4/3 or S35.

But bearing weight in mind, probably the lightest option is an EX3? Maybe with nanoFlash?

I also use the XLH1 with a nanoflash for filming wildlife. I used to shoot with both tape (for backup) and CF cards on the nano as the primary video. Recently I started filming without tapes (just recording to the nanoflash), and an interesting result is that the batteries on the XLH1 now last nearly twice as long (no moving parts). A nanoflash might be an intermediary solution as you get to continue using the equipment you are used to working with (plus the files will be similar to the files you are creating with the XF300 50mbs MXF).

Simon, How do you trigger the nanoFlash? I have tape in my XLH1 solely so I can trigger the nano via the camera, either from a lanc controller or the little wireless remote off my HV20,


Ron

If the FL is adequate, it could be a good choice. The coming Canon 200-400 f4 might work as the primary long lens. Combined with the 24-105 it would make a small kit.
The Scarlet with better battery life would have been nice for your purpose. The higher data rate compared to the C300 makes for better cropping.
I do think an ideal size is probably 4/3. It might be worth looking at the AF100/101 as a lower cost alternative.
I would like to see some cropping of the C300 compared to other 1080p files.
I'm sure there will be wildlife shot on the C300, as well as Scarlet. The quality to camera size ratio of the C300 is looking too good to not consider.

Simon, How do you trigger the nanoFlash? I have tape in my XLH1 solely so I can trigger the nano via the camera, either from a lanc controller or the little wireless remote off my HV20,


Ron

Actually I have just been using the record button on the nanoflash itself. This works fine on a tripod or in situations where the wildlife can be seen coming a good distance away (which is what the situation has been like with my recent shoot). I just set the nanoflash to record trigger, internal timecode, and turn standby on the XLH1 off.

For more fluid situations and for run-and-gun shoots I still revert to using tape to trigger (and for back-up).

Thanks to everyone for the replies. I think I'll wait until the reviews start coming in on the C300 and make a decision than. I can't see why a good wildlife lens can't be developed for this camera. I found it frustrating this week not being able to zoom in tighter on snowy owls as they swooped down to catch voles and mice using the XF300. It's a great camera, packs well and the image quality is excellent, it just lacks in lens power for long range wildlife.

Happy filming!

Leon Lorenz
Canadian Wildlife Productions: Grizzly Bears, Bighorm Sheep in Alberta & BC Rockies DVD Videos (http://www.wildlifevideos.ca)

A good wildlife lens could no doubt be developed for it but it would probably be big, heavy and expensive. You should dig around the web for footage samples from an EX3 with old, long Nikon lens on it. Talk about reach! That combination and a NanoFlash or something like it might be just what the doctor ordered.

PS: I think I might order a copy of Wildest of the Wild. Looks great.

2/3" cameras seems to be more or less the standard kit on wildlife productions. Option of quite a few long zooms or the long stills lenses.

In my experience over 1000mm is just for birds. There's just no getting around the need to do the work to get reasonably close.
The 200-400mm has a built in 1.4TC. That gives in total about 900mm equivalent. Perhaps the regular 1.4 TC is usable with that combo too.
The older Canon 100-400 is quite good on the long end. As a push/pull zoom it's compact and would make a small kit. With the good high ISO performance of the C300 there should be no problem stopping down, even in low light.
I do think a denser sensor than the C300/Scarlet would be the ideal. A 4/3 would give up a stop of light, but produce about a 2x FL crop equivalent. I'm assuming 4/3 can be made into a smaller field camera than 3 x 2/3. I'm only aware of 2/3 cameras being shot with a crew of two or three.
The next generation of DSLR video looks like a viable solution too for the solo shooter.

You don't need crew of 2 or 3 for a 2/3 camera, although you mightn't want to hike more than a couple of miles with one slung on its shoulder strap while carrying a tripod over the over the other shoulder. You could also carry the camera in a back pack.

News guys commonly work alone with 2/3" cameras.

EX3, plus nanoFlash plus lens works for BBC Wildlife and quite a manageable outfit. Easy to get adaptors for Nikon 35mm lenses with 5x crop factor.


Ron

Agree, this seems to be the best outfit if you need long lens reach and broadcast specs.

News guys commonly work alone with 2/3" cameras.

He needs to be lighter and bring support too. It would be miserable trying to bring an ENG setup into the backcountry. I'm sure it has been done, but even at my fittest I wouldn't want to do it.

As far as the EX3 with nanoflash, it's an interesting question as to if that's good enough for a 2012 purchase. It certainly is for making DVDs, but not for Discovery Channel 'A' camera it seems.

A Video 18 head with carbon fibre legs weighs about 14 lbs. In the end, I suspect you're talking about 40 lb combined with the camera and some batteries. You don't need to carry extra lenses because the zoom with x 2 extender will replace those and you can achieve approximately the same angle of view as 750 mm lens on a Super 35mm sensor.

I echo what others have said - the C300 has too large a sensor for Wildlife, go for 2/3inch as a max. Thats the industry standard for wildlife. I expect that 1/2 and 1/3 inch CMOS cameras will become more common for lower-budget wildlife films - provided that their footage is being recorded at 100mbps/422.

I would advise against the EX3 - its not well designed, particularly when it comes to the tripod mount - and if you attach a long lens to it you've got to be really careful that the mounting point doesn't get ripped out of the camera... so then you have to invest in more accessories to hopefully prevent this from happening... And of course its an old camera and thus not a wise investment.

As weight is so important, you don't have too many options. If you have an H1, these cameras can provide stunning results when attached to a remote recorder. I am not a big fan of the lenses, or the viewfinder, which can be hard to operate in cold temperatures... If weight weren't such an issue, I'd advise the Panasonic HPX370... but then you have to invest in good glass too...

The XF300 is a good camera - I too have one with the 1.6 Century, and agree its not long enough. The inbuilt digital zoom works to an extent - when shooting in 1080, it renders and image thats equivalent in sharpness to 720 (approx) and works fine if delivering in SD...

Once the C300 has come out, it'd be great if Canon could bring out a new H1 style camera with the same codec etc as the XF300 - and improved lenses. That would be great!

I know the C300 is tempting, but it really isn't suitable for long-lens wildlife...

I am stil using my older JVC HD100 for wildlife with a firestore CF drive. I am using older nikon MF lens with the mft adapter and while its not the smallest setup it does work great and you get the 7.2 magnification

If you have an H1, these cameras can provide stunning results when attached to a remote recorder.
I know the C300 is tempting, but it really isn't suitable for long-lens wildlife...

That was my original point. Leon already has an XLH1. if you just add a Nano, an EOS adapter, and even an f4 70-200 (lighter than the 2.8), you'll max out the resolution, the reach, and it will only cost 4,000 for all the above. A 70-200 becomes about a 500-1400mm lens. It's nasty trying to find small things in the viewfinder though. But for bighorn sheep and stuff, I would think it would work pretty well.

I agree that the EX3 would be the best solution if starting from scratch.

With the good high ISO performance of the C300 there should be no problem stopping down, even in low light..
I'm only aware of 2/3 cameras being shot with a crew of two or three..
The next generation of DSLR video looks like a viable solution too for the solo shooter.

I agree in general with Don's post. [Thanks Don for bringing up the point concerning low light scenarios.] A lot of wildlife is either crepuscular; nocturnal; live under forest cover; underwater; or in other lowlight situations such as caves or abandoned buildings.

I used to single handed lug a BVP7/BVV5 combo weighing in around 18kg (40lbs) along with a Sachtler 20 and a rucksack full of tapes and batteries several miles into mountains and forests and back when I used to shoot the world rally championship. We would do this 3 or 4 times a day. Not saying it was pleasurable but it can be done. Many people shoot solo with full size shoulder cams.

The EX3 is approved for Discovery use as an "A" camera without an external recorder, it's in their Silver status so can be used for 100% production. There have been many wildlife docs shot with EX3's with and without Nanoflashes and either DSLR lenses or 2/3" broadcast lenses. Yes the base design is weak but a reinforcing plate only costs about $150 and makes the EX3 a rugged camera.

As others have said, where long focal lengths are required DSLR's or super 35mm camcorders may not be the best option. Don't get caught up in the hype and buy the wrong tool for the job just because it's "cool". It could be like trying to use a Ferrari to plough a field.

I recommend you take a look at the BBC series "The Bear Family and Me" for an idea of what an EX3 can do.

The C300 is a great camera, of that I have no doubt, but is it the right tool for this job? As for DSLR's? No matter how good you make it, if it's primary function is to to take very high resolution photographs, the video performance will be compromised.

As far as the EX3 with nanoflash, it's an interesting question as to if that's good enough for a 2012 purchase. It certainly is for making DVDs, but not for Discovery Channel 'A' camera it seems.
Should be, certainly with a nanoFlash. Real question is, what else is better? If 2/3" are out for weight considerations, most 1/3" cameras are out for non-interchangeable lenses (amongst other things), and large format cameras mean long focal length lenses, doesn't the EX3 become the most logical choice?
A 4/3 would give up a stop of light, but produce about a 2x FL crop equivalent. I'm assuming 4/3 can be made into a smaller field camera than 3 x 2/3.
The one stop difference between s35 and 4/3 is assuming all else is equal.

At the moment, that's not true - s35 chips are "designed for video", 4/3 chips are designed for stills use and "made the best of" for video. And one implication of that is sensitivity - as can be seen in practice with the AF101 and the FS100, the FS100 is far more than a single stop more sensitive than just sensor size would predict. It's not just chip size - it's the way the data gets read out that determines sensitivity.

Theoretically, there's nothing to stop a manufacturer designing a "made for video" chip in the 4/3 size - which means either about 3 megapixel and deBayering, or about 8 megapixel like the C300 - but is it economically worth it? It's one thing to make the best of a chip that already exists for cost reasons, but the main large format market seems to be swinging firmly behind s35. If you're designing from scratch, why not do it for where the preferred market is?

To quote from Nino Leitner's blog:

"But, as mentioned above, the F3 is internally really an EX3, and it uses the same internal recording onto SxS cards in the XDCAM EX format, at 35 Mbit/s in a 4:2:0 colour space. I love the format and still shoot very often broadcast stuff with my 3-year-old EX3, but to be honest, the standard is quite obsolete now and there are much more efficient codecs. The fact that Sony put such a relatively weak codec into a quite expensive camera that is capable of so much more was a big disappointment for me."

That's really my concern with starting with the EX3 in 2012.

From Sony talk around the launch of the F3, they rather saw the internal codec as something for editing and ease of quickly getting a form of proxy to the editor, rather than actual the master material. The s-log etc being recorded being on HDCAM SR or other codec being the master, which is recorded on external recorders.

In principle, this is similar to how the Aaton digital camera's proposed workflow would work, although in that case the master is RAW.

To be obsolete, the codec would not need to be general use, which doesn't appear to be the case and with the amount of kit around still being used by various people I suspect it won't be it won't be for a while. Not everyone needs full broadcast spec, although with a Nanoflash you have the option of this spec.

If Sony will upgrade the F3 to match the C300 codec will be another matter, since that's what a number of people were wanting at the time the camera came out. The EX3 never had the full gold standard HD codec for the BBC and other broadcasters, so that situation hasn't really changed, but a lot of people are using it and will continue to do so for a number of years. Broadcasters don't change as quickly as the latest talk on specs on the internet, they make investments which last for a number of years and then gradually change over. Often the pressure is for them to reduce their standards rather than to increase them.

".......but to be honest, the standard is quite obsolete now and there are much more efficient codecs."

That's really my concern with starting with the EX3 in 2012.
There's a flaw in his reasoning, and it's to do with his equating "much more efficient" with "better".

All that "much more efficient" means in this context is achieving a given quality standard with a lower bitrate. There is undoubtably an upside to that (bitrate and filesize) - but the downside is that it's likely to mean more computing power to encode and decode. Which can mean a more expensive (and likely power hungry) camera processor, and likely more difficult editing. A given NLE may not manage to viably edit such "efficient" native footage - but have no problem with XDCAM EX.

All that said, then it leaves the question of why the EX3 hasn't got the 50Mbs XDCAM codec as native. Is it the end of the world? Probably not, there's little viable alternative, and you can always add an external recorder - you can never put an add-on to a 1/3" camera to give it bigger chips.

There are nature film makers who own the Epic. Often I think with other cameras. I feel there isn't an ideal choice, especially for projects that could benefit from the highest quality.
The C300 at this point seems to be a more agreeable field camera than the Scarlet. Most buyers of a $10K+ camera should already know the reach they need.
I have the idea that the C300 can be used in the field without an additional monitor. Perhaps this is not realistic.

I would think anything nature means lots of fast tracking etc. Which surely cancels out cmos camera's with rolling shutters. So to me, your only option is a 2/3 CCD camera.

Perhaps this camera is not good enough in low-light for you (it is not known for capability in that regard), but I use a JVC HM750 for wildlife videography, and a simple adapter ring that allows me to use all the Nikon 35mm film lenses. The body of the camera is ideal to balance the longer lenses in particular, and though it's shoulder-mount ENG, it's only about half the size of a Panasonic or Sony.

The 7x crop-factor creates amazing photography from a distance. I can almost completely fill the frame with the moon just using an 80-200mm zoom.

I've been talking to Canon in Toronto lately about using the C300 for wildlife filming. They are being very helpful in discussing sensors, lenses, etc. The fellow I spoke to a number of times says they are reading the various threads on this forum that discuss the C3OO. Once the camera is released and the dust settled a bit I plan on trying various lenses ( before I buy of course ) and see for myself if this camera is for me. I recorded my kid's Christmas concert last night with the XF300, it's about perfect for this. For lowlight shooting of wildlife a farily slow lens like the EF 100 - 400 should be much better with the C300 than the 1.6 lens of the XF300. Any thoughts on this?

Leon Lorenz
Canadian Wildlife Productions: Grizzly Bears, Bighorm Sheep in Alberta & BC Rockies DVD Videos (http://www.wildlifevideos.ca)

I would think anything nature means lots of fast tracking etc. Which surely cancels out cmos camera's with rolling shutters.

The question of rolling shutter skew was brought up at the Paramount Theater Q&A session
back on Nov. 3rd. I think it was Vincent Laforet who responded that his crew experimented
a bit and purposefully tried to induce rolling shutter skew but could not do so short of whip-
panning the camera. Larry Thorpe said that Canon put a lot of effort into this, so you can
expect it to be pretty much a non-issue with regard to wildlife videography.

NASCAR on the other hand *might* be a different story... we'll find out for sure soon enough.

Rolling shutter skew is a lot like plasma display image retention "burn in" -- it used to
be an issue in the early product generations; but it's not really a big deal anymore.

I would think anything nature means lots of fast tracking etc. Which surely cancels out cmos camera's with rolling shutters.

This is not the case. The anxieties over rolling shutter have been overstated. There's no issue when shooting wildlife.

Which surely cancels out cmos camera's with rolling shutters.
But all CMOS cameras aren't equal, all CMOS cameras don't exhibit rolling shutter effects to anything like the same extent. Unfortunately, people see the effect demonstrated with a mobile phone video and assume that's it for CMOS, period. That's simply not true.

In this respect, the "simple" way of chip readout may well be a big help - simple may well aid "quick".

That said, I think the C300 will be great for a lot of work, but I still feel wildlife is one area where a large format sensor is more likely to be a hindrance than a help. Best is 2/3", or 1/2" if the size/weight/cost of 2/3" is too much.

I've been talking to Canon in Toronto lately about using the C300 for wildlife filming. They are being very helpful in discussing sensors, lenses, etc. The fellow I spoke to a number of times says they are reading the various threads on this forum that discuss the C3OO. Once the camera is released and the dust settled a bit I plan on trying various lenses ( before I buy of course ) and see for myself if this camera is for me. I recorded my kid's Christmas concert last night with the XF300, it's about perfect for this. For lowlight shooting of wildlife a farily slow lens like the EF 100 - 400 should be much better with the C300 than the 1.6 lens of the XF300. Any thoughts on this?


I do think the 100-400 is good enough quality on the long end. It's a bit soft from 100 to ~200. An alternative that is also lower cost is the Sigma 50-500. The trouble with zooms is that they might not be good enough with a 1.4 TC. The upcoming Canon 200-400 has an integrated 1.4TC. That is almost certainly good enough. Perhaps a third party 1.4 TC can be added to that setup and still produce good results.

Almost all light conditions could be shot at F11 with zooms plus TC, which makes using these lens more of a possibility.

I believe the XF300 can shoot 500mm equivalent at f2.8. So the C300 probably needs to be a couple stops faster to be potentially a better choice using long zooms.
This is not the case. The anxieties over rolling shutter have been overstated. There's no issue when shooting wildlife.

It certainly looks that way from the tests we have so far. The Scarlet with it's fast scan might be better than other choices, however.

I was referring specifically to rolling shutter. I don't know how practical Scarlet will be for wildlife. Even based on current technology, there is no ideal camera for wildlife. For me I would like "prerecording" buffer, raw-type output like Red, better power management than current Red, and a 2-3x crop.

On the EX cams the record buffer is there, but only for real time, and I prefer to shoot wildlife at 60p, so it does me no good. I agree that we're missing an ideal wildlife camera. The ideal is always missing, but I guess I can still bitch. 2-3x crop sounds good, 4-5x would be sweet. Infinite DOF would be sweet. Add to that an intelligent iris that could take you from a dark thicket to open sky in less then two seconds and I'd sign up yesterday.

Could this be an area where a newer designed DSLR would be helpful to the OP ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucd7TiipCHM&feature=player_embedded#!

Unfortunately everything was rather static, more like moving stills than motion pictures. That shallow DOF will be a lot tougher once the animals do some moving around at speed.

I looks like the better Nikon and Canon DSLR's will be a bigger sensors than aps-c. Without the ability to make big crops that still photographers utilize I don't see the larger sensors as practical for most wildlife video.

For me it's hard to look at the 5D/C300 imaging comparison and be excited about shooting nature and wildlife with a DSLR. The weak points of DSLR video - true resolution and color fidelity - are highly important in this area.

We'll have to see if Nikon becomes a real player in video. With their dependance on Sony it's hard to see that happening.

I think the C300 will be a nice wildlife camera. Just a bit too expensive with all the extra gear I would need (UW housing etc). A 600 or 800 mm lens is a bit expensive, but with that you'll get between 1000-2000mm with a 1.4 or 2.0.
But if you don't like the big chip effect... I know I do and would love to get my hands on one...

I would think anything nature means lots of fast tracking etc. Which surely cancels out cmos camera's with rolling shutters. So to me, your only option is a 2/3 CCD camera.

I don't think CMOS sensors are SO much of a problem with wildlife - I used my XF300 recently shooting Tibetan antelope which can move real fast, and didn't notice any problems. CMOS jelly vision tends to manifest itself most when you've got lots of vertical & horizontal lines in frame, which doesn't happen so much in nature, unless you're shooting a load of trees, but they don't tend to move too fast ;o)

For lowlight shooting of wildlife a farily slow lens like the EF 100 - 400 should be much better with the C300 than the 1.6 lens of the XF300. Any thoughts on this?

To give you an idea, a common lens used for wildlife is the Canon HJ18ex28B - a 2/3 lens that goes up to 1000mm. Its superb, and I couldn't imagine doing serious wildlife filming with anything much less if you need to get close-up detail from a distance.

The equivalent lens on the C300 would be about 2,600mm... A little unachievable...

Of course you can make wildlife films without such a long lens - I have done so myself, but I just thought it worthwhile pointing out the limitations of the C300 sensor.

Chris

A 400mm zoom with a 1.4TC works out to about 900mm on the C300. I agree that is not long enough for most people. Plus it's often going to need to be stopped down significantly for DOF, giving up the advantage of sensor sensitivity.
An EX3 with a nanoflash is less expensive. The nanoflash at 100 mbs should be good enough for just about everyone.
Anyone have a guess at what aperture a lens on the C300 becomes diffraction limited?

I don't have any larger sensor experince so I would like to ask the questain...Would you be able to read a newspaper at a greater distance with a large sensor camera like the C300 has with 800 mm of lens power versus a 1/3" sensor like the XLH1 with the same lens power setting?

I'm enjoying everyone's feedback, thank you.

Leon Lorenz
Canadian Wildlife Productions: Grizzly Bears, Bighorm Sheep in Alberta & BC Rockies DVD Videos (http://www.wildlifevideos.ca)

Would you be able to read a newspaper at a greater distance with a large sensor camera...?

Without getting into specifics, it's a tradeoff between resolution of the glass and the size/cost of the glass. For a small sensor, you have small pixels, so you need very sharp glass to deliver the needed resolution. On a large sensor, the pixels are larger, so the glass itself doesn't have to be as accurate. However, the glass needs to be larger, heavier, and will be more expensive to create a lens with the same effective focal length and f-stop.

2/3-inch is probably the sweet spot. The pixels are medium sized, so the quality has to be good but not extreme. Also, long glass gets long, but not extreme. Still, just look at and price a sports broadcast lens to see what it takes to get both sharpness and length at decent speed for a 2/3" sensor. Similar glass for a 1/3" sensor will be cheaper, but won't offer the sharpness that a broadcast 2/3" setup can deliver.

Would you be able to read a newspaper at a greater distance with a large sensor camera like the C300 has with 800 mm of lens power versus a 1/3" sensor like the XLH1 with the same lens power setting?
Theoretically, you'll be (much) better off with the 1/3" sensor. The limiting factor is most likely to be sensor and system resolution - hence the same 800mm will give greater magnification when used with smaller chips.

Practically, it's more complicated (isn't it always....?) and a lot depends on whether you're talking about lenses designed for the chip size, or adapting a 35mm lens for 1/3" via an adaptor.

Think of it this way, you can think of the sharpness of a lens in terms of total no of lines across the horizontal, or lines/mm measured at the sensor. So if a lens gives (say) 4000 lines across a sensor 20mm wide, it's the same as 200lines/mm. Use the same lens on a 1/3" camera, and if we guess the width is now 5mm (approx), the best resolution you'll get is 1000 lines total - which may not do justice to a 1920x1080 system.

A designed for 1/3" lens will likely have a better lines/mm figure - but far smaller coverage area. That's why if you're using a lens designed for large format, it may look soft if used with too small a sensor.

I had a chat to Simon King (UK based wildlife film maker) at the London boat / outdoor / bicycle show last year. He had a EOS 5D set up, and said that he'd been using it in the field.

No idea what his experiences were, but he's got a website, and you might be able to find out more through that.

Simon King Wildlife Home Page (http://www.simonkingwildlife.com)

After reading everything I could find about the C300 and watching some internet video reviews I decided to take the plunge and see if it would work for wildlife filming for me. Along with the C300 I ordered a Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS11 zoom lens, EF 2X 111 extender, Zacuto Lens Support and Studio Baseplate with 12" rods and a couple of SanDisk Extreme Pro 90MB/s 600X 64 GB CFcards.

One of my main concerns I had before I ordered the camera was, would it fit in my day pack with the above lens combination. Fortunally the dealer had a demo model to check this out and it did though there was no excess. The pack I'm using is actually a camo hunting pack made by Badlands and is called the Super Day Pack. I've tried a lot of different packs over the years and this one is the best by far for my needs. It is quite compact dispite the many well thought out compartments for storing one's essentials. Also, I'm able to lash this pack on top of my large North Face Expedition Pack for 2 week filming trips into the mountains (total pack weight now 70 pounds ). In the main compartment I built a padded cradle for added protection and comfort. There is no issues with this setup whatsoever for packing my camera safely in the roughest going.

It's been 6 months now since I unboxed everything. The lens support and baseplate fit perfectly as it's made for the C300 and of course it's fully adjustable. I removed the 4 tiny screws that hold the cold shoe unto the carrying handle and set the cold shoe aside while I tossed the handle in a spare parts box. I than grabbed a hacksaw and carefully cut the ring off the mic mount and cold welded the cold shoe on top of what's left of the mic mount. This setup works so slick, my mic has a holder that slides unto the cold shoe in a second or two. So often speed is the name of the game for setting up to capture a quick wildlife shot.

Like most changes in life it takes time to adjust, and going from small sensor cameras ( since 1991 ) to the C300 is quite something to get used to. I started off filming around the yard on flowers,trees. my kids playing, etc,trying to get a feel for the camera ( I wasn't ready to dash off to the hills quite yet). Practice, practice and more practice was the order of the day for a number of days as I gradually started to feel comfortable using it. After nightfall would find me out filming flying moths in our yard I couln't see with my naked eye, filming groups of stars, no problem. To be able to shoot clean in low light, what a huge plus for filmmakers. The sky is your limit to bring out your creativeness. I must say congratulations to Canon for building this camera, the footage is simply stunning if you do your part. It is a very rugged camera for wildlife filmmaking and in the six months I've used it, it has never let me down. I hope to use it for many years God willing, I can't see why I would need to upgrade. There are 2 things I wish they ( Canon ) would of done, added a Start / Stop button on the front lower left side of the camera and 1080 60p.

So, is this a great camera for wildlife? In a word, Yes! It is more challenging than using small sensor cameras, however the look and feel of your films will take a large leap forward once you master it. You won't be disappointed.

Leon Lorenz
Canadian Wildlife Productions: Grizzly Bears, Bighorm Sheep in Alberta & BC Rockies DVD Videos (http://www.wildlifevideos.ca)

Hi Leon

Just to chime in (Only just seen this)

I leave for a nat geo shoot in Sumatra (Elephant) in a weeks time with the C300 ! I've not used the camera in anger yet but in lots of testing I'm very impressed. I normally shoot varicam but this project will require lots of walking and being able to move quickly. The lighter camera, tripod and batteries will make this possible. It also won't require much long lens work although I am going to take a 100-400+1.4. Having stabilised lens options is also a real plus. I'm very impressed with its ability handheld with IS. The other thing I've noticed. Lenses that I didn't like on the 7d (24-105) shine on the C300. To me the images are sharp enough with so much resolution that you don't need the ultra sharp glass that 7d needed to make a pleasing image.

The biggest issue for me is the lack of zoom ratio. To bag a good sequence in a short event you really need more than a x4 ratio. I am going to take either a 28-300 or 35-350 for one of my sequences that I know I'll only have a few minutes to bag all my shots. I'm pretty sure these lenses will be fine when it comes to IQ. Let me know if you've tried them ?

Of course the look is great and I think this story will look great told with the visual possibilities of such a camera.

What I would say is. There is no such thing as the perfect camera for wildlife shooting. I mean 'wildlife'...its a pretty broad term after all. I've gone for this camera because finally theres a broadcast legal camera (in camera) that will produce stunning images on par with a varicam and I don't need to spend £20K in lenses, £3-5k on a tripod etc etc. It has benefits over the varicam and drawbacks but it will suit some of my jobs and for those I'm sure it will be great.

Anyway... I'm sure I'll post about the my project on my return!

Mat