Hey everyone, we just put up a new video on the C300:
5 Things You Should Know About the Canon C300 on Vimeo
Later, we'll have a video done by our colleague & long time camera operator here in Hollywood, Philip Schwartz. He shot in & around Santa Monica at night & early morning.....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Nicely done, Jim -- the crisp, sharp look of this piece is overshadowed only by your excellent on-screen presence and delivery. Good on ya!

Wow, I guess this means I'm buying your drinks in Vegas at NAB!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Cool video, Jim. I actually think it's a pretty well-designed camera. Thanks for sharing!

While I very much like the C300, some aspects of it's design and ergonomics I think are not well executed, see my review. A Week With The Canon C300. | XDCAM-USER.COM (http://www.xdcam-user.com/2012/03/a-week-with-the-canon-c300/)

The monitor unit is one of the things I really dislike and audio appears to be a complete after-thought. It does have slight moire issues and the dynamic range is no better than the F3. Don't get me wrong it is a great camera, but you do need to look past the hype.

There is also a PL to EF adapter specifically for the C300 coming. :-)

Great piece Alistar!.......BTW I have never hyped anything in my life!?!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Hey Jim that wasn't a dig at you or anyone in particular. I just hope people actually look at all the different cameras that are available and select the right one for their needs as opposed to whichever camera that has the best marketing.

There are lots of great choices right now, each with strengths and weaknesses. Not one is perfect.

Awesome. Thanks Jim.

While I very much like the C300, some aspects of it's design and ergonomics I think are not well executed, see my review. A Week With The Canon C300. | XDCAM-USER.COM (http://www.xdcam-user.com/2012/03/a-week-with-the-canon-c300/)

The monitor unit is one of the things I really dislike and audio appears to be a complete after-thought. It does have slight moire issues and the dynamic range is no better than the F3. Don't get me wrong it is a great camera, but you do need to look past the hype.

There is also a PL to EF adapter specifically for the C300 coming. :-)

Alister,

I agree with most of what you say in your review, very good points. I think however, not enough emphasis is put on the fact that what makes the C300 very special is that it is the first Super 35mm camera that works very well right our of the box without add-ons such as rigs, lens adaptor, EVF, etc...). I understand some of your frustration not having dedicated switches for Gain and Shutter but within a few days, I learned to master camera controls through the use of assigned buttons which I now find more convenient than dedicated switches which offer limited choices. On my C300, Assign #1 is ISO and assign #4 is Shutter. Grip/camera side control wheel is Iris. The reason why I like this so much is that it is very easy to quickly navigate through the entire range of ISO, Shutter and Color Balance K settings (you can also do conventional A/B WB if you wish). Since using 5Ds, I really fell in love with being able to dial Color Balance to my liking and I am glad the C300 lets you do this. I wish I could assign a different function to the grip and camera side scrolling wheels but I am sure Canon will take note that this is a must add feature. The C300 color viewfinder and LCD are very well calibrated and almost an exact match that can be trusted for color rendition. As you rightly said, the audio controls are a bit of an after though (frankly, level pots laying flat on top of camera, how convenient is that.....) but hopefully, we will see a third party audio module that will provide better audio controls and I/Os when in need to keep the camera to its leanest form factor which I very much like too. i like the detachable monitor though, it is very good looking and the scopes are great.

Happy filming!

.......the first Super 35mm camera that works very well right our of the box without add-ons such as rigs, lens adaptor, EVF, etc...). ......... but hopefully, we will see a third party audio module that will provide better audio controls and I/Os when in need to keep the camera to its leanest form factor which I very much like too.


I rest my case. Adding boxes to fix deficiencies in the basic design is what I want to get away from.

I really dislike not having dedicated gain switches. Your on a shoot and the lighting suddenly changes, you need to change the gain..... flick a single switch with most pro cameras or press one assigned button then move your hand to the joystick or dial to change the setting on the C300. One single operation or a two step operation that necessitates you either looking in the EVF or having all your overlays on your monitor. The Sony EX's have direct menu where you just tap the thumb stick to change gain/shutter only requiring one control to be operated.

On the F3 I have both options. I can use the switches and/or go into the menu or a PP to change any of my gain/wb settings.

I would rather have a wide range of lens adapters so I can use the appropriate lenses for the job, maybe PL for my commercials and DSLR for low budget, rather than being stuck with lenses that I can't do a smooth iris change with.

As I keep saying the C300 is a great camera, I have one and it will be my go-to camera for some of the stuff I do, but for me at least it's as frustrating as it is good. I just wish Sony would put 50Mb/s in the F3.

I rest my case. Adding boxes to fix deficiencies in the basic design is what I want to get away from.


I couldn't agree with you more!

The last few years has seen incredible leaps in video technology and equally incredible back steps in regards ergonomics and design. A good quality viewfinder, in the correct position is an essential, not something that should require 3rd party workarounds.

I really want to buy a S35 camera before the end of the tax year (5th April) but the C300 and F3 just have too many compromises and the Alexa is too much for my market. JVC seems to get the ergonomics spot on but trails on the technical side. The tech (and market) exists today to make a S35 sensor camera in a compact shoulder mount with 10bit internal recording, usable EVF and interchangeable lens mounts. Built in selectable variable ND and 1080p50/60 would be great too! I would rather pay a little more to have a properly designed camera, not something based on DSLRs and EX1s.

I want to be able to pull a camera out the bag and shoot - not spend 5 minutes plugging in an HDMI viewfinder, attaching an external recorder and XLR breakout box.

Rant over.

There is really no convenient lens adapter for Canon EF lenses on the F3 so, from the get go, Canon EF lens owners are much better off with the two iris controls wheels on the C300. And once Canon allows one of these control wheels to be set to control ISO, then, you'll have instant tweaking of the full range of both, aperture and ISO. I don't know any other camera that offer this kind of control. Also, I find the Image Stabilization feature of most Canon EF lenses to work extremely well on the C300, that is again a huge plus. And that's coming from a long time EX camera user and owner of two F3s...

Rant over.

Well said, Mike. Believe it or not, I am seriously considering going back to JVC and the HM700/750 for the CCDs and the ergonomics in spite of the low light, small chips, 720p native res and the difficulty sourcing a decent lens (all kit lenses are terrible IMHO)...

Thierry, I have several issues with the Canon iris control. The first is that it steps and this can be seen in the pictures. While I don't have to change aperture all that often during most shots, the fact that I can't, I find frustrating. The C300 is the first camcorder that I have ever owned where I can't change iris mid shot without spoiling the shot (unless I use Nikon lenses or the PL version). The sun coming out from behind clouds now means a spoilt shot, whereas I'm used to just riding the iris to compensate.

Then there is the placement of the iris controls. The wheel on the hand grip is nice, but assumes that you are operating while gripping the hand grip. The wheel on the back is..... well... on the back. So if you have to take you hand well away from the lens to operate the iris. I'm used to being able to do little iris tweaks with my thumb while focussing, or just sliding my hand back along the lens to the iris.

These things won't be an issue to photographers. Frame, expose, focus, click. No problem, each is a separate and individual step, but video is different. Fluidity is key to smooth operation and the C300 sometimes appears to fight against this. For me, it's just too DSLR like.

Would not be ideal but you could use the lightcraft 4x4 fader ND in your matte box for some fine adjustments to changing light conditions at least it would be to hand.

Alister,

I agree with most of what you say in your review, very good points. I think however, not enough emphasis is put on the fact that what makes the C300 very special is that it is the first Super 35mm camera that works very well right our of the box without add-ons such as rigs, lens adaptor, EVF, etc...).

(cough) Sony F3. (cough) FS100 (cough)

The C300 needs at least one add-on to make images... that being an EF or EF-S lens.

Chris,
That is true of all camera bodies sold separately. Does Canon have a lens kit bundle for C300? You can buy an F3, FS100 and AF 100 without lens packages as well. The Bundle lenses with the F3 aren't too bad for the price. The FS 100 and AF 100 cameras have inexpensive Lens options which are okay not great.

Maybe the quote should be "C300 very special is that it is the first Super 35mm camera that works very well right our of the box" THAT I WOULD BUY.

And it's the first one that doesn't need an external recorder, but can still claim a fully acceptable codec out of the box........

(cough) Sony F3. (cough) FS100 (cough)

have you ever tried to shoot handheld with either of those cameras without a rig?

Yes I have. Are you saying the C300 is handholdable out of the box but the FS100 isnt?

The C300 is a heavy camera. Stick a 24-70 L series lens on it, along with the monitor unit and its a hefty, front heavy beast. Take off the monitor unit and it's much lighter, but now you have to work out how your going to do your audio as there's no XLR's on the body and no level control except via the menu. The C300's design is not the best for a shoulder rig as your iris control will end up hard to access at the rear of the camera.

I have both an F3 and C300. I can use either handheld, neither is perfect. C300 is very short, so tends to be particularly front heavy. The hand grip however is comfortable to hold. The F3 is not quite so front heavy, but the hand grip is not adjustable. C300's EVF is pretty good, F3's is rubbish, but I don't need to have a very heavy and bulky monitor unit attached to the F3 if I want t use an LCD screen or XLR's. The C300's greatest strength is the internal 50Mb/s codec, without that key feature I would not still have mine. Still looking into the Green pixel artefacts from the C300.

None of the modern cameras look like they can be shot shoulder mounted without a rig. I wonder why every manufacturer has decided to abandon the broadcast camera design, except the Alexa, of course.

Here's a vision: A JVC APS-C 2K camera in an HD110/200 body.

Here's a vision: A JVC APS-C 2K camera in an HD110/200 body.

Exactly what I always rant on about! Although I'm fine with 1080p personally.

None of the modern cameras look like they can be shot shoulder mounted without a rig. I wonder why every manufacturer has decided to abandon the broadcast camera design, except the Alexa, of course.


I'm not sure how long you've been in the industry, but manufacturers have been making pro cameras in the non-shoulder form factor for decades. Shoulder rigs have only been "mandatory" since the DSLR revolution.

Dylan, which pro cameras are you referring to? I can think of exceptions, but for what I would think of as pro video and film cameras, the overwhelming majority were designed to be shoulder-mounted when required, not held in the hands.

I'm not sure how long you've been in the industry, but manufacturers have been making pro cameras in the non-shoulder form factor for decades.
And users have been complaining about this fact for decades!

Film cameras evolved into the shoulder form factor from user input, and it carried over into pro video cameras from U-matic onwards. Along came the first "prosumer" cameras and such as Sony and Panasonic decided to model them on consumer cameras. Anybody who thinks that's a good idea should compare them with the JVC equivalent range (at least ergonomically)

Anybody who thinks that's a good idea should compare them with the JVC equivalent range (at least ergonomically)

Yes! Can we please see some ergonomic consideration go into these cameras! And I don't mean, "how can we make this a bit better than a DSLR?" That is NOT the professional benchmark!

Here's how simple it could be: Amazingly, we have managed to bring forward a standard from the film world without any inexplicable modification, which is the 15mm mini-rod configuration that can be found on virtually all baseplate systems. That form factor has been established and promoted by companies such as Redrock and Zacuto long before the F3 and C300 came out. It should be well understood by the manufacturers that if they are going to bring out cameras that are incomplete in some way and rely on third parties to provide the missing parts, they should design with that in mind. Yet both cameras have important controls on the rear of the camera, which means that there must be an air gap between the camera and any rear-mounted accessories to allow for fingers and eyeballs to get in there. The result is a camera system that is anywhere from 4 to 6 inches longer than it needs to be because of this air gap. As pointed out above, JVC alone has understood the advantage of the shoulder-mount design and their cameras actually are designed to be extended at the back for this purpose, so kudos to them.

A few years back when the RED One was in the design phase, I was invited to visit Jim and co. at the factory to brainstorm with them about ergonomics. I told them (amongst other things) to study the 30 year old Aaton form factor and make a camera that would perch on the shoulder in a balanced fashion. It obviously didn't take.

I'm not sure how long you've been in the industry, but manufacturers have been making pro cameras in the non-shoulder form factor for decades. Shoulder rigs have only been "mandatory" since the DSLR revolution.

The Arriflex 16mm SRI/SRII was introduced in 1975 and was a mainstay in the film industry for many decades along with Arri's 35mm film cameras. Sony used this basic form factor to build there entire Betacam line which was the foundation of the video industry. There is a reason that these cameras were the workhorses of both the film and video world. I started in the "film business" in 1986 and through the years on hundreds of commercials, music videos, documentaries and feature films these cameras just worked.

The film industry did not start with the Canon 5D or Red. Each of these non-shoulder form factor cameras requires a unique rig and setup. They make it very difficult to maintain an industry standard that makes it efficient to prep and work with a camera system. Thanks Charles for putting some perspective on a frustrating trend in the camera manufacturing industry.

It goes back further back than the Arri SR, there are two roots for the shoulder mounted camera, the modified Auricons in the USA and the Eclair NPR in France during 1960.

BBC Four - Camera That Changed the World (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012tnml)

The Camera That Changed the World, BBC Four, review - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8663989/The-Camera-That-Changed-the-World-BBC-Four-review.html)

That, combined with the Nagra tape recorders using Pilotone sync were key developments. Even better with crystal sync.

Dylan, which pro cameras are you referring to? I can think of exceptions, but for what I would think of as pro video and film cameras, the overwhelming majority were designed to be shoulder-mounted when required, not held in the hands.

Charles, your memory is off limits as you were flying $250,000 cameras on top of $80,000 Stedicams while the rest of DVinfo was shooting 4-8lb cameras like the PD150, XL1, DVX100, HVX200, EX1, etc... style cameras :)

That is the range of pro (or semi-pro to some) cameras I'm talking about. And I'd say the overwhelming majority of pro-video camera sales in the last 20 years has been in that handheld (vs shoulderbrick) market.

Anyway, we're getting off topic. My points, if I remember correctly:
1) no one should be surprised that the C300 isn't a shoulder mount camera.
2) the bulk of us on DVinfo used to shoot cameras this heavy handheld and although we complained, no one died.

The Arriflex 16mm SRI/SRII was introduced in 1975 and was a mainstay in the film industry for many decades along with Arri's 35mm film cameras. Sony used this basic form factor to build there entire Betacam line which was the foundation of the video industry. There is a reason that these cameras were the workhorses of both the film and video world. I started in the "film business" in 1986 and through the years on hundreds of commercials, music videos, documentaries and feature films these cameras just worked.

The film industry did not start with the Canon 5D or Red. Each of these non-shoulder form factor cameras requires a unique rig and setup. They make it very difficult to maintain an industry standard that makes it efficient to prep and work with a camera system. Thanks Charles for putting some perspective on a frustrating trend in the camera manufacturing industry.

Great history lesson Bob, but I'm not quite sure whether you are agreeing with me or not.

I'm saying that (almost) none of us who shot with the hundreds of thousands of PD150, XL1, EX1, etc. style cameras that were the workhorses of the commercial video production world for the last 15-20 years, ever thought we needed a shoulder rig, cage system, etc... They were a pick up and shoot solution.

I think your comment about the 5D/Red seems to agree with that?

2) the bulk of us on DVinfo used to shoot cameras this heavy handheld and although we complained, no one died.
Well, I don't know anyone who died, true, but I DO personally know of at least two people who had to have long periods off work with wrist injuries due to this style of shooting. (Both using "lightweight" non-shouldermount cameras.) I have also heard of many instances of a period of shooting having to be cut short because of severe discomfort. (One of the cases of wrist injury was someone who didn't heed the warning signs during a long handheld interview.)

The real point is why do we have to endure a design which can so obviously be bettered at little or no extra cost? Why do manufacturers have to do it this way when JVC at least shows how it can be done so much better?

Ah and I know 2 retired broadcast shooters who have permanent back issues due to the weight of their shoulder rigs. Got to listen to the body when it tells you to stop.

You make a great point though... why do many cameras have terrible ergonomics? It's maybe a question better reserved for Chris, but I'd guess that the answer is... the camera manufacturers have to make a body that appeals to the broadest market and the handycam form factor does? As much as I like JVCs cameras (having been a JVC shooter for a while) that design doesn't seem to be taking the market by storm.

Ah and I know 2 retired broadcast shooters who have permanent back issues due to the weight of their shoulder rigs. Got to listen to the body when it tells you to stop.
There's a big difference, and one which is at the heart of Health and Safety risk assessments - if a risk is identified, one of the first questions to ask is "can it easily be reduced at reasonable cost?" If so, the expectation is that it should be done. With camera weight there's a limit to what can be done - training in lifting techniques, maybe, are there any lighter batteries, but you can't simply make a 2/3" camera and accessories lighter. And the consensus seems to be the ergonomics are as good as they can be.

With the smaller cameras it's a different matter. The answer to the "can the risk be easily reduced?" question is an obvious "yes" - redesign it more like the JVC styling.
As much as I like JVCs cameras (having been a JVC shooter for a while) that design doesn't seem to be taking the market by storm.
Errr, there are other factors to a camera than ergonomic design, as I'm sure you're well aware........ :-) I think it's the design that wins JVC the praise, if it's not the best seller, I suspect it's due to other factors.

Ah and I know 2 retired broadcast shooters who have permanent back issues due to the weight of their shoulder rigs. Got to listen to the body when it tells you to stop.


All I've got to say about that is Garret Brown is still operating today. Eat your Wheaties and put your big boy pants on kids.

Let's all watch out for punctuation on these posts, folks... just one missing comma and it reads like you're wanting to put your big boy pants on kids.

... cameras like the PD150, XL1, DVX100, HVX200, EX1, etc... style cameras :)

That is the range of pro (or semi-pro to some) cameras I'm talking about. And I'd say the overwhelming majority of pro-video camera sales in the last 20 years has been in that handheld (vs shoulderbrick) market.


Dylan, I shot with the PD-150 in 2002, barely a decade ago. It has a special place in my heart. In fact, it was small enough to fit in it. :)

Also, the XL1 wasn't a 'brick' model, it was shoulder mount, wasn't it? And you're right about the last 10 years - it sure felt like 20! I can relate to that.

Errr, there are other factors to a camera than ergonomic design, as I'm sure you're well aware........ :-) I think it's the design that wins JVC the praise, if it's not the best seller, I suspect it's due to other factors.

I did say I was an *ex* JVC owner. :) I meant though that other manufacturers had not adopted the form factor due to its lack of popularity overall, not that it was what was holding the HD100 type cameras back from wide success.


Sareesh, the XL1 was not a shoulder mount camera, but instead had a brace that folded out to snug up to your shoulder for a third contact point. I liked it, though lots of people hated it. The optional XLR adapter had a shoulder pad (IIRC) and it wasn't until the XL2 that they made the shoulder pad/XLR ports a full time addition. Having said that, the shoulder mount was mostly useless as the weight was 90% over the front of the camera unless you got an AB adapter and hung bricks over the back. Anyway, even Canon now has ditched the shoulderable cameras completely.

Is it just me, or:


Isn't manipulating a heavy camera on a perfectly designed fluid head+support a tactile pleasure to use?

Doesn't a perfectly balanced shoulder mounted camera become an extension of your body, as opposed to a box-in-your-palm, which is actually a pain in the wrong place?

Sure there's a workout involved either way. But are we exercising the right muscles?

Sareesh, the XL1 was not a shoulder mount camera, but instead had a brace that folded out to snug up to your shoulder for a third contact point. I liked it, though lots of people hated it.

Actually I too thought it was a bold move on their part, trying to bridge the gap between both designs. It's a pity they didn't pursue it.

Just wish we had a 2K camera that didn't take that many years out of our lives, eh?

I'm still very surprised at 56 IRE for skin tones with standard gamma. 56 IRE is normally used as the top end of the window for a mid grey card (42-56) with standard gamma, not skin tones which are typically 60-70 IRE. Of course if it works for you, then who am I to say your wrong, just surprised.

Charles, your memory is off limits as you were flying $250,000 cameras on top of $80,000 Stedicams while the rest of DVinfo was shooting 4-8lb cameras like the PD150, XL1, DVX100, HVX200, EX1, etc... style cameras :)

That is the range of pro (or semi-pro to some) cameras I'm talking about. And I'd say the overwhelming majority of pro-video camera sales in the last 20 years has been in that handheld (vs shoulderbrick) market.

Missed a bunch of stuff here as I was embroiled in a couple of busy work days. Yesterday I was finishing up a project I've been shooting that was a lot of fun, a spoof of "The Bachelor" (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/insurge-pictures-red-hour-digital-ben-stiller-296331) which we shot on unadorned Sony F800's. I didn't have operators on the pickup day yesterday so I ended up with the camera on my shoulder for a scene in a limo and I noticed for the umpteenth time that the classic Betacam form factor is a darn good one. The camera is perfectly balanced on the shoulder, the weight is just enough to keep it stable but not so much as to wear one down (all day long would be another story, but not terrible). That to me is still the classic "pro" video camera form factor, which goes back roughly to the TK76 (which emerged about the same time as the SR1).

I didn't think anyone considered the PD150/XL1 cameras as being "pro"--I'm pretty sure the term "prosumer" was already in use at that time. And yes, Dylan, of course I was using that class of camera back then, why do you think I showed up on this site?! The XL1 was my first serious camcorder purchase, to be followed by the XL1s, DVX100, A1...none of which I ever enjoyed shooting handheld, always found them to be an abomination. On an extensive handheld EX3 shoot a few years ago I took pains to mount the camera on a baseplate with long rods and a brick battery to get the damn thing on my shoulder one way or another. After the emergence of the JVC HD100, which finally got the right idea, I thought that the other manufacturers would follow suit, and the HD version of the XL series would have a clamp-on back section to turn it into a shoulder mount camera--but amazingly, Canon, Sony and Panasonic still continue to turn out handheld cameras with poor ergonomics.

David: Garrett is still putting on the rig at workshops, but he retired a while ago from operating on movies. Not to say he wouldn't be physically up to the challenge (at 70, God bless him) but as he says, he got tired of riding around in passenger vans! Steadicam, while certainly a great deal of weight, does have the advantage of being well-distributed on the operator's body, while a heavy handheld rig is of course biased entirely on one side which can be far more stressful on the body even at a substantially reduced weight. I used to shoulder a dressed-up Genesis or F35 with SRW deck onboard, a good 50lbs of camera and I was not happy with the way it torqued the spine, which Steadicam never did (the film equivalents like BL's and Platinums were about the same, but generally with 400 ft loads restricting takes to 4 minutes, unlike the "keep shooting" mantra of the HD world).

And finally, back to yesterday's "Bachelor" spoof shoot ... it would be hard for me not to mention that said scene placed me in the back of a limo in the solo company of Jennifer Aniston for 15 minutes--a chance to reminisce about our last time working together (Office Space)! She was very pleasant--and cute.

I didn't think anyone considered the PD150/XL1 cameras as being "pro"--I'm pretty sure the term "prosumer" was already in use at that time.

The tens of thousands of professional videographers that make livings on them generaly consider them pro cameras. The term "prosumer" does them a disservice.

And yes, Dylan, of course I was using that class of camera back then, why do you think I showed up on this site?

You weren't here just for me?

Dylan, you weren't supposed to tell anyone our little secret...

Anyway, I can see what you are saying about the prosumer badge.To me the term "professional" means one who is paid for what they do. It does get more dodgy when talking about equipment. There are some camera features that certainly feel professional, such as XLR inputs vs minijack, or removable lenses with proper servo zooms vs built in zooms with stepped servos. But of course, over the years the separation between manufacturer's divisions have blurred and an inexpensive camera can produce footage that will satisfy the requirements of the network engineers, etc.

Still, the terms professional and prosumer were used by the manufacturers to delineate their products lines especially back in the emerging days of DV, so it feels appropriate to refer to them as such. No statement intended about their users.

I just remembered how cool it was to shoot elements for "Scrubs" on my XL1 that were played back on a TV within the scene (mock news footage etc). Production loved it because it was a cheaper rental than a Betacam which was the usual way to do it, and I liked the idea of owning a camera that was good enough to pass muster for that application. When it came time to sell, I mentioned in the eBay description that the camera had been used on "Scrubs" and it sold quickly for top dollar! (along those lines, anyone want to buy my Steadicam (http://web.me.com/chupap/gearsale/nimblecam.html) used on "Act for Valor" and "Nocturne"?? haha).

Well, we should probably get back to the C300 now.

Oh yeah, the C300...!

I think I was saying, if you can handhold an EX1 you can handhold a C300 (If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball!) It's nothing new in terms of basic ergonomics (a monitor and handle around a loaf of bread) and weight.


Damn, now I'm thinking how nice it would be if every camera was made like the HD100...

To me the term "professional" means one who is paid for what they do. It does get more dodgy when talking about equipment........
Still, the terms professional and prosumer were used by the manufacturers to delineate their products lines especially back in the emerging days of DV, so it feels appropriate to refer to them as such. No statement intended about their users.
Very well put. Unfortuntely "prosumer" has acquired a negative ring and that's a shame. It nicely describes cameras like the PD150, and if that camera gets used by somebody for payment - they are a professional.
I think I was saying, if you can handhold an EX1 you can handhold a C300........
Ah yes...... but if you can handhold either of them for x minutes, you can handhold a HD100 for twice as long! :-)

Just one thing to consider with the C300 is that the hand grip is towards the rear of what is a very short camera. Put a 24-70mm L series lens on it (as many will) and you cannot hold it single handed for more than a minute as all the weight is in the lens, it's really front heavy. Most handy cams have longer bodies and the grip is usually closer to the centre of gravity.