C300 Mark II press release, USA version: Canon USA Announces C300 Mark II at DV Info Net (http://www.dvinfo.net/news/canon-usa-announces-c300-mark-ii.html)

C300 Mark II product pages, USA version: Canon C300 Mark II - Cinema EOS Cameras - Canon USA (http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c300_mark_ii)

C300 Mark II specifications brochure attached below for download.


-New sensor
-4k internal
-Up to 15 stops dynamic range
-internal 4:2:2 10bit @ up to 440mbps
-Dual Digic DV5
-5! ND filters: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
-Supports ITU-R BT.2020 colour gamut
-Log2 - an update to original Clog
-ISO up to 102,400 and improved over mark 1
-XF-AVC intra codec
-CFast media
-2k/HD up to 120fps
-Output's RAW 4:4:4 4k
-Overall same design but with many improvement/refinements
-EF mount, but mentions optional upgrade to PL mount or EF with cinema lock
-Price 11299euro

2K and 1080 can be recorded at 12 bit?? That's an interesting feature.

Thank goodness for the high frame rate improvements.

It's interesting that it can record raw... that puts it into competition with C500, no? Though C500 does higher frame rates at 4K.

Quoted UK price of £11,299 ex VAT. Available 3rd quarter of 2015...going go be a long 6 months!

Better than I expected. Canon is going to sell a ton of these.

Same price as the original C300.

If some one can offer me nice trade in deal I would definitely be interested but as Canon has just dented the value of my C300 this might be a bit difficult.

The specs are absolutely superb. Bit confused about whether the the LCD has a new display but the EVF has gone OLED.

What I'll probably do is hang onto my C300 and buy the new XC10 which I can afford.

Quoted UK price of £11,299 ex VAT. Available 3rd quarter of 2015...going go be a long 6 months!
I guess you're referring to the C300mk2, Andy? I expect the XC10 will be much closer to the Sony RX10 and Panasonic FZ1000 price - under £1000, once things settle down.

It's an OLED screen. I would assume similar to the C100 Mark II - which has a very nice screen. Much better color & better contrast.

It's an OLED screen. I would assume similar to the C100 Mark II - which has a very nice screen. Much better color & better contrast.

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

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

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

Canon USA "walkaround" video of the C300MkII.

Walkaround of the Canon EOS C300 Mark II - YouTube

Also, more detail about features here:

https://youtu.be/Y8zNtfkLdOQ

Heard $20k, then $17k, B&H now has it listed at $15,999.00. Canon will sell a ton of them but I do think they are missing an FS7 chunk of the market. The jump from $5,500.00 for the 1080 only C100 MKII to $16k for the 4K C300 MKII is too large. They should have come out with a 4K version called a C200 for $10k and re-aligned features to make that acceptable to an FS7 buyer. But they will sell a ton of C300 MKIIs so what do I know?

If I was a C300 owner and didn't do any broadcast work, I would sell it and purchase a C100 Mark II.

The C300 Mark II price will likely come down between now and the time camera starts to ship. They will have another price reduction around March 2016 and I expect a decent used market this time next year in the 10k range.

This trend keeps true with the historical pricing changes on the C300 Mark I and C100 Mark I:

This is going to be a wonderful camera and Canon will sell them like hotcakes.

My only gripe is I wish the OLED was located toward the back of the camera and on the camera body itself much like the C100. Being able to detach the top handle on the C100 is great for shooting with a low profile and not drawing a lot of attention to yourself.

So Darren do you think people will prefer this over the Sony Fs7? The video I saw said the new 300 II was a bit heavier and taller than the old one. Also wonder what edit system will handle the Canon Codec. Also I think the Sony will be able to do faster frame rates then the 300 II. Of course real side by side test can't happen until they deliver. I think Advantage Sony for the moment.


US price still not announced, probably a few days away:

Canon USA Announces C300 Mark II (http://www.dvinfo.net/news/canon-usa-announces-c300-mark-ii.html)

-New sensor
-4k internal
-Up to 15 stops dynamic range
-internal 4:2:2 10bit @ up to 440mbps
-Dual Digic DV5
-5! ND filters: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
-Supports ITU-R BT.2020 colour gamut
-Log2 - an update to original Clog
-ISO up to 102,400 and improved over mark 1
-XF-AVC intra codec
-CFast media
-2k/HD up to 120fps
-Output's RAW 4:4:4 4k
-Overall same design but with many improvement/refinements
-EF mount, but mentions optional upgrade to PL mount or EF with cinema lock
-Price 11299euro

Canon customers love to complain and whine about their cameras not "out specking" the competition, while then proceeding to write a big fat check to purchase the new release. I suspect deep down they know specs are really not all that important.

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

"Hot Cakes"


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

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

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

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

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

Price ONLY matters if you can't recoup it.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

"Hot Cakes"


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You summed it up perfectly Dan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canon's C300 Mark II cinema camera will cost you $20,000 (http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/08/canon-c300-mark-ii/)

Hopefully we'll know more regarding pricing in the next few days.

B&H has it on pre-order for $15,999.00

Okay, as both a long time Sony and Canon user, I can see merits for all the varied opinions for each in this post so far, just as there always is when comparing different camera manufacturers. Some people like Ford, some like Chevy. They all do the job in competent hands. But I have a couple of pressing questions, which have nothing to do with the new sensor, the LUTs or 4K. Maybe it's been covered here already (I admit I skimmed!) but did Canon fix the buttons on the camera to be a 'soft click'?? It's one of the things which drives me crazy on the 300.... you're set up in a quiet interview setting, and I have a compulsive habit of constantly checking focus, especially when using a very shallow DOF, and the subject can't sit still. I do this by obviously utilizing both magnification and peaking, and while the noise from the buttons rarely (if ever) has made it to the recording, it has caused me to receive stink-eye from more than one producer. They don't really know what I'm doing, all they hear is the constant 'click-click-click' as I toggle through magnification, peaking, zebra and this brings me to my other pet peeve with the C300. WHEN is Canon going to get the hint that we don't need all the display data in both the LCD and VF at the same time?? Did they change these small but somewhat annoying little specs?

Given how noisy the NAB show floor is, I couldn't verify it personally but quiet buttons was a specific talking point.

Also saw some 4k footage recorded internally and displayed on Canon's new Rec 2020 monitor. So beautiful.

...all they hear is the constant 'click-click-click' as I toggle through magnification, peaking, zebra and this brings me to my other pet peeve with the C300. WHEN is Canon going to get the hint that we don't need all the display data in both the LCD and VF at the same time?? Did they change these small but somewhat annoying little specs?

I can say that I didn't notice a different "feel" to the buttons, but yeah it was really loud so you couldn't tell if the buttons were quieter...(although, frankly, I don't think I've ever thought of them as loud.) The new perimeter info view on the LCD makes for a really clutter free image, and the LCD quality is substantially improved over the previous model. The color on it seemed very accurate, which wasn't the case with the Mark I.

To me it was all about the image, and the flexibility of all the new luts, looks and gamma's. The highlight range on this camera is insane.... in a completely different league from the previous generation of CinemaEos cameras, daring you to just keep increasing exposure to see if the skintones would burn out and get weird. They really never did, even at absurd exposure levels the skintones just faded to white...awesome. I set the exposure for the scene to what I considered "normal" and then tilted the camera up to the spots lighting the set and there was full detail in the fresnel lens and housing. The skintones seem to have lost the "golden" hue that could be a blessing or a curse on the old c300. The new skintones are a tad redder (definitely seeing the Alexa influence here) but never oversaturated. (The camera has an "original C300" look in the settings, but I never got to look at whether it rendered skintones more like the old camera or not...the booth guy said it should).

Finally, I was really impressed with the Rec.709 LUT and gamma on this camera. I always felt this setting on the C300 just looked contrasty and oversharpened and noisy. I've often heard about Alexa that it's pretty common in TV drama to just to use it's rec.709 setting straight out of the camera as it looks so good. From what I could see, Canon has followed suit here as well...

The only thing of concern that I (and several others) saw on the overhead monitors was some pretty nasty pattern noise in the deepest shadows at every ISO (things that would normally render as completely black). It was not clear if this was something the monitor was causing (you couldn't see it on the LCD), and it was certainly not in evidence on the demo film they showed in the theatre. The booth guys had no answer other than that they were engineering sample cameras and didn't have final color. I believe that (and I couldn't imagine Canon releasing a camera with such a glaring problem.)

Barry - thanks for that really informative post of the new C300 Mark 2 from NAB. Having a better monitor will definitely be useful, and one that stays level!

Did you manage to play around with any of the new autofocus features?

No real surprises on the autofocus stuff. Meaning it all worked as advertised. The booth guys were all keen to talk about the assisted manual focus which let's you place the focus point wherever you like and gives you a nice graphic indicating the direction and amount of focus error for manual correction. Probably the most dramatic example of the DP-AF came in the classroom, where the teacher had a model sit down, while he framed her and quickly set a focus point near the edge of the frame and then ran a fast 4 foot slider move, wide open, directly at her with her face significantly off center in the frame... It was perfect and dramatic, and took him all of 3 seconds to initiate. Overall this is the best implementation of DP-AF on any of their cameras. And I doubt anyone will find much to complain about regarding AF.

Canon's C300 Mark II cinema camera will cost you $20,000 (http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/08/canon-c300-mark-ii/)

Hopefully we'll know more regarding pricing in the next few days.

Chuck Westfall in a PVC video confirms the $20k list...~7 min. in:

NAB 2015: C300 Mark II Up-Close on Vimeo

and you understand what list price means.......it means you will never pay that price.

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com

and you understand what list price means.......it means you will never pay that price.

And if you had read the thread you'd see that of course I know what list price means.

And if you had read the thread you'd see that of course I know what list price means.

So why did you take the time to post a video and specifically mention the $20k list price? What is the point you are trying to make exactly?

So why did you take the time to post a video and specifically mention the $20k list price? What is the point you are trying to make exactly?

I had posted on p. 2 of this thread, http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-cinema-eos-camera-systems/527717-c300-mark-ii-announcement-discussion-2.html#post1883038 , in response to Mark Dobson, that the pricing I had seen for the Mark II all said $16k (e.g. NewsShooter.com). There was no mention of list prices above that. So, my hope was that similar to the Mark I release, the actual street price would be below that.

Paul Chiappini responded that the list he saw was $20k w/a street price of $16k but his source was Engadget. Engadget doesn't always get its camera info correct. Paul also said, "Hopefully we'll know more regarding pricing in the next few days."

So, when I happened to see Canon officially saying, $20k list, $16k street, it was confirmation of the situation.

Given that I quoted Paul with my posting of the video it's pretty clear that I'm saying - hey, here's confirmation.

B&H has it up and listed for $15,999. So does Texas Media Systems, EVS, AbelCine, and many others. Why is that not good enough?

B&H has it up and listed for $15,999. So does Texas Media Systems, EVS, AbelCine, and many others. Why is that not good enough?

Gary - you're missing the context. The discussions above are from about a week ago to almost two weeks ago when the camera was first announced.

When the discussion started none of those vendors had it up and listed. Then $16k appeared on B&H's site but at the time there was still no confirmation from Canon USA as to whether $16k was list or a street price. That's why the discussion was going on. That's why my post made sense a week ago and my earlier one made closer to the camera announcement on the 8th made sense.

Someone, somewhere mentioned they thought it a shame that the C300 Mark 2 had not been called the C400. That would have left the C300 as a viable 1080p entity ( which it is ! ) rather than a bit of a has been.

As to the final sale price of the C300 Mark 2 we will just have to wait but fingers crossed it starts heading downhill.

Canons decision to slash the price of the C300 might be great for potential new owners but creates a slight feeling of distrust for me. Buying the C300 was a big investment for my company, a definite step up in terms of the amount I'm used to paying for a camcorder / DSLR set up, and to see a couple of grand knocked off my investment hurts.

To widen the debate slightly and for another perspective on this announcement here is a blog post from a Cameraman / DoP Daniel Haggett ( who is also a childhood friend of my eldest son ). His blogs are always well researched and informative.

Sony FS7 vs Canon C300 Mark ii vs Sony F5
Sony FS7 vs Canon C300 Mark ii vs Sony F5 (http://www.danielhaggett.com/blog/224-sony-fs7-vs-canon-c300-mark-ii-vs-sony-f5)

For me the C300 Mark 2 seems irresistible and I need to look at how I'm going to finance it. But I won't make a final decision until I've spent a good period of time playing with the XC100 4k camera to see how the additional resolution and consequential additional storage demands will impact on my business.

But I won't make a final decision until I've spent a good period of time playing with the XC100 4k camera to see how the additional resolution and consequential additional storage demands will impact on my business.

It's quite substantial and unless you have 4K monitoring, you'll be hard pressed to see the difference.

But the attraction of the C300 Mark II, for me, isn't 4K. It's 12-bit 1080p/2K internally.

Exactly!

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com

Ain't that the truth! I use one soundie who always give me "the look". But it is true, the darn buttons are noisy on the C300. And, that viewfinder info is just way too cluttered. I like to turn display off but there are a few things I like to keep an eye on in the LCD. So, a two noisy clicks... and I see the info again!

Okay, as both a long time Sony and Canon user, I can see merits for all the varied opinions for each in this post so far, just as there always is when comparing different camera manufacturers. Some people like Ford, some like Chevy. They all do the job in competent hands. But I have a couple of pressing questions, which have nothing to do with the new sensor, the LUTs or 4K. Maybe it's been covered here already (I admit I skimmed!) but did Canon fix the buttons on the camera to be a 'soft click'?? It's one of the things which drives me crazy on the 300.... you're set up in a quiet interview setting, and I have a compulsive habit of constantly checking focus, especially when using a very shallow DOF, and the subject can't sit still. I do this by obviously utilizing both magnification and peaking, and while the noise from the buttons rarely (if ever) has made it to the recording, it has caused me to receive stink-eye from more than one producer. They don't really know what I'm doing, all they hear is the constant 'click-click-click' as I toggle through magnification, peaking, zebra and this brings me to my other pet peeve with the C300. WHEN is Canon going to get the hint that we don't need all the display data in both the LCD and VF at the same time?? Did they change these small but somewhat annoying little specs?