I finally bit the bullet and bought the 300. After a life time of working with film and broadcast gear it does take a bit of getting used to. Borrowing a lens at the moment and working out what to buy. We'll see how things go.
George

I just tested a Canon XC10 that sells for about a $1000 less. Yes, it captures a nice image. But, photo camera makers seem unwilling to make cameras that have the functions needed for shooting video. 3 stop ND or OFF. A needlessly DSLR type menu system. No EVF. No switches. Too few User buttons.

And, no S35 chip or lens options. Worse, I've haven't seen so much jello in years!

I think you'll be very happy with the LS300. If I had the $$$ I would have bought the one JVC sent me.

PS: I did have an "interesting" time with a C300 MK2 ($16k). The zoom lens cost over $30K. Canon has one that sells for over $70K! Rig weight was over 30 pounds. But, still no 4K frame-rate over 30fps.

The C300 is in a different price league so you cannot realistically compare it with the LS300.

Plus the standard Cannon firmware on DSLRs does not allow 4K video + only a few mins of recording.

When it comes to DSLRs for video, I was recently looking at the Sony A6300. Any thoughts when compared to the LS300. I am only interested in the 4K video quality, mbps of the codec, etc... as for audio I was thinking of getting a Tascam anyway

Don't think Steve was comparing with the c300, he just said he had a good time with it :)

I just tested a Canon XC10 that sells for about a $1000 less. Yes, it captures a nice image. But, photo camera makers seem unwilling to make cameras that have the functions needed for shooting video.

I"m sure Canon does this to clearly separate their Video/photo line, if you want to have a "video" camera with all functionality associated with video, then you buy the c100/300 or a xf300. It's the same reason why Panasonic doesn't include ND filters on the GH4, if you want the real videoversion you get a dvx200, with dslr's or hybrids it's always going to be a compromise.

When it comes to DSLRs for video, I was recently looking at the Sony A6300. Any thoughts when compared to the LS300.

They are like night and day, not sure how you want to compare these unless it's purely to compare image quality but in such a case you might as well could consider a black magic cinema camera which is also a pain to work with for video but you can get a very nice looking image out of it.

They are like night and day, not sure how you want to compare these unless it's purely to compare image quality but in such a case you might as well could consider a black magic cinema camera which is also a pain to work with for video but you can get a very nice looking image out of it.

And I'm back on the LS300 side....

Only time will tell but I'll be happy with the LS300. I read and hear a lot of people talking about the merits of different cameras but remember it's just a tool. You can give the best camera to a bad cameraman and you will still get shit. When you pay for an operation I don't think you are paying for the scalpel.
Just a thought.
Have a great day everyone.

When you pay for an operation I don't think you are paying for the scalpel.

I would pay extra for a sharp one :)

I have a lot of stuff - an LS300, two Pocket Cameras, a D16, and an XF100 - lucky? Maybe, but I'm also of the opinion that they are tools, and I can chose the one I need for the specific job.

Carry on - XF100 (decent small camera with good audio, but not my favorite by any means).

B-roll or narrative - Pocket or D16 for raw or ProRes (I prefer the D16 because it doesn't need an IR cut or exhibit unpredictable moire, but it's raw only, and the Pocket also shoots ProRes up to HQ).

Interviews, documentary - LS300 (NDs, good audio and, believe it or not, intercuts well with the Pocket Camera even though it's 8bit).

4k - LS300 (hardly ever need it, but it's there if I do).

If I'm going out the door and I'm unsure (they say a man with a watch always knows what time it is, a man with two watches is never sure) I grab the LS300 because it's the most versatile and easiest to use and hasn't disappointed me.

Important note: All of the above except the Canon have MFT mounts.

Forgot to add - a few threads back I said I was going to buy another LS300. At the time I learned Digital Bolex was about to stop production, so I got an MFT D16 instead. It's a terrific camera and I'm sorry they didn't make it.

Steve, so basically you're mostly using the LS300 in most scenarios

Yes, in most scenarios... I really like the camera.

The only real downside is that as an old school documentary guy, I habitually zoom in to focus, and that doesn't work with the LS. I've talked about this before - a lot... My zooms include the Olympus 12-40, Lumix 35-100 and several old S16 zooms. All are, or act, parfocal on the Pocket Cameras. In fact, one of my Pockets has the Angenieux 15-150 (a truly parfocal lens) on it most of the time, and it's really a fun combo.. That lens loses infinity on the LS when zoomed back.

That said, the LS has the Prime Zoom feature, which makes primes fun to use - and with native MFT zooms like the Olympus I can zoom in the Prime Zoom to 46% to focus when the lens itself is at 12mm. Pretty cool.

The other downside for some is the viewfinder, but I use a Gratical X and so that's not a problem for me - and the Gratical has good peaking and scopes that help a lot when shooting J-Log, which is the only setting I use.

It would be nice if it was 10 bit, but the image holds up well when well exposed, although banding on long fades can be a problem. That's why I often shoot exterior B roll with the Pocket - or the D16 if it's intended to be archival (the D16 only shoots raw, which is 5GB per minute, so it takes some planning).

BTW, when I shoot raw with either the Pocket or the D16 I transcode to ProRes HQ 422, after a modest color correction in DaVinci. When I import the LS300 stuff in FCPX, it comes in as ProRes 422 and I haven't had much problem intercutting, especially with the Pocket. The D16 is a little harder - it really does have an organic film look that's difficult to emulate.