Reasons to go for C300 over RED Scarlet X?

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

With an electronic V/F, there's probably no reason with a large zoom and a small camera, that you couldn't have a rig where the combo sits on your shoulder. this being designed so as to allow it to rest at the CG around the back half of the lens. This would involve mounting the V/F on the matte box area and with the camera module at the back of your head, where the battery has been traditionally located.

Thats exactly what weve been doing. The camera body works as a counterweight to the lens. Works great. Will post pics on Monday.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

The interesting thing would be doing this with an interchangeable lens, rather than a built in zoom.

The PMW350 kit lens performs similar tricks and performs incredibly well for the price. I was shooting with the kit lens and two HJ22s and the kit lens produced a sharper image, especially in the corners. It also had a lot less CA, doesn't breath at all and is very compact. It obviously doesn't have the range of an HJ22 and there is variation from one lens to another but it is a great example of Alister's point.

There are minor issues. For example, if you do a fast crash zoom the focus lags by around one frame. In real world shooting this isn't really noticeable unless you frame-by-frame in the edit.

[Andy Garnett]

This forum topic lists a lot of +/- for buying/shooting with the Scarlet-X or C300, but what
I find interesting is that nobody is actually considering buying "one or the other".

Let me explain.

I have friends who shoot on the Sony F3, Sony FS-100, Red One, Red Epic and other friends considering purchasing the Scarlet-X, but I don't know of anyone considering buying a Canon C300.

Yes everyone's talking about both cameras, but discussions of whether to buy a "Scarlet-X vs C300" are purely hypothetical because prospective Scarlet-X buyers that decide the necessary accessories are too expensive are not going to be buying a C300 instead. The C300 is not their back up plan.

Canon C300 buyers are like the mythical "anonymous sources" quoted by reporters in news stories. People we will never know or see the face of.

Seriously, does anyone out there personally know anyone who is planning on buying a C300?

It's like the much hyped introduction of the Panasonic AF-100 (which some people own) however, Panasonic's AF100 sales have underwhelmed to say the least.

Canon has two things going for it with the C300.

First, if it bombs we will never know because Canon has pride and deep pockets and can absorb the production costs.

Second, speaking of production costs, the C300 appears to be pieced together from Canon's $3,000-$7,500 XF line, (granted with an improved much larger sensor), but realistically worth let's say $9,000, but price gouged up to $20,000 so again even if sales are slow it won't be much skin off of Canon's back.

Once again, without referring to mythical TV producers, does anyone know anyone who is going to buy a Canon C300?

I know a lot of people in Hollywood and as of Nov 20, 2011 I don't know anyone planning on buying a Canon C300.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Henry Coll

My personal take is to go with Sony all the way for the following reasons (all of which the C300 lack):

-.......
-3D link
-4:4:4 uncompressed 10 bit output
..........

I'm sure I saw a reference to proper 3D support amongst the Canon specs?

And whilst the F3 may give out a 1080 4:4:4 signal to record, the sensor won't be capable of filling it with information. DeBayering gives resolution of about 80% of the sensor dimensions (2456x1372 in the case of the F3) for luminance, about 50% for chrominance. Hence you can predict about 1965x1100 for luminance, but only about 1228x686 for chrominance. Nothing wrong with those figures for actual usage - but to do justice to 4:4:4 recording the chrominance figure would need to be higher.

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

Originally Posted by Tim Le

Autofocus
- Scarlet with Canon mount can autofocus Canon EF lenses
- C300 does not have autofocus or auto exposure of any kind
- Conclusion: Advantage Scarlet

I think Scarlet can control the autofocus lenses, just as C300 can, but doesn't have autofocus sensor to focus by itself.

[Barry Goyette]

Originally Posted by Andy Garnett

Seriously, does anyone out there personally know anyone who is planning on buying a C300?

I do.

Seriously Andy, I know you probably have your finger on the pulse of cinema community in and around Los Angeles County, but I think you underestimate Canon, it's resources in terms of market understanding, and it's engineering and manufacturing prowess. There have been a number of people on this forum who are quick to point out the areas where the c300 trails the competition (while completely ignoring the very significant areas where the c300 rules the roost -- it think the point of this thread)...and thus arriving at the consensus that this camera simply cannot and will not compete.

I have no crystal ball that can forecast sales for canon but I can tell you this: As a still photographer who dabbled in video a long time before the 5dmarkII arrived, I can tell you that my business changed the day it did. All of a sudden my commercial clients were very interested in the video work I was doing and thus today most still projects I'm involved with include video as part of the package. Yet my experience with the 5dmarkii has left me wanting. In terms of video it reminds me a little of my first real digital still camera, the 10d, over a hundred years ago, a camera that was a nice entree into the digital world, but it was a poor substitute for the film world I was coming from. The high resolution digital backs from Hasselblad and Phase changed photography for me back then.

Today, the 5dmarkII as good as it is, and as polished as the work we've done with it is, is an unruly beast when it comes to color, exposure, focus...everything. I'll make a lot of money this year using a camera like the c300 because it will fit nicely in my existing system of lenses and accessories, and it won't require the wholesale rebuild of my workflow like the Red will. In fact it won't change the size of my kit at all, and as someone who already is carrying too much to a shoot...that's a great thing. That's why I'll be buying one. My guess is there are a few other people in my situation.

But to get to the main point, Canon has said that they built this camera for all the industry people who were essentially ripping their 5dmarkII's apart, mounting PL lenses on them to use in situations where their film cameras, alexas, reds etc were too big, or to expensive to place in certain situations. Those people already have a primary workflow and the c300 will make a great second (or even first) camera.

A true cinema camera with a nice codec and a simple workflow, that uses glass that is inexpensive, plentiful and probably already in your kit is a pretty big draw in the real world.

Finally, in the area of television, this camera is a no brainer. (And don't forget all those guys out in the valley who'll be putting these things to very important use.)

Barry

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Andy Garnett

This forum topic lists a lot of +/- for buying/shooting with the Scarlet-X or C300, but what
I find interesting is that nobody is actually considering buying "one or the other".

I considered one vs the other and I bought a Scarlet. But I'm in film (well mostly), so it appeals to my market more.

I have friends who shoot on the Sony F3, Sony FS-100, Red One, Red Epic and other friends considering purchasing the Scarlet-X, but I don't know of anyone considering buying a Canon C300.

That's probably because your friends are all filmmakers, not broadcast people.

Yes everyone's talking about both cameras, but discussions of whether to buy a "Scarlet-X vs C300" are purely hypothetical because prospective Scarlet-X buyers that decide the necessary accessories are too expensive are not going to be buying a C300 instead. The C300 is not their back up plan.

That's correct... because the two are different tools aimed at different markets. People in the market for a screwdriver don't go looking at a hammer if they don't find a screwdriver they like. Well... maybe Texans.

Seriously, does anyone out there personally know anyone who is planning on buying a C300?

Yes, I know one major (well, for Canada) company looking at them.

First, if it bombs we will never know because Canon has pride and deep pockets and can absorb the production costs.

Second, speaking of production costs, the C300 appears to be pieced together from Canon's $3,000-$7,500 XF line, (granted with an improved much larger sensor), but realistically worth let's say $9,000, but price gouged up to $20,000 so again even if sales are slow it won't be much skin off of Canon's back.

What makes you think it will bomb? Because a dozen of your filmmaker friends aren't going to buy it?

I know a lot of people in Hollywood and as of Nov 20, 2011 I don't know anyone planning on buying a Canon C300.

I know a lot of people who drive cars, but as of Nov 20, 2011 I don't know anyone who is thinking of buying a Ferrari 599 GTO.

[Ken Diewert]

Dylan,

btw, that was the camera owner with the cool t-shirt. The Epic is his first Camera, and he rarely takes his hands off it. I'm pretty sure he sleeps with it.

Re: Lenses and focus. When we had our pre-production meetings i was told we'd have the canon mount, canon glass, and touch screen focus, and the Red 18-85 was 'just in case'. We also have the Red Clutch at around 7k. but handheld is barely possible.

I was seriously thinking scarlet for my next camera, but it's major overkill for 90% of my stuff, and while the initial cost is 15k, you really have to add 10 more for media, batteries, etc... but when you consider that a Betacam cost at least 60k (cdn) back in the early 90's, we are living pretty spoiled to have so many great choices today.

I remember Red used to say, 'we make obsolescence, obsolete' or something like that. Which is ironic, because the Red Ones seem to being kicked to the curb, and lots of good ones are for sale.

[Dom Stevenson]

Great posts here.

The Canon looks like a much more useful tool than the Red in spite of the hefty price. The Red has some advantages for movie making, but surely people doing feature films would rent for the duration anyway?

And let's not forget this is just the beginning for Canon, and before long we'll see higher spec models appear with customary reliability and a solid support network.

[Brian Drysdale]

Producers doing broadcast TV drama tend to rent as well.

[Thierry Humeau]

Originally Posted by Andy Garnett

This forum topic lists a lot of +/- for buying/shooting with the Scarlet-X or C300, but what
I find interesting is that nobody is actually considering buying "one or the other".

I own two F3s but I am eagerly waiting to purchase a C300. It is quite unique and fills the gap in the current S35 offerings for an ergonomic, lightweight, compact and high-performance camera. It has very low power requirements, offers long record times on inexpensive media and works with the entire lineup of Canon's EF lenses. Not to mention the file format and workflow (thanks to Sony's MPEG-2 codec....) that is one of the easiest and most efficient and already is supported by all NLE systems.

The C300 is going to be a perfect camera for documentary and TV magazine productions. I hope Canon also comes out with a full frame version, that'd make it even more special :)

Thierry.

[Ramji Meena]

Everybody is finding C300 perfect for episodic tv programmes and documentary work.I think the best camera for this segment is HPX3100 which is not costing much as compared to C300. I have seen the HPX3100 images projected on 35mm cinema screen. The results were better than RED ONE.

[Dylan Couper]

Ramji
THe HPX3100 is a great tool... but quite a different one. Different sensor, different format, different ergonomics, different media, etc... There are certainly some situations where it would be a better tool than a C300 or a Red One, but it would be inaccurate to say that it, or any camera, is the *best* camera for such a sweeping segment.

[Charles Papert]

Andy, I can't speak to your circle of Hollywood friends but the overwhelming camera choice in my sphere is the Alexa, so it's sort of a moot point. I myself don't have plans to buy one of those at present but I am interested in the sub-20K category as I can more easily pay that off (rental rates are better than 1/4 of the Alexa despite the price difference). I'm a fan of the F3 with S-log, but I'll be testing the C300 against in when it comes out, and probably throw the Scarlet in there too, although the lesser sensitivity of that camera is a strike against it. The C300 looks extremely strong in that department but the demo films at the unveiling invited more questions than answers, for me. There are certainly facets that disappoint me about the C300--separate versions for PL and EF? groan--but it is still a decent package. I'm not going to jump at Scarlet merely because it does offer interchangeable mounts or even 4K, because I want to see the images from the camera before I make any judgements of it. I'd rather have more pleasing skintone renditions than extra resolution (and complicated post workflow).

[Brian Drysdale]

Although perhaps not as robust, but there is the physical possibility of an EF to PL mount adapter for the camera, perhaps the adapter manufacturers will be checking out this one.