C300 for wildlife filmmaking?

[Leon Lorenz]

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

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Adam Letch

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.

[Mark OConnell]

Originally Posted by Adam Letch

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.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Adam Letch

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.

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Leon Lorenz

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.

Originally Posted by Mark OConnell

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.

[Don Miller]

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.

[Mark OConnell]

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.

[Don Parrish]

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucd7T...ayer_embedded#!

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

[Don Miller]

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.

[Markus Nord]

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...

[Chris Dickinson]

Originally Posted by Adam Letch

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)

[Chris Dickinson]

Originally Posted by Leon Lorenz

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

[Don Miller]

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?

[Leon Lorenz]

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