C300 for wildlife filmmaking?

[Willard Hill]

In reference to the post by Sabyasachi Patra,

"The difference between the C300 footage and DSLR footage is stunning. There is a lot of detail in the C300 footage even with the low quality 24-105."

I am a bit surprised that you classify the 24-105mm as being low quality-(I assume you are referring to the Canon 24-105mm F4 L IS) -it seems to receive mostly positive reviews. I realize you say it does give good detail on the C300 in spite of this, but I still wasn't aware it is a low quality lens.

[Jon Roemer]

Originally Posted by Willard Hill

I am a bit surprised that you classify the 24-105mm as being low quality-(I assume you are referring to the Canon 24-105mm F4 L IS) -it seems to receive mostly positive reviews. I realize you say it does give good detail on the C300 in spite of this, but I still wasn't aware it is a low quality lens.

I'm not a wildlife filmmaker but I'll chime in here.

I have found this about the 24-105 f/4 L as well. I do both stills and video work. With full-frame stills the lens is convenient. It's small, light, has a good range, and the f/4 matters less overall when ISOs can go through the roof. BUT it's wonky - there's very strong distortion especially on the wide end. The corners don't hold well if shooting wide open and it is subject to extremely strong CA. CA that cannot always be corrected in post. I have found the image quality for stills to be barely passable as a pro lens.

On a C300 which is only using the center of the image area and which also does some CA correction in camera - it works fine and the IS is extremely helpful.

The new 24-70 f/2.8 II is a much better lens in terms of optical quality (but no IS.) I am curious about the 24-70 f/4 IS lens -> how much better it is than the 24-105 with image quality and if its hybrid IS is noticeably better for video. I suspect it's better on both fronts.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

Mat, I used to use the Canon 35-350mm L a lot for video work (without converter) and found it worked quite well in most situations, but the very latest Sigma AF 120-300mm OS f/2.8 far outshines the Canon for handling and picture quality in both stills and video.
The Sigma also works very well with 1.4X and 2X converters (either Sigma or Canon versions work great. I use it with Canon extenders) and maintains AF even with 2X converter - So you have a decent 120-600mm range in a very well-built package.
The image stabilizer on the Sigma is one of the best I've ever used and a step-up from most of the Canon IS lenses I've used. It also has internal zoom (unlike the horrible push-pull extending 28-300mm L and 35-350mm L zooms). The large and wide manual focus ring on the new Sigma is smooth as silk and so perfect for filming.

[Mark Lawrence]

Hi all,

I am a new member to this forum and can see this thread has been going on for some time. I am in a similar position to Leon and looking for something which is going to provide broadcast quality images and with a good reach for wildlife capturing.

I have been spinning around trying to see which camera works best for the application and so far I am narrowed down to some Sony models and the Canon C300.

No matter which company you deal with the salesperson will always say to get theirs as it is 'the best'. We know that isn't true as it comes down to what is going to work when out and about. I will be shooting solo and am experienced in using a Canon EOS 5D MK111 and a former Sound Engineer but getting this right needs to be number one consideration. I have a good budget but that doesn't mean I want to lose my money buying equipment that will frustrate me when out in the field and spending most days hiding in vegetation waiting for that creature to come into the view finder and then realise the lens is not right or the camera can't do what is needed for that, often, one off opportunity.

I am able to use a tripod for a lot of the work and very fit so carrying weighty gear is not really a worry.

Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark.

[Mark Lawrence]

Just to be more specific I am ideally looking to get something that has a good DOP and is able to handle low light and will take either the Canon lenses or Nikon. I have a load of good L glass for Canon and some Sigma (this are actually very nice too).

I am happy to add an external recording device to get the level of desired finish for broadcasting companies so it doesn't have to be an all in one. I reckon the C300 is a great camera but with the large sensor my worry is the DOP and loss of reach on lenses which don't cost crazy amounts of money.

Something that has good battery life, is fairly robust (for when I need to rope climb a tree with it on my back, and can more or less give me the results ready to go straight into editing for production.

It is a tall order I know but what is needed is a system that will last me some time and will give me a lot of use.

Thanks again for any information.
Mark.

[Mark Lawrence]

Sorry I mean Depth Of Field, DOF not DOP (not sure where that came from!).

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Hi Mark,
Since you have asked this question in the C300 for Wildlife thread, I would say that it would be a good choice for wildlife.

The S35 sized sensor of the C300 as opposed to the full frame sensor of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III gives you a greater reach. The image stabilisation of the IS lenses also works with the C300.

The low light ability of the C300 camera is good. You however need to expose it correctly to get the right amount of noise.

You can use Nikon lenses with an adapter. I can't vouch for it, as I use all canon L series lenses. Even zoom lenses like 100-400 give you a good reach and works well.

No camera is perfect. However, after a lot of thought I have bought the C300 and am pretty happy with it. You may check the preview of my leopard film included in my signature. The C300 footage is marked and the other footage is from DSLR. It might help you in making your decision.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Mark Lawrence]

Hi Sabyasachi

The C300 does look very nice, the results more importantly.

I have a decent budget so this is not out of reach but a LOT of people are saying that 2/3 is best for wildlife due to better DOF. The 50 Mbps and 4.2.2. is not an issue with say a Sony EX3 as an external recorder can soon provide those specs to meet the strict requirements of say the BBC or similar.

I need something able to handle low light well, provide good DOF and be robust due to the type of locations/situations I will be filming. The C300 looks good but is it tough.

Slow motion also matters as I will want to catch fast action and slow it right down but with a decent quality end result. It seems I want a lot but really not nearly as much as some cameras mentioned on this thread. I asked about the Sony, although a C300 thread, as I could see others providing their recommendations and experiences with other brands/models.

Your film is VERY nice and the images are outstanding so it does demonstrate that what you have is a good set-up but... Is it the system for what I want, lots of moving about Run-And-Gun and other tricky situations requiring fast no nonsense capturing of images. I looked at the Canon XF305 and Sony PMW200 but without interchangeable lenses (what were they thinking to miss that?!!) I passed on them.

Before I spend the cash and invest on equipment which I hope to use for a long time, something future proof, I can't just look at the first well marketed product until I see it is able to get what I need, your film although excellent is not the type of work I will be doing so still uncertain about the C300, although a great camera.

What were you using before you had the C300 and by the way, thanks for your help.

Mark.

[Mark Lawrence]

...about the 2/3 sensors.. I meant to say the increased range with lenses (crop factor) and low light capabilities for certain conditions likely to be encountered when out with the camera.

[Markus Nord]

Mark, it sounds that you are not really sure how different cameras will work, and how you will work with the camera. I would suggest that you should rent the different cameras you are looking at over a weekend and try them out, the way you will use them. Every wildlife filmmaker got there own style, you need to try the camera to see if it fits yours.

[Stine Lise Nielsen]

Long time since anyone posted in this thread :) but I pick it up again.
Sigma 120-300 2.8 with teleconverter - how does the footage look? any one with examples?
At this time there is also the Tamron 150-600mm - any one tried it out on C100 or C300.
I use C100 myself, but assume there should be no difference. (I reg. with a Ninja)

[Leon Lorenz]

I've been using the C300 shortly after it was released and am very pleased with the quality of the camera and the footage. This is one tough camera. I go into very rugged places and it has never let me down. Just got back from a remote salmon spawning river in British Columbia filming grizzlies and wolves catching large Chinook salmon and the results were stunning to say the least.

I have to be very mobile in most of my filming so I don't carry long lenses. The Canon 28 -300mm is the lens I have attached 99% of the time as I need to be able to shoot wide when unsuspecting wildlife come in close. I find the best zoom lens is your 2 legs anyhow. At times I'll attach a 2X extender for certain long shots with excellent results.With the push pull design you have to be very careful not to hit the extender when you go to a wider angle. Canon says don't use the extender with this lens, however, I do without any problems, just be totally focused on what you're doing. I also use the Canon 70 - 200mm for very low light conditions. I find both lenses equal in picture quality.

Leon Lorenz
Canadian Wildlife Productions
Canadian Wildlife Productions: Grizzly Bears, Bighorm Sheep in Alberta & BC Rockies DVD Videos

[Darren Levine]

nice thread.

a lot of what's mentioned here amounts to why i've been hoping for more m43 improvements and releases. or for sony to finally make an interchangable version of its 1" sensor which has proven fantastic, if they came out with a new 1" sensor with a lower pixel count, improved or eliminated the rolling shutter, that'd be something i'd grab in a minute