The DGO Myth [Canon C300 Mark III vs C500 Mark II]

[Samuel Berger]

I'm really curious I keep hearing that the C300 Mark III is so much better than the C500 Mark II. They say it's the DGO sensor. I own a C500 Mark II and a C50. But I keep hearing from people that the C300 Mark III has the most gorgeous image "because DGO."

Seriously, am I missing out? I was going to buy a second C500 Mark II dirt cheap but they have a C300 Mark III for the same price, low hours. I almost feel like I should go for it just because there seems to be this consensus online.

I actually have a theory, I think that this is because back when the C500 Mark II was unattainably expensive, a lot of people bought the C300 Mark III instead based on price alone. So what that means is that there were more of them out there in the wild through those years and there was probably a lot of cope involved. What do you guys think? @tylerpurcell chime in bro!

[Jon O'Brien]

Hi Samuel, good to see you back.

I don't have much to contribute to this thread, other than to say I had a Canon C300 Mark III and was very happy with it. But sold it 2 weeks ago as I decided to get out of videography and concentrate on film.

I thought the images from the C300 Mark III were excellent and were the closest thing in digital cinematography I could find in my price range that was closest to a film look (in my opinion).

I've also filmed with a C200 at film school and it was great too.

I've never filmed with a C500 Mark II.

Incidentally I have an EVF-V70 and an EVF-V50 viewfinder for sale, if you or anyone else is interested. The V50 is used but in excellent condition and the V70 is unused, in mint condition.

Edited March 21 by Jon O'Brien

[Samuel Berger]

43 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Hi Samuel, good to see you back.

I don't have much to contribute to this thread, other than to say I had a Canon C300 Mark III and was very happy with it. But sold it 2 weeks ago as I decided to get out of videography and concentrate on film.

I thought the images from the C300 Mark III were excellent and were the closest thing in digital cinematography I could find in my price range that was closest to a film look (in my opinion).

I've also filmed with a C200 at film school and it was great too.

I've never filmed with a C500 Mark II.

Incidentally I have an EVF-V70 and an EVF-V50 viewfinder for sale, if you or anyone else is interested. The V50 is used but in excellent condition and the V70 is unused, in mint condition.

I hope you're not asking too much for that evf-70. I was trying to find one for a reasonable price today and couldn't.

[Jon O'Brien]

Well, it is a bit pricey 🙂

It's unused, in mint condition.

AUD $4,100 (includes shipping)

[Samuel Berger]

I wonder if I'm the only person around here who cares about Canon enough to have an emotional attachment.😁 opinion on the op? @Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

14 hours ago, Samuel Berger said:

I wonder if I'm the only person around here who cares about Canon enough to have an emotional attachment.😁 opinion on the op? @Tyler Purcell

Hahah sorry just saw this. 

I have not shot with the 300MKIII or the 500MKII. So I don't have much to add. 

I have shot with the 200MKI, 300MKI and MKII along with the 500MKI and 400MKI 

The older C300 had a very unique color science, the 400 and 500 do not share it. So I wonder if the 300MKIII also doesn't share it? 

 

[Jon O'Brien]

EVF-V70 is now approx US 2560 plus US 70 shipping (prices adjusted from Aussie dollars). It's on Ebay. I might have to become a premium member here so I can post the ad.

[Jon O'Brien]

Tyler isn't a big fan of the Canon C300 Mark III, so I wouldn't be asking him frankly. He's said some things recently here that suggest it's no big deal of a camera. Fair enough, to each their own.

But you know, perhaps this DG sensor thing is a bit of a ... marketing thing? At least, as far as I can see, looking at the footage. It is a great camera though, the C300 Mark III. But so is the C500 Mark II.

I could be totally wrong in my opinion on DG sensors. I am not a digital camera expert.

But out of years of looking at digital cinema camera footage I never really saw any major difference in image quality between a C500 Mark II and a C300 Mark III. They both, simply, just looked really good.

With digital cameras, just get a good one. They all do a great job. Learn its quirks. Don't be fussed about dual gain sensors is my advice. For instance, I tend to think there's no big deal with the Alexa 35. Nice camera, but something different than the rest? Not that I've noticed.

Edited March 25 by Jon O'Brien

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Tyler isn't a big fan of the Canon C300 Mark III, so I wouldn't be asking him frankly. He's said some things recently here that suggest it's no big deal of a camera. Fair enough, to each their own.

I mean, I haven't shot with it, nor would I ever want to. 

Canon is way behind on imager tech and the DGO (dual gain) imager in the C300MKIII has a 15ms refresh rate and around 12.5 stops of usable dynamic range in raw. So for the money, it's really a very average camera. Plus, with it being an S35mm sized imager, it's kind of way behind the other cameras in their lineup. The C400 for instance is full frame, 6k native, with 9.5ms refresh and 14 stops of DR (in raw), now that's getting closer to the competition for really not much more money. The color science is whack, but if I had to buy a Canon camera tomorrow because someone pointed a gun at my head, then the C400 would be the only choice. Heck I went to the industry launch event for the C400 and was blown way not a single person there even cared about the camera. I was the only one playing around with it during demo time and where the feature set is very average and nothing unique at all, for Canon at least, it seemed like they were trying for the first time in years. 

When the C300MKII came out, they were ahead of the curve. Since then, they've really made nothing exciting. They did it to themselves tho, everyone moved to Nikon for stills because they were simply superior cameras in every way. When they didn't allow 3rd party brands to make RF lenses and then like total A holes, made EF lenses completely incompatible with their "new" focusing system, everyone jumped ship. We got an R5 shortly after launch and it was by far the biggest mistake I have ever made in the digital still camera world. I have regretted that purchase every single day, but it's not even worth selling, nobody wants them. The R5MKII is really no better, same shitty DR, same overheating when shooting video, same RF mount nonsense. Canon is such an asshole company, when you put non-AF lenses on it, like PL for instance, it shuts off the focus aid system. It blows me away how a company can do this, they are literally THE WORST, right behind Sony who by the way, does the same shit.

 

 

[Samuel Berger]

But at least, you can get a usable image out of a Canon. 😂

[Jon O'Brien]

One thing that was important to me with the C300 MkIII was that you can attach the small and highly-effective V50 electronic viewfinder onto the back of it. The camera with it on is still very light and handy. I had a V50 on my C300 MkIII and will be putting this viewfinder up for sale on Ebay soon as well. I'm pretty sure the EVF-V50 will not fit onto a C400. I always like having a VF, as well as the monitor screen. The EVF-V50 works superlatively and is very compact. The EVF-V70 is bigger and side-mounted.

[Tyler Purcell]

14 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

One thing that was important to me with the C300 MkIII was that you can attach the small and highly-effective V50 electronic viewfinder onto the back of it

Yea I agree, Canon doesn't make a solution for the C400. The Zacuto solution is $495 and it uses the built in display as an EVF. It's ok, that's what I've used with the camera. It tilts up so you can use it as a display or EVF. That's the one thing which is nice, when you're working in situations you don't want an EVF, it sucks to ONLY HAVE an EVF, hence the value of both. 

Honestly, Canon seems to have dumped the C400 entirely, BH doesn't even stock it anymore. 

[Samuel Berger]

On 3/25/2026 at 3:00 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

Honestly, Canon seems to have dumped the C400 entirely, BH doesn't even stock it anymore. 

They still stock the camera. Do you mean the EVF?

[Tyler Purcell]

19 minutes ago, Samuel Berger said:

They still stock the camera. Do you mean the EVF?

Oh dang, when I checked a few days ago it said waiting for new stock. 

[Jon O'Brien]

"dumped the C400 entirely" is now "waiting for new stock."

That's a big difference.

[Tyler Purcell]

18 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

"dumped the C400 entirely" is now "waiting for new stock."

It says "no returns" that means they are dumping stock. I have been buying from BHPhoto for 30 years, anything that is not returnable, is a custom order OR they're cleaning out stock.