Jump to content
Sabyasachi Patra

Canon C300 Mark II Review

Recommended Posts

Sharing a short review of Canon C300 Mark II based on my experiences in the field

 

It contains some wildlife footage, slow motion and low light.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking at Vimeo and checking out the different tests, I really love the way the footage looks from this, but I think it and the Ursa Mini Pro are comparable and the Mini is half the price.

Also the C300 doesn't seem to output 6G SDI for live switchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you protect your highlights in a situation like this?

 

 

This footage from Pro-Creative is amazing, It's almost like Super 16, except for the highlights.

 

I'm so dying to get my hands on one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you protect your highlights in a situation like this?

 

This footage from Pro-Creative is amazing, It's almost like Super 16, except for the highlights.

 

I'm so dying to get my hands on one.

There's only one way to protect your highlights, and that's to underexpose, and then bring up your shadows and midtones in post. That can cause problems with noise becoming visible, so the greater dynamic range the camera has, the less you need to underexpose, and the easier the whole process becomes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one way to protect your highlights, and that's to underexpose, and then bring up your shadows and midtones in post. That can cause problems with noise becoming visible, so the greater dynamic range the camera has, the less you need to underexpose, and the easier the whole process becomes.

 

Thank you, Stuart. The C300 Mark II seems to have acceptable DR. They market it has having 15 stops but reviews show it's more like 12 stops.

 

I honestly don't know why it's image looks so much better than other cameras in the same sensor category, but it's about the only time I've ever looked at digital footage and thought I wanted it.

 

Do you have any opinions on PL vs EF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon cameras do look nice, but it's very hard to say whether this clip looks good because of the camera, or the grade.

 

PL vs EF. PL mount glass is expensive, and no other mount really adapts to it easily. EF mount offers you a huge range of glass, but it's mostly going to be autofocus/auto aperture lenses that don't offer much control. Canon FD lenses are manual lenses, but perversely, don't adapt to EF mount without an optical adapter. You might want to look at Nikon mount, as there is a huge amount of old stills glass available. When I lived in the UK, I used to know a few of the natural history cameramen at the BBC, and they all used Nikon glass because it was high quality, and readily available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of Nikon mounts. I see on B&H that RedRock Micro makes a Nikon to EF adapter.

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/970871-REG/redrock_micro_2_063_0001_nikon_to_canon.html

 

I imagine that using this adapter wouldn't be problematic on a C300 Mark II in EF mount. As far as I know, that is.

 

However, the C300-2 doesn't come with a native Nikon mount option.

 

The Canon FD lenses aren't bad, I have a friend who uses them on his Red Scarlet with very good results. I realise I would have to use some kind of speed booster but would that really be a bad thing?

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have quite a few Nikon Lenses (e series mostly) which I've used on numerous EF mount cameras, even Alexa and Reds (generally when I'm using my Macro Nikon; or when we need something super light). I'm much a fan of their look, personally but Nikon the EF is a pretty easy adapter, and you can get them cheaply if you're just going with "dumb" lenses. I think mine cost around $11 each (Fotonix if memory serves?) and they basically live on the lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have quite a few Nikon Lenses (e series mostly) which I've used on numerous EF mount cameras, even Alexa and Reds (generally when I'm using my Macro Nikon; or when we need something super light). I'm much a fan of their look, personally but Nikon the EF is a pretty easy adapter, and you can get them cheaply if you're just going with "dumb" lenses. I think mine cost around $11 each (Fotonix if memory serves?) and they basically live on the lenses.

 

Pardon, was this a typo? Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canon FD lenses aren't bad, I have a friend who uses them on his Red Scarlet with very good results. I realise I would have to use some kind of speed booster but would that really be a bad thing?

 

The Canon FD lenses are great. The only reason they aren't more popular is that you can't use them on Canon EF cameras without an optical adapter. They adapt really well for other mounts, but other cameras have their own lenses...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon cameras do look nice, but it's very hard to say whether this clip looks good because of the camera, or the grade.

 

I thought I'd come back to this comment, I read on the Vimeo page how the DP shot that horse sequence. He shot out of the box in CLog2 cinema gamma. Graded in premiere using the lumetri color filter with the Alexa LUT.l as a starting point, because he didn't know how to install Canon LUTs.

 

Pretty amazing for someone new to the camera. The only thing I didn't like was that he kept using rack focus and so much of each shot was out of focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting well makes a heck of a difference. I'm having trouble seeing any difference between the C300 Mark II and this beautifully shot bumper, done with an Ursa Mini 4.6K.

 

Edited by Samuel Berger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er....

 

Apparently the Ursa Mini Pro now has an optional Nikon F mount! Not an adapter but an actual mount! Wow!!!!

 

Ohhh and they've released their own SSD recorder which is $200 less than the Atoch C2S!

 

I guess I'll go for the UMP, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go with an EF mount though. It opens up the ability to use cine-optics on the cheap if/when needed and make the camera more rentable if others in your area want to use it (and you choose to make side income renting it out)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting well makes a heck of a difference. I'm having trouble seeing any difference between the C300 Mark II and this beautifully shot bumper, done with an Ursa Mini 4.6K.

There is little to no difference between the two imagers. However, I believe blackmagic used the Alexa as their base color science template.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er....

 

Apparently the Ursa Mini Pro now has an optional Nikon F mount! Not an adapter but an actual mount! Wow!!!!

 

Ohhh and they've released their own SSD recorder which is $200 less than the Atoch C2S!

 

I guess I'll go for the UMP, then.

 

 

Just checking.. AFAIK know Nikon lenses focus the wrong way.. !! Alert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much the "wrong" way as the opposite way as other lenses; and for that there are numerous Follow Focus's with reversing gears, or you know, you can adapt pretty quickly to the "opposite" throw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its the opposite of every single other major lens manufacturer .. so unless you have only ever user Nikon .. then they are the wrong way round.. .. actually why did they do that.. by mistake or just wanting to be different ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stillsman here.

Nikon just always have made lenses you turn right to infinity. They've just had their centenary- it's just the way they decided to go a long time ago. Maybe there was an engineering reason originally, or a Japanese cultural one- Pentax also go that way. It's an interesting debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its the opposite of every single other major lens manufacturer .. so unless you have only ever user Nikon .. then they are the wrong way round.. .. actually why did they do that.. by mistake or just wanting to be different ..

I like to pretend it's in somehow related to the Mongol Invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've shot with the C300 ii and the Ursa Mini 4.6k / Pro, and dynamic range felt similiar between the two. I believe the C200 is similar to the C300 ii in that regard. I'd say that if you thought you might make use of the Canon autofocus (which is lovely by the way) or were going to have some low light stuff, the C200 would be a no brainer over the Ursa Mini Pro. I haven't personally shot with the EVA1. Honestly, all three should be fine for cinema or FX work, but I'd say the C200 and UMP are more geared since they can shoot RAW.

 

If you have a skilled colorist and are shooting raw, that image wise you should be able to get whatever look you want out of either camera. If you don't have a skilled colorist (or are coloring yourself), then use whatever camera you think will get you the closest look you are going for without too much work. For instance, I found that it was always super easy to get Red Dragon footage (especially with the IPP2 workflow) to a place that I liked, whereas I always had to wrestle with Ursa Mini colors. A lot of people love the stock Blackmagic color science though. I find the stock Ursa Mini 4.6k lut to be awful to work with, so I usually color space transform into log c or red IPP2 and work from there.

According to Taikonaut on BMCUser, the Rec 709 video lut that came with Ursa Mini 4.6k is for live broadcast not for cinema work. Some people use the Rec 709 video lut and think the Mini 4.6k is not up to the job as a cinema camera.

 

I need to be taking notes, I forget which Canon does what. I think the Canon Raw is packed somehow rather than the multiple .DNG files you get from Blackmagic cameras.

 

I also think I'd need an Atomos Shogun Flame to record 4K with it, or is it the Convergent Design Odyssey7Q+ OLED Monitor & 4K Recorder? One of those has a hidden cost in that you need a license to record Canon Raw with it, I think.

 

Like I said, I need to be more diligent in taking notes...but it was a long day and my son's birthday and it's harder to think when tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's a way for those recorder companies and canon to make extra money by licensing things much as you need to "buy" the ability to record highspeed on some Arri cameras, or SGLOG and 4444 on the old sony F3 etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Paralinx LLC



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Abel Cine



    Metropolis Post



    Visual Products



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Ritter Battery



    CineLab



    Serious Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Wooden Camera



    Tai Audio



    Glidecam


×
×
  • Create New...