Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

C300 vs. Scarlet-X lowlight

the c300 looks pretty good at 20,000 ISO

that being said, this is a pretty far stretch of a comparison. the article is mostly nonsense, sorry. still, not saying the canon sensor doesn't perform well, or even "better" in some regards with low light. it is still cool to see them both, but to draw such misinformed conclusions is absurd.

the atmospherical conditions (as others have pointed out) brings up the ambient light in the scene quite a bit.
and yes, a lens at 2.5 is sharper than wide open at 1.4 - have we learned yet that glass is important for resolution, sharpness, and color accuracy?
 
I don't understand how one can pretend to compare the 2 images...they're complety different! Totally useless pseudo comparison...
 
For what it's worth i actually prefer the Scarlets picture, not as a fanboy. But if you look at the noise in the C300 picture, which appears to have more light when shot compared to when the Scarlet was shot. But the Noise in the c300 picture looks insanely digital to me. I can see Reds Greens and Blues in its noise pattern. Sure your picking up more detail in some areas but others are blown out. I actually prefer the Scarlets image even with noise, sure there is quite a bit but at least it looks somewhat more natural.

But then again I feel there are to many variables in this test that are off to make it really count for much more than a hey look this is what the c300 looks like at 20,000 ISO and the Scarlet in low light, I didn't see an ISO.

Maybe Grame could answer this. Could you explain why the noise in there image appears to have Red, Green, and Blue artifacts where the Scarlets simply looks noisy? I'm not the smartest when it comes to this stuff. Also I think this is where Dragon will be a huge help. Sure we're what 8-12 months away but atleast we can upgrade our sensors as RED pushes forward.
 
Everyone should take this 'comparison' with a grain of salt and wait till someone releases a proper comparison test.
Obviously, the C300 is going to be less noisy in low light. it has less pixel density and probably better noise reduction tech.
 
Thanks for the quick comparison, but I don't see the point other than website hits?

There are uses for the C300 in low light, and I'd likely rent it for that scene,
BUT shoot the rest in 4K on Epic/Scarlet.

I think when the Canon 1DX and Nikon D800 are released it will be a relevant comparison to the Canon C300,
in 1080p, WHEN they are both finally released...

Why not compare a Phantom to an Epic next, so we can count framerates and see who WINS? ;-P
Wastes of time like this really just shows lack of effort...

I do encourage double blind test next time with repeatable setup so you can be proud of the results
and publish, so we can verify your findings...
 
Steven Veldkamp said:
Everyone should take this 'comparison' with a grain of salt and wait till someone releases a proper comparison test.
Obviously, the C300 is going to be less noisy in low light. it has less pixel density and probably better noise reduction tech.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have less pixel density - it's a 4k sensor.
Just sampled fully for each color to produce 1080p image
 
Wow. Great thread.

I tend to stay out of any thread with the word VS. in the title.

But I have one question.

So once you shoot 20 000 ISO can you change that around in post?

Id like to see both shots projected in 4k.

:)


David
 
out of these two pictures Canon looks better, might be post, but as soon as I'll be able to gather both cameras at the same place and the same time - i'll do my own test, and there will be only one,
which will stay in my house :)
 
David Battistella said:
Wow. Great thread.

I tend to stay out of any thread with the word VS. in the title.

But I have one question.

So once you shoot 20 000 ISO can you change that around in post?

Id like to see both shots projected in 4k.

:)


David
Click to expand...
Assuming the question wasnt poking fun, you can change it in post from 20,000 to say 10,000 by darkening it one stop (any NLE supports that as an effect/filter). That's obviously vastly different from having the original raw and selecting an ISO (especially since if your dynamic range was clipped because of the 20,000 iso, it will remain restricted at 10,000, just half as bright...).

What bothers me is that this test is really apples/oranges:

two different days (and presumably weather/moon/light changes)
two different lenses (even though they COULD have used the same canon lens on both)
different camera settings...

The scarlet is being given an almost TWO stops light advantage (it was stopped at 1.4 vs 2.5 for the canon), yet the sky on the scarlet is black while the sky on the canon clearly has several stops above black. Whatever 'iso' they processed the image to (irrelevant of anything else) it was clearly not 5,000+, which is what it should be set at to make the two comparisons 'meaningful'... I see noise on both images (not surprising)... but more chroma noise on the canon (which may be just because it is brighter I can tell color issues better).


Anyways, given this apples/oranges comparisons, it does look like the canon is a better lowlight performer (which corresponds to a lot of things that have already been said about it)... No reason to bash canon for making a better camera for 1080p than using a 7D. I still want my scarlet for christmas though... :)
 
Someone forgot to tell them that when you do a 'comparative test' you actually have to shoot under the same damn conditions or it is rendered useless. I am sure the C300 has great low-light, but this kind of comparison just isn't going to tell us much...
 
Sensitivity is great, but at a certain point it's no longer that big a deal. You can certainly go shoot a feature with pretty much no lighing on the Epic/scarlet, ISO 2500 looks damn good on them, especially downresed to 1080P. You still need to light to have pictures that look good, even in the dark. I've shot three shorts on my Epic now with less lighting than I've used before (at T2.8 too) and they look amazing, because I lit them. Also go watch Girl with the Dragon Tatoo if you doubt the MX can handle low light, it's stunning how much it picks up.
 
here's the real question...

Why the hell would anyone ever want to shoot at 20,000 ISO???.... Honestly, I would really love to hear a logical explanation because I honestly do not understand.

If there is some secret behind not lighting and shooting at 20,000 ISO, I would love to hear it.
 
Michael Millichamp said:
here's the real question...

Why the hell would anyone ever want to shoot at 20,000 ISO???.... Honestly, I would really love to hear a logical explanation because I honestly do not understand.

If there is some secret behind not lighting and shooting at 20,000 ISO, I would love to hear it.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone need 5K resolution? Why would anyone need 18 Stops DR? Why would anyone need raw files? why would anyone need digital? why wo....... . ...

 
Michael Millichamp said:
here's the real question...

Why the hell would anyone ever want to shoot at 20,000 ISO???.... Honestly, I would really love to hear a logical explanation because I honestly do not understand.

If there is some secret behind not lighting and shooting at 20,000 ISO, I would love to hear it.
Click to expand...

I would also love to hear how you would lit a night sky/landscape without using a night-by-day/matte painting. Sometimes, you CAN'T lit a scene. Think about wildlife docs too...
C300 looks like an amazing tool performing already very well at f/2.5, like the FS100. Just imagine what you can get with a fast lens !

And at 20 000 ISO, focus pulling is way easier in low light, like you can see in the Canon video.

I can't wait to see next year new 4K cams.
 
Last edited:
Zakaree Sandberg said:
just found this comedic approach at a camera test.. but i must say... I'm impressed...

I first scoffed at the idea of the c300.. but It might be a very nice tool to have..

http://vimeo.com/32067654
Click to expand...

I never doubted the c300 as a great camera. I just can't justify the pricetag when compared to something like a Scarlet. If the c300 were in the $6k range I might go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top