Why Did Canon...?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Not quite -
aside from the fact that the c300 is expected to come out at below the announced price of 20K, a ready to shoot Scarlet package will run a bit more than the 14K kit costs.
As I go back and forth on the best way outfit my Scarlet order I'm working hard to keep it under 20K, and it's not an easy feat.

Say what you will about the C300, but at the end of the day it will be a less expensive camera than Scarlet - and it SHOULD be less expensive due to its limitations.

C300 doesn't include recording media or batteries though either does it?

What does it have for MSRP that Scarlet doesn't?

 

[Dmitry Burenok]

Why you guys discussing battery options and etc.? Again, just think again: C300 doesn't have anything extra comparing to ANY video DSLR like Rebels's or 7D's or even marvellous 5D MarkII (ha ha since what year). Slightly better software for CMOS sensor readout? PL mount - OMG !!! What else - absolutely nothing.

And it is $20K price tag.

With real cost of everything included about $500, or less. And, for God’s sake, don't try to make it look nice and useful.

 

[Imran Farouk]

Well it was either the C300 or the blow dryer right? Clearly the blow dryer didn't go down well with those of us who don't have long luxurious hair...heh...

Though seriously, I would like to know the total cost of kitting out a C300 versus a Scarlet...would be interesting to see but then again I'd prefer to see what the cost of kitting out that 4K DSLR would be versus the Scarlet...I think that'd be a fair and just fight...considering 1080p surely doesn't suck up much GBs.

 

[David Rasberry]

Why you guys discussing battery options and etc.? Again, just think again: C300 doesn't have anything extra comparing to ANY video DSLR like Rebels's or 7D's or even marvellous 5D MarkII (ha ha since what year). Slightly better software for CMOS sensor readout? PL mount - OMG !!! What else - absolutely nothing.

And it is $20K price tag.

With real cost of everything included about $500, or less. And, for God’s sake, don't try to make it look nice and useful.

Image quality from the C300 is miles ahead of anything coming from a DSLR from what little I have seen.

 

[David Rasberry]

Incredible how misinformed some people are and yet still utter statements that are based on BS...

The DSLR C300 does NOT shoot H.264... But Motion JPEG. And that on a full frame sensor...

To OP...

1 - Scartlet does NOT shoot Movies in 5k

Yep 4k is enough for a lot of people around
​

2 - If you can't afford $100,000 worth of lighting equipment and shoot a lot after sunset, then RED cameras are inferior to canon. REDs in lowlight are nothing compared to Canon.
I don't mean that as in REDs are bad, they are incredible. But they were designed for folks who can afford proper lighting in low light. NOT for Available light Shooters after dark :wink5:

People usually shot with some fast prime , remember kubrick in Barry Lyndon with his f:0,7 50mm lense and the scene just lighted with candle !!! What a great dOP !!! Amateur always talk about low light and expect the iso to save them , it s getting borring ! Light and fast Prime plus the max acceptable iso out of the camera is the key !!!



If you need more and thorough information go to www.phillipbloom.net --- He has a long blog about REDs with lots of real-world parallels.

Phillip Bloom is not a good DOP imo ! How it is possible that a good DOP make some Crop fake anamorphic out of a canon lense , and don t see that the line on one corner have some huge distortion and on the other side it s ok because the image have been crop in a strange way !


www.madjidelayari.com

C300 shoots MPEG-2 just like its smaller siblings the XF300's. Same 4:2:2 8 bit 50Mbps codec. It is arguably the best quality in camera recording HD video codec in its price class. And it is an APS-C S35 sized sensor, not full frame 35.

 

[Emanuel A.]

The Canon 4K DSLR just obsoleted both the 1Dx and C300. Not sure why they would announce that camera now.

Jim

Didn't you announce a FF35 Scarlet 3 years ago?

I doubt you lost any RED One sales to it.

LOL You are fully right indeed! Maybe they are taking much lessons with Jim.

BTW, I know they are. Some reliable sources from inside have told me exactly what I'm saying and writing it on here. And even a post of mine in these same boards with what I had heard could echoe a little bit allover the blogsphere and similar spheres ;-) when they started to plan their response a couple of years ago. In those old times when Jim was used to speak...too much BTW

There are only two companies much focused on RED: Arri and Canon. Why? Only RED can represent a damage to their interests with EPIC and Scarlet.

On the other side, RED won't hurt either Sony and Panasonic's Broadcast share for sure. At least, so far with the products we've known so far. Sony hasn't even been much worried (sorry to disappoint some of you with RED phenomena, but rather the opposite. Once when they felt that was the right moment they launched the 35mm sensor size with the success we know of.

On the other hand, do not forget if Canon is the most important glass manufacturer worldwide, Sony is yet providing to soccer moms what RED is not:

http://www.chipworks.com/en/technic...nsor-and-touch-screen-controllers-identified/


E

 

[Christoffer Glans]

If the Canon 4K dslr comes with a pricetag of $3000, then it's a huge competition for Scarlet, whatever rolling shutter problems it have. The pricetag is the primary reason for people even debating Scarlet or Red compared to a DSLR.
Only an idiot or a very uninformed person would say that a Scarlet is less the quality of a compressed 50Mbps 1080p image. Seriously, those people need to learn.

REDs in lowlight are nothing compared to Canon.
I don't mean that as in REDs are bad, they are incredible. But they were designed for folks who can afford proper lighting in low light. NOT for Available light Shooters after dark

Wrong because...

People usually shot with some fast prime , remember kubrick in Barry Lyndon with his f:0,7 50mm lense and the scene just lighted with candle !!! What a great dOP !!! Amateur always talk about low light and expect the iso to save them , it s getting borring ! Light and fast Prime plus the max acceptable iso out of the camera is the key !!!

People aren't always shooting with fast primes or even at low F-stops. Most people usually keeps it at f4.0 or f5.6 to get the entire person in focus and not just the right eyelid. Or they use wider primes.
As for amateurs you just said that Canon is superior in low light and bashed Scarlet for not having low light capabilites, but then in some way praise low light after dark shooters... so what you mean is that you are an amateur? I don't get it?
The canon C300 has a base sensitivity of ISO850, Scarlet's MX sensor has ISO800. But the main difference here is that C300 shoots highly compressed images while Scarlet shoots RAW. You can do much more with the RAW format and you have much better control over the noise when pushing the image, that's because it's low compression RAW. You can't do much with the C300 images and if you try and push them or shoot at higher ISO numbers you will get yuck.

I think you should look a little closer at what these cameras can do and read up on how ISO works (also remember that Kubrick shot on film, ASA works differently then digital ISO and you don't loose DR when changing it).

 

[J Davis]

On the other hand, do not forget if Canon is the most important glass manufacturer worldwide

I'm really looking EF mount cine zooms, especially if they pave the road to electronic focus EF mount cine zooms
the EF 14-60 is looking really really sweet

 

[Mike P.]

The canon C300 has a base sensitivity of ISO850, Scarlet's MX sensor has ISO800. But the main difference here is that C300 shoots highly compressed images while Scarlet shoots RAW. You can do much more with the RAW format and you have much better control over the noise when pushing the image, that's because it's low compression RAW. You can't do much with the C300 images and if you try and push them or shoot at higher ISO numbers you will get yuck.

I think you should look a little closer at what these cameras can do and read up on how ISO works (also remember that Kubrick shot on film, ASA works differently then digital ISO and you don't loose DR when changing it).

Sorry for being a stickler, but the c300's base ISO is 850 with a clean SNR up to ISO6400+. MX's base ISO is 320 (or maybe even 250) with a clean SNR up to ISO800. The c300's lowlight is hands down better than MX's, even after post production and noise reduction (heck, RCX only allows you to go up to ISO12,800, whereas the c300 has up to ISO20,000.). While it would be pretty amatur-hour to shoot that high, it's still nice to have that capability for when all else fails. Also, by having usably clean high ISO it allows you to stop down to f4 or 5.6 even at night without as much light (making fast lenses less necessary just to grab exposure in darker scenes.)

All the test footy I've seen has also held skin-tones very well at the camera's higher-up ISOs, too. Non-scientific, I know, but a good indication at least. ALSO, 50mbit 422 MPEG2 is NOT 50mbit/s 420 H264. Transcoding to ProRes422 HQ will offer plenty of flexibility for at least 75% of applications/shoots. Seriously, some R3Dfans make it sound like people don't set white balance on non-RAW cams or that they plan on making every project a psychedelic trip of always morphing colour grades.

Just saying; poo-pooing the C300 for it's low-light abilities is probably not a good idea until Dragon comes out.