# Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark II Lab Test



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 24, 2015)

```
<p>The folks at Cinema5D have completed their first lab test of the Canon EOS C300 Mark II. One of the big upgrades was the 15 stops of dynamic range that Canon has claimed the new EOS C300 Mark II has. Cinema5D tested this in their lab and found that the new camera has about 2 stops less of dynamic range than they were expecting. The dynamic range appears to equal that of Sony’s FS7, but is well short of the ARRI ALEXA. Cinema5D did prefer the overall image quality of the EOS 300 Mark II after comparing it to the Sony FS7.</p>
<p><strong>From Cinema5D:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Even though the Canon C300 Mark II seems to be quite on par with the Sony Fs7 in terms of dynamic range, I must also say the image of the C300 Mark II is more neutral and the noise is less saturated and mushy in comparison to the Sony FS7. So while unfortunately there is a lot of noise in the shadows, at least it doesn’t look so bad. Also the C300 Mark II seems to be about 1 stop more light sensitive than the FS7 at high ISO speeds. <a href="https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-c300-mark-ii-review-dynamic-range/" target="_blank">Read the full lab test</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Dynamic Range Comparison:</strong></p>
<div id="attachment_22633" style="width: 738px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/dynamic-range-C300-mark-ii-vs-fs7-vs-alexa_B.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-22633" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/dynamic-range-C300-mark-ii-vs-fs7-vs-alexa_B-728x271.jpg" alt="Click for larger" width="728" height="271" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for larger</p></div>
<p><strong>Preorder: </strong><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134579-REG/canon_0635c002_eos_c300_mark_ii.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS C300 Mark II EF</a>| <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134580-REG/canon_0635c009_c300_markii_cinema_eos.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS C300 Mark II PL</a> Rent: <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/video/cameras/canon/canon-eos-c300-mark-ii-dual-pixel-ef" target="_blank">LensRentals.com</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## gsealy (Sep 24, 2015)

It's a really good test of the C300-II. Consumers need this info as things are changing so fast and the prices are all over the place.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2015)

I have no interest in video or the C line, but taking a couple of seconds to read his methodology pointed out some obvious issues.

He tested the C300 MkII in 4K, in 4K it records in 10 bit, in 2K it records in 12 bit. Now he goes on to say he couldn't see a difference and felt 4K downsampled looked better, but that isn't the point of a lab test, the point is to remove the subjectivity and just record results.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 24, 2015)

Regardless of whether you record 2K at 12bit or 4K at 10bit the fact that the camera only records around 12 stops of DR when they state 15 stops is the issue right there. 
Arri Alexa uses large pixels therefor is able to gather more light and Arri have constantly improved the firmware to further refine the performance. In testing Sony cameras we find they have better resolution than the Alexa / Amira but that is not nessisarily what the cinematographer is looking for although VFX would be happier. Canon seem from this test to have used Sony as their benchmark not Arri maybe that is coming with their 8K camera (although hopefully its a. not 16x9 but full frame and b. not in a C300 format body but more like the Alexa). Arri have been making TV & cinema cameras since the thirties unfortunately the Japanese DONT listen to the end user in cinematography in the way Arri does and Arri will have its own Alexa replacement in 2016.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 24, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Regardless of whether you record 2K at 12bit or 4K at 10bit the fact that the camera only records around 12 stops of DR when they state 15 stops is the issue right there.
> Arri Alexa uses large pixels therefor is able to gather more light and Arri have constantly improved the firmware to further refine the performance. In testing Sony cameras we find they have better resolution than the Alexa / Amira but that is not nessisarily what the cinematographer is looking for although VFX would be happier. Canon seem from this test to have used Sony as their benchmark not Arri maybe that is coming with their 8K camera (although hopefully its a. not 16x9 but full frame and b. not in a C300 format body but more like the Alexa). Arri have been making TV & cinema cameras since the thirties unfortunately the Japanese DONT listen to the end user in cinematography in the way Arri does and Arri will have its own Alexa replacement in 2016.



The Canon C300 and the Sony FS7 are affordable to a lot of independent documentary and film makers. The Arri, not so much.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Regardless of whether you record 2K at 12bit or 4K at 10bit the fact that the camera only records around 12 stops of DR when they state 15 stops is the issue right there.
> Arri Alexa uses large pixels therefor is able to gather more light and Arri have constantly improved the firmware to further refine the performance. In testing Sony cameras we find they have better resolution than the Alexa / Amira but that is not nessisarily what the cinematographer is looking for although VFX would be happier. Canon seem from this test to have used Sony as their benchmark not Arri maybe that is coming with their 8K camera (although hopefully its a. not 16x9 but full frame and b. not in a C300 format body but more like the Alexa). Arri have been making TV & cinema cameras since the thirties unfortunately the Japanese DONT listen to the end user in cinematography in the way Arri does and Arri will have its own Alexa replacement in 2016.



I am not making claims for anything other than the fact that the tester, while presenting his test as a scientific style lab test, took the science and legitimacy out of the test when he used subjective decisions in not shooting like for like.

Where does Canon say the C300 MkII shoots 15 stops of DR in 4K at 10 bit? They don't, even the tester says _"I am aware Canon says they achieve best image quality at 2K in 12 bit. "_ So in an outright test of DR the tester arbitrarily decided to not use the settings the camera maker says would give the best output, and then says the output isn't what he was expecting! Further, where do Canon lay out their definition of DR? Where does the tester lay out his definition of DR?

I agree it looks like the C300 MkII is incredibly close to the Sony and the tester says he preferred the output of the Canon over the Sony, but again that is subjective, *and both were shot in 10 bit and being compared to a camera shot in 12 bit!* Hmm, wonder if that lack of bit depth has an impact in IQ? Canon say it does............


----------



## Seb-cinema5D (Sep 24, 2015)

Hi there,

I tested (measured) the DR in 2K 12 bit. The results were the same. In the article I decided to print the 4K version because I felt the grain looked nicer and the emphasis was on comparing C300 vs FS7.
Cheers


----------



## Diltiazem (Sep 24, 2015)

Seb-cinema5D said:


> Hi there,
> 
> I tested (measured) the DR in 2K 12 bit. The results were the same. In the article I decided to print the 4K version because I felt the grain looked nicer and the emphasis was on comparing C300 vs FS7.
> Cheers


Why did you use different apertures for Canon and Arri?


----------



## JimMartin (Sep 24, 2015)

Okay, I think this has gotten a bit out of hand....I'm gonna say I'm 99.9% certain that Cinema5D had one of the prototype cameras....ones that were built in March, not a production run camera. The first production run cameras were just delivered at the end of last week here in the US and I don't think any have been delivered in Europe (where they are located) yet. What they are talking about in terms of the black noise was on 3 different prototypes that I had my hands on. They had good range but we didn't bother testing it because we knew it would not be accurate compared to the final, production run version. I know there is a TON of tweeks, adjustments, etc that have been made to the camera to get it ready for release. The bottom line is, I'd put a lot more credibility in the ASC DP, Gale Tattersall (who shot the demo film "Trick Shot") who says there are definitely 15 stops vs. Cinema5D's test.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Not at all, I read the words _"up to 15 stops of dynamic range,"_ . Surely that means not all the time......


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2015)

JimMartin said:


> Okay, I think this has gotten a bit out of hand....I'm gonna say I'm 99.9% certain that Cinema5D had one of the prototype cameras....ones that were built in March, not a production run camera. The first production run cameras were just delivered at the end of last week here in the US and I don't think any have been delivered in Europe (where they are located) yet. What they are talking about in terms of the black noise was on 3 different prototypes that I had my hands on. They had good range but we didn't bother testing it because we knew it would not be accurate compared to the final, production run version. I know there is a TON of tweeks, adjustments, etc that have been made to the camera to get it ready for release. The bottom line is, I'd put a lot more credibility in the ASC DP, Gale Tattersall (who shot the demo film "Trick Shot") who says there are definitely 15 stops vs. Cinema5D's test.



Thanks Jim, very interesting insight. I am watching Trick Shot as I write this..........


----------



## Local Hero (Sep 25, 2015)

JimMartin said:


> Okay, I think this has gotten a bit out of hand....I'm gonna say I'm 99.9% certain that Cinema5D had one of the prototype cameras....ones that were built in March, not a production run camera.



No way.
Down in Australia they have been shipping to clients for a couple of weeks.
The promo footage, shot in the Greek Islands, months ago was on a full production release camera.


----------



## bgoyette (Sep 25, 2015)

Local Hero said:


> JimMartin said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I think this has gotten a bit out of hand....I'm gonna say I'm 99.9% certain that Cinema5D had one of the prototype cameras....ones that were built in March, not a production run camera.
> ...



Actually, no Brett Danton shot that on a prototype with the early firmware. Production cameras were first seen at IBC and began shipping in tiny numbers last week. That said, from the photo that Sebastian posted in his article, it would appear to be the production model, unless he retouched the hell out of it.


----------



## bgoyette (Sep 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> And anyone that was expecting the "15 stops of DR" to mean new sensor tech to be trickled down to DSLRs can forget it. From the review:
> 
> "_An additional surprise was that I saw a lot of noise in the dark areas on the Canon C300 Mark II even at its base ISO of 800. While the camera has a very clean image in the brighter areas and has a really neutral tone with minimal color noise, there is a point in the dark areas where the noise kicks in strongly. When I did some test shots of natural subjects I realized that images shot on ISO 800 that are just 1 stop underexposed can quickly become a little too noisy for my taste especially in comparison to a camera like the Arri AMIRA (our reference camera). That is rather the opposite of what I expected after all the talk about the Canon C300 Mark II sensor and processing being so new and advanced. Ultimately one has to admit the 5 year old Arri ALEXA sensor is doing better…_"



The part that bugs me about Sebastian's review is that he keeps saying this is a comparison of the Fs7 with the C300 mark II, and then he makes a statement like this. First he switches to comparing it to the Amira (he does that whenever he doesn't want to talk about the FS7 I've noticed), and here's why -- In Slog3, the FS7 shows pretty much the same noise in the shadows...Slog3 and Clog2 are similar in that they are lifting the shadows quite a bit, and thus they expose the noise in the deep shadows that you'd never see once you graded it. Someone in his position knows that you overexpose logs built like this, and you underexpose only if you have no idea what you're doing. He's acting surprised here, but he knows better. He also really fails to smell the coffee in his 12,800 low light test. While he mildly states that it's a little better than the FS7 in this regard..(it's a mile better)...(let me pull a sebastian -- I'm doubtful the Alexa/Amira would even register much of a signal at 12,800.) Put that chart up against any other camera (short of maybe the A7S) at that ISO and you'd think a he would be impressed with what the C300 is delivering on the lowlight front.


----------



## Johnnie (Sep 25, 2015)

Guys, just to clarify, The lab test was done with a production camera. We never do those tests on a pre production models or cameras not having final firmware. 

Thanks!

Johnnie- cinema5D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2015)

JimMartin said:


> Okay, I think this has gotten a bit out of hand....I'm gonna say I'm 99.9% certain that Cinema5D had one of the prototype cameras....ones that were built in March, not a production run camera. The first production run cameras were just delivered at the end of last week here in the US and I don't think any have been delivered in Europe (where they are located) yet. What they are talking about in terms of the black noise was on 3 different prototypes that I had my hands on. They had good range but we didn't bother testing it because we knew it would not be accurate compared to the final, production run version. I know there is a TON of tweeks, adjustments, etc that have been made to the camera to get it ready for release. The bottom line is, I'd put a lot more credibility in the ASC DP, Gale Tattersall (who shot the demo film "Trick Shot") who says there are definitely 15 stops vs. Cinema5D's test.



When has the DR ever differed much between pre-pro and production bodies? So far the banding and DR from the preo-pro DSLR from Canon have always been at least as good as from the production models, going back years.


----------



## FunkyCamera (Sep 25, 2015)

Who cares if it doesn't actually have 15 stops of dynamic range in normal situations? It's been demonstrated here time and time again that dynamic range is just a pointless marketing gimmick for people who enjoy pleasuring themselves to 200% zoom crops instead of real photos or videos. Leave that to the people buying Sony junk and just be happy that Canon still make the best kit out there for real people.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 25, 2015)

Who cares. Not like real people could afford this camera anyway.


----------



## sanj (Sep 25, 2015)

FunkyCamera said:


> Who cares if it doesn't actually have 15 stops of dynamic range in normal situations? It's been demonstrated here time and time again that dynamic range is just a pointless marketing gimmick for people who enjoy pleasuring themselves to 200% zoom crops instead of real photos or videos. Leave that to the people buying Sony junk and just be happy that Canon still make the best kit out there for real people.



I care. I shoot in normal situations day in and day out. 
Who has demonstrated that dynamic range is a pointless gimmick?????? 
Dynamic range has NOTHING to do with crops. lol.


----------



## Local Hero (Sep 25, 2015)

bgoyette said:


> Actually, no Brett Danton shot that on a prototype with the early firmware. Production cameras were first seen at IBC and began shipping in tiny numbers last week. That said, from the photo that Sebastian posted in his article, it would appear to be the production model, unless he retouched the hell out of it.



Nope.
The camera Brett Danton used was at the SMPTE show in Sydney.
Was on the show floor on the 13th July.
Identical to full production camera in every way.
Canon may have called it a Prototype camera so that sales clients didn't get their nose out of joint that some people and not them were being allowed to shoot on the camera. 

Actual clients in Australia had cameras in their hands two to three weeks ago (EF only, no PL cameras yet).
Batteries are in really short supply in Australia though.
People always get their nose out of joint that others have received their cameras before them, so it's safer to just say they have not shipped yet to clients who haven't received theirs yet.

Nothing against the C300 MK II.
I think it is great.
These tests are pretty indicative of the dynamic range of this camera.
But there is no magic 15 usable stops in ANY camera.
Even the F65 doesn't have 15 usable stops.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I'll take one for the team and handle that virgin ;D


----------



## Seb-cinema5D (Sep 25, 2015)

Diltiazem said:


> Why did you use different apertures for Canon and Arri?


The chart is exposed until it clips on the left. Because the Arri has more latitude the aperture could (had to) be opened wider.


----------



## Seb-cinema5D (Sep 25, 2015)

JimMartin said:


> Okay, I think this has gotten a bit out of hand....I'm gonna say I'm 99.9% certain that Cinema5D had one of the prototype cameras....ones that were built in March, not a production run camera. The first production run cameras were just delivered at the end of last week here in the US and I don't think any have been delivered in Europe (where they are located) yet. What they are talking about in terms of the black noise was on 3 different prototypes that I had my hands on. They had good range but we didn't bother testing it because we knew it would not be accurate compared to the final, production run version. I know there is a TON of tweeks, adjustments, etc that have been made to the camera to get it ready for release. The bottom line is, I'd put a lot more credibility in the ASC DP, Gale Tattersall (who shot the demo film "Trick Shot") who says there are definitely 15 stops vs. Cinema5D's test.



Hi Jim. 
It was a production model!
Also you may of course be liberal about voicing doubts about our credibility but please keep in mind your preferred source is a DP who was paid by Canon to do an exclusive promo...


----------



## Seb-cinema5D (Sep 25, 2015)

bgoyette said:


> The part that bugs me about Sebastian's review is that he keeps saying this is a comparison of the Fs7 with the C300 mark II, and then he makes a statement like this. First he switches to comparing it to the Amira (he does that whenever he doesn't want to talk about the FS7 I've noticed), and here's why -- In Slog3, the FS7 shows pretty much the same noise in the shadows...Slog3 and Clog2 are similar in that they are lifting the shadows quite a bit, and thus they expose the noise in the deep shadows that you'd never see once you graded it. Someone in his position knows that you overexpose logs built like this, and you underexpose only if you have no idea what you're doing. He's acting surprised here, but he knows better. He also really fails to smell the coffee in his 12,800 low light test. While he mildly states that it's a little better than the FS7 in this regard..(it's a mile better)...(let me pull a sebastian -- I'm doubtful the Alexa/Amira would even register much of a signal at 12,800.) Put that chart up against any other camera (short of maybe the A7S) at that ISO and you'd think a he would be impressed with what the C300 is delivering on the lowlight front.



The Alexa has the same sensor as the Amira. Other than that I'm irritated by your allegations. There's no conspiracy behind my article and I'm carefully trying to present the situation relevant to DP's in an unbiased way and when I voice my opinion I'm always pointing that out.
Concerning lowlight I don't see the C300 mark II being a mile better as you say.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 25, 2015)

FunkyCamera said:


> Who cares if it doesn't actually have 15 stops of dynamic range in normal situations? It's been demonstrated here time and time again that dynamic range is just a pointless marketing gimmick for people who enjoy pleasuring themselves to 200% zoom crops instead of real photos or videos. Leave that to the people buying Sony junk and just be happy that Canon still make the best kit out there for real people.


Ill tell you who cares DOPs whos careers depend on what they tell directors they can provide for them when pushing the boudries, where the contrast ratio in a jungle is way beyond 12 stops were not talking about still but motion where the camera moves but the light source especially the sun doesnt. That Sony "junk" is working on some pretty major TV series and movies just like Arri, just like Red and just like Canon would like to be. Disrespecting competitors is folly Im glad Canon are challenging in cinematography it keeps the competition honest and innovating but Canon still has much to learn and making a statement "up to 15 stops" means to DOPs they can shoot 15 stops.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 25, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Don't be ridiculous. Why would anybody be naive enough to think in all capture modes the full sensor quality is saved. That would be like saying jpegs should hold as much information as RAW files, they don't, they have a different bit depths and are compressed. Oh, just like the various options with the C300 MkII.

Besides, I am sure you can get your money back on your personal C300 MkII dilvert :


----------



## sanj (Sep 25, 2015)

Seb-cinema5D said:


> bgoyette said:
> 
> 
> > The part that bugs me about Sebastian's review is that he keeps saying this is a comparison of the Fs7 with the C300 mark II, and then he makes a statement like this. First he switches to comparing it to the Amira (he does that whenever he doesn't want to talk about the FS7 I've noticed), and here's why -- In Slog3, the FS7 shows pretty much the same noise in the shadows...Slog3 and Clog2 are similar in that they are lifting the shadows quite a bit, and thus they expose the noise in the deep shadows that you'd never see once you graded it. Someone in his position knows that you overexpose logs built like this, and you underexpose only if you have no idea what you're doing. He's acting surprised here, but he knows better. He also really fails to smell the coffee in his 12,800 low light test. While he mildly states that it's a little better than the FS7 in this regard..(it's a mile better)...(let me pull a sebastian -- I'm doubtful the Alexa/Amira would even register much of a signal at 12,800.) Put that chart up against any other camera (short of maybe the A7S) at that ISO and you'd think a he would be impressed with what the C300 is delivering on the lowlight front.
> ...



This is internet buddy. If you are going to post here, you will have to hear what others have to say. Like it or not. Irritated or not.


----------



## bgoyette (Sep 25, 2015)

Local Hero said:


> bgoyette said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, no Brett Danton shot that on a prototype with the early firmware. Production cameras were first seen at IBC and began shipping in tiny numbers last week. That said, from the photo that Sebastian posted in his article, it would appear to be the production model, unless he retouched the hell out of it.
> ...



I have an email from Brett in my inbox that would indicate otherwise. (while that camera may identical to the production cameras, it was not final firmware, it came in a box with no manuals, and no profiles, that's not a final production camera). Regardless, C5D has confirmed theirs was a production camera.


----------



## bgoyette (Sep 25, 2015)

Seb-cinema5D said:


> bgoyette said:
> 
> 
> > The part that bugs me about Sebastian's review is that he keeps saying this is a comparison of the Fs7 with the C300 mark II, and then he makes a statement like this. First he switches to comparing it to the Amira (he does that whenever he doesn't want to talk about the FS7 I've noticed), and here's why -- In Slog3, the FS7 shows pretty much the same noise in the shadows...Slog3 and Clog2 are similar in that they are lifting the shadows quite a bit, and thus they expose the noise in the deep shadows that you'd never see once you graded it. Someone in his position knows that you overexpose logs built like this, and you underexpose only if you have no idea what you're doing. He's acting surprised here, but he knows better. He also really fails to smell the coffee in his 12,800 low light test. While he mildly states that it's a little better than the FS7 in this regard..(it's a mile better)...(let me pull a sebastian -- I'm doubtful the Alexa/Amira would even register much of a signal at 12,800.) Put that chart up against any other camera (short of maybe the A7S) at that ISO and you'd think a he would be impressed with what the C300 is delivering on the lowlight front.
> ...



Sebastian -- Look...you messaged me wanting to know what I thought about your post. Every question I asked on your forum has been met with either consternation or silence. I'm not alleging anything other than what I said in my first post on your site a week ago. That you seem to have an issue with the price of this camera, and are comparing it to things like the FS7 and A7S II to make your point. Certainly not suggesting that you're gaming your test...although seeing as you brought it up. If I was going to game a transmissive DR test (and I am in no way suggesting that you are...I'm talking about me, here). I know that there is approximately 1 stop of wiggle room on exposure. Your exposure has to clip that second wedge. The method calls for it to "just clip", but because it's clipped no one really knows whether it "just clipped" or "really clipped".

Again...I'm not suggesting that you've done anything here, but I wrote on your forum that the exposure given to the C300 appeared to be less given the amount of flair surrounding the clipped wedges. (this, if true, would certainly affect the tested DR-- the C300 test would be accurate, the other two would be overstated). Seriously I don't think that this is what's going on here, but that additional flare around those chips (and the levels on the first non clipped chip), given that the lens used is the same...well it kinda bugged me. So I asked two questions -- "What's your opinion about this?"... (there are certainly other explanations for this phenomenon) and "were these tests conducted at the same time?" Both were met with silence, even after I asked again. From my mind, I'm just looking for information, mostly I could put to rest any doubts I might have about what I was seeing. I think you read every question I ask as an allegation. (Just like you chastised me on your forum earlier for having a very civil discussion with another commenter).

I'll stand by my comments on your "surprise" that underexposing Clog3 footage would result in noise, about you comparing it to a 40K camera, and omitting that the FS7 shows largely the same noise when underexposed in Slog3 and I'll also say that at ISO 12,800 the C300 II image you showed looks very usable. The FS7 image at that ISO, not usable at all. In my world, That's a mile.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2015)

FunkyCamera said:


> Who cares if it doesn't actually have 15 stops of dynamic range in normal situations? It's been demonstrated here time and time again that dynamic range is just a pointless marketing gimmick for people who enjoy pleasuring themselves to 200% zoom crops instead of real photos or videos. Leave that to the people buying Sony junk and just be happy that Canon still make the best kit out there for real people.



Actually that has not been demonstrated countless times.

Hey maybe you only shoot in entirely controlled or simple situations and don't get out a lot, fine, but some real people do otherwise.


----------



## JimMartin (Sep 25, 2015)

Sebastian-
"Also you may of course be liberal about voicing doubts about our credibility but please keep in mind your preferred source is a DP who was paid by Canon to do an exclusive promo..."
I don't think you really understand what the ASC is and what it is to be a member of that fraternal Organization. It is quite a long process to be nominated to it, usually after many years coming up through the ranks as an assistant, operator, and then a director of photography. Even then, one does not join, he or she has to nominated by two current members and then it is voted on. Members have been asked by various manufacturers to test cameras for years...seeking definitive evaluations of their cameras. All have been paid for their time and insight but I can guarantee you that they never skew their results to make a given camera appear to be better than it is....they could never face their fellow members again and word would spread, and they would have a tougher time getting jobs...SO, your suggestion that Gale Tattersall ,as well as an ASC member would be bias in their evauluation, is an insult to them, the ASC, and it's members.

*a note: my mistake, Gale at this time, is not an ASC member...but at his level (House as an example), he knows what he is doing.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2015)

JimMartin said:


> Sebastian-
> "Also you may of course be liberal about voicing doubts about our credibility but please keep in mind your preferred source is a DP who was paid by Canon to do an exclusive promo..."
> I don't think you really understand what the ASC is and what it is to be a member of that fraternal Organization. It is quite a long process to be nominated to it, usually after many years coming up through the ranks as an assistant, operator, and then a director of photography. Even then, one does not join, he or she has to nominated by two current members and then it is voted on. Members have been asked by various manufacturers to test cameras for years...seeking definitive evaluations of their cameras. All have been paid for their time and insight but I can guarantee you that they never skew their results to make a given camera appear to be better than it is....they could never face their fellow members again and word would spread, and they would have a tougher time getting jobs...SO, your suggestion that Gale Tattersall ASC,as well as a second ASC member would be bias in their evauluation, is an insult to them, the ASC, and it's members.



Yeah I do agree here, with the top DP it is much different than with big name stills photographers.

DPs can have tens of millions of other people's dollars on the line and they rely on others to get paid and it's all a very different scenario. They have a big process and nobody wants to blow all that by spouting nonsense. They tend to be a lot more straight shooting, less influenced, less fanboy, etc. than stills shooters I'd say.
They can certainly disagree on this or that, but it's legit preference.

Big time DPs tend to be nothing like the typical fanboys in forums or even big name stills guys who will make whatever they test sound like the second coming often enough.


----------



## gregory4000 (Sep 25, 2015)

Well, that is rational, However please remember that VW just screwed the EPA and all it's customers around the world bragging there turbo diesel was green. 
I feel the human nature will reach extreme irrational means to reach a goal. 
So many reviewers state that Canon's achellies is their sensors DR and my personal vibe (and I know it doesn't mean a hill of beans) is that Canon is unable to increase their sensors DR without infringing on their competitions patents.
This would explain the minor inprovements in the sensor portion of their cameras over the past few years. ( not to confuse with their processors, their fine)
Canon bodies are also among the best. I would be very happy with a joint venture with Sony, Red or whoever to create a finer camera worthy of a $15,000.00 price.


----------



## emko (Sep 25, 2015)

this camera was a hope that they would improve the photography side, now we see it still does 12 stops wow where did the 15 stops come from? this is really disappointing hopefully they can do something with the DR in the next 5D but from this example it does not look good for Canon.


----------



## gregory4000 (Sep 25, 2015)

FunkyCamera said:


> Who cares if it doesn't actually have 15 stops of dynamic range in normal situations? It's been demonstrated here time and time again that dynamic range is just a pointless marketing gimmick for people who enjoy pleasuring themselves to 200% zoom crops instead of real photos or videos. Leave that to the people buying Sony junk and just be happy that Canon still make the best kit out there for real people.



My friend you tripped yourself on that one.
The biggest reason to spring $15 grand on this beast is for that holy grail of 15 stops.
Without it, many are going to feel screwed. I could of picked up a great camera with 12 to 13 stops for five to seven grand.
Sure this Canon camera is a good camera. And I hope other reviews reveal the 15 stops advertised.
Time will tell.
But deep down inside I'm disappointed.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 25, 2015)

gregory4000 said:


> Well, that is rational, However please remember that VW just screwed the EPA and all it's customers around the world bragging there turbo diesel was green.
> I feel the human nature will reach extreme irrational means to reach a goal.
> So many reviewers state that Canon's achellies is their sensors DR and my personal vibe (and I know it doesn't mean a hill of beans) is that Canon is unable to increase their sensors DR without infringing on their competitions patents.
> This would explain the minor inprovements in the sensor portion of their cameras over the past few years. ( not to confuse with their processors, their fine)
> Canon bodies are also among the best. I would be very happy with a joint venture with Sony, Red or whoever to create a finer camera worthy of a $15,000.00 price.



No, Canon's Achilles Heel, low iso noise, has been because they use the cheaper off sensor A/D converters. 

If you read the recent interview with Masaya Maeda, Canon’s Senior Managing Director and Chief Executive of Canon Inc’s Image Communication Products Operations, you would know that Canon have just committed to on sensor A/D converters, this despite the fact that cost is a major factor in their component decisions and the on sensor A/D converter costs more.


----------



## gregory4000 (Sep 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> gregory4000 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that is rational, However please remember that VW just screwed the EPA and all it's customers around the world bragging there turbo diesel was green.
> ...



I hope your correct. In the near future your suggesting that with this 'on sensor A/D converter' the DR will increase ( many are hoping for near 14 stops) If we don't see it, then... well, it wouldn't be the first time Chief Executive create an excuse that isn't true.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 25, 2015)

gregory4000 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > gregory4000 said:
> ...



That depends on your definition of DR. What the on sensor A/D converter will do is lower the noise floor, this gives you more _'usable DR'_ in practical terms.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> gregory4000 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that is rational, However please remember that VW just screwed the EPA and all it's customers around the world bragging there turbo diesel was green.
> ...



True it is the noise which causes them problems and his commitment, but many people were indeed hoping that this and other dSLRs would have the same tech. Commiting to something and producing something are different things. The likelihood for the Mk IV and MK II cameras to have improved sensor tech are highly unlikely and therefore a further 2-3 years before we see the fruits of this commitment. 

For some, that may be a lot. For others, they wont blink an eye lid.

But still, why mention 15 stops if it cant be reproduced with testing, and if there is a way to achieve it, why wouldn't you tell people how to achieve it?

I cant speak for the film industry, but clearly many photographers wait for reviews before spending that sort of cash...


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 25, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> True it is the noise which causes them problems and his commitment, but many people were indeed hoping that this and other dSLRs would have the same tech. Commiting to something and producing something are different things. The likelihood for the Mk IV and MK II cameras to have improved sensor tech are highly unlikely and therefore a further 2-3 years before we see the fruits of this commitment.
> 
> But still, why mention 15 stops if it cant be reproduced with testing, and if there is a way to achieve it, why wouldn't you tell people how to achieve it?
> 
> I cant speak for the film industry, but clearly many photographers wait for reviews before spending that sort of cash...



As to the commitment vs availability, be aware that Canon already use on sensor A/D converters on some sensors, so lead in time for others could be short. They could release a FF on sensor A/D converter tomorrow!


Why mention 15 stops, well if you watch the "Behind The Scenes 'Trick Shot'" go to 0:51 and 1:43, they seem to know what they are doing.

Would Keslow Cameras, DP Gale Tattersall and AC Tony Gutierrez all put their reputations on the line backing up a false claim?

Who knows, like I said, I have less than zero interest in video.........

https://vimeo.com/124750682


----------



## LOALTD (Sep 26, 2015)

Guys, guys, guys, you're expecting too much!


This camera only costs $16,000! It can only do so much for that bargain-basement price! : 


Just imagine the DR the $3,500 5D Mk IV will pack!


----------



## Patrick70 (Sep 26, 2015)

Well it should be mentioned the the FS7 is claimed to have 14 stops DR as well.

And according to this test - it is just as short as Canon is.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 27, 2015)

Patrick70 said:


> Well it should be mentioned the the FS7 is claimed to have 14 stops DR as well.
> 
> And according to this test - it is just as short as Canon is.


Are some people forgetting that this camera is a year newer and double the price. A lot of people waited for this instead of getting an fs7. Canon is charging more than the competition because of brand loyalty and people that don't want to switch systems. Hopefully with the next set of cameras they will add more features and have better DR. I think I pushed my 5d3 to it's limits and I want to do more shoots in the sunlight.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 27, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > True it is the noise which causes them problems and his commitment, but many people were indeed hoping that this and other dSLRs would have the same tech. Commiting to something and producing something are different things. The likelihood for the Mk IV and MK II cameras to have improved sensor tech are highly unlikely and therefore a further 2-3 years before we see the fruits of this commitment.
> ...



I've now watched it thank you, and yes I agree, we have one set saying they confirmed the dynamic range, and a website stating they couldn't validate it. Just like the sites about the AF of the Sony with canon lenses which all seem to offer different views, I find it very puzzling on the inconsistency....

Hopefully in time both (Sony AF and Eos DR) will reach a satisfactory conclusion

If Canon have the ability to reduce the noise level and it is just a financial decision, then that's good. But why wouldn't you spend the extra cash on a video camera costing serious cash. You demonstrate to others that you have the tech and the price is covered in the more expensive gear. Again, something doesn't quite sit right, making me think there is something else at play. Whether we will find out, or not, just satisfies our curiosity - ultimately we care about the result, not the means...


----------



## Etienne (Sep 27, 2015)

RayValdez360 said:


> Patrick70 said:
> 
> 
> > Well it should be mentioned the the FS7 is claimed to have 14 stops DR as well.
> ...



Agreed. 

Sony seems to be willing to give a lot goodies to their less-than-wealthy customers, as we see with the FS7 and FS5, whereas Canon protects their high-end cameras, as we saw with the C100 mk II vs C300 mk II. Canon appears to be more interested in breaking into the high-end cinema world and competing with Arri than serving the independents, we'll see how that goes with the C500 mk II.

I hope Canon comes out with a C100 mk III that is a real competitor to the FS5 really soon, although that doesn't seem likely since the C100 mk II is barely a year old.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 27, 2015)

Etienne said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick70 said:
> ...


 They would probably make a C200 which would be the 4k version( a firmware update) of the c100mk ii with a few new or renamed buttons for $10,000 still recording in avchd lol. That is the type of company they are right now. The richer the company they stingier they are.


----------



## JimMartin (Sep 28, 2015)

We had a large group in attendance Saturday for our C300 MK II seminar. A few brought up the C5D article, mentioning that it was flawed in that in a DR test, there is no such thing a "usable" because that introduces a subjective element into a test. Also, there were 2 ASC menbers who said the Radiant test and Gale's test were definitive in that there is 15 stops .....period. We also saw some real world examples of how well the camera handled difficult DR situations. Needless to say, we got more orders placed right after the seminar ended. Also, I'm happy to say we were able to use a production run camera to confirm that 6400ISO(MK II) is the new 3200ISO(C100/300/500)...which means, especially for narrative & reality, you will be able to use even less lighting when you need to!


----------



## Goyoman (Sep 29, 2015)

Was this a prototype or a new off the shelf version? As far as I know, there were no new cameras released in the UK when this test was done.


----------

