Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark II Lab Test

[Sabaki]

...
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?
...

http://cinemaeos.usa.canon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/EOS_C300MKII_Specs_4815.pdf

You're right, Canon doesn't qualify its "15 stops of dynamic range" with which resolution it applies to, therefore it is reasonable to assume that it applies to both.

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

If not all the time then under what conditions? Only on a full moon and after a virgin has been sacrificed?

Canon suckered a few of us in with this claim.

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

 

[Seb-cinema5D]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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?
...

http://cinemaeos.usa.canon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/EOS_C300MKII_Specs_4815.pdf

You're right, Canon doesn't qualify its "15 stops of dynamic range" with which resolution it applies to, therefore it is reasonable to assume that it applies to both.

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

If not all the time then under what conditions? Only on a full moon and after a virgin has been sacrificed?

Canon suckered a few of us in with this claim.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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