Red Raven Kit or c300 mk II

[Nakean]

Hello everyone! This is my first post here. Sorry for the novel but I'm bashing my head trying to make a decision here.


I'm having a hard time deciding between these two awesome cameras. As they sit now they are the same price around 10-11,000 once you build out the raven to actually be usable.

I'm shooting mostly corporate work right now but love to shoot sports and action. That's where the dilemma is for me. I currently shoot with the GH4 and although it does it's job superbly larger corporations want to hear that you're shooting with a c300 or fs700 and the likes. Even though my GH4 outputs 10 bit 422 4k vs the c300 8bit 1080p.

4k is not that necessary but I have come to enjoy shooting with it and editing with it even when down-scaling for 1080p delivery. However, I deliver in 4k whenever I can (why not if I can right).


The image from the red sensor is AMAZING and gives me the ability to shoot much slower frame rates at a much higher resolution (albeit cropped past super 35). I can shoot compressed raw or ProRes if Raw isn't needed. It's very modular and RED's seem to hold their value and also allow for an upgrade path unlike the Canon or Sony gear.


Ok, I love canon color, already have a plethora of canon glass (I shoot canon for my still work which is 60-70 percent of my paid work). Canon has batteries that last forever, a native EF mount and has DPAF which works amazingly well. When I'm using my gimbal the DPAF (Auto focus) is a game changer! Now I just have to worry about framing. With that said, I'm using a Ronin M (the smaller one) and c300 not gonna fit on that bad boy where as I think the red raven would quite easily.


Ahhhh my brain hurts please help. If you made it this far you deserve a freakin medal!

 

[gorillaonabike]

I have a C500 with the same sensor and am biased towards the Canon line. Reason is a C300 Mk2 is so versatile: You can shoot a movie on it, output RAW if you need to or run 'n' gun documentary style. Canon's colour science is absolutely beautiful as well and I'm in love with the C300 Mk2's image. I think it's breathtaking and the first time I saw it, I was blown away.

REDs are great but when built out (and you have to build the bloody things), they're not exactly run and gun.

Both great cameras but the C300 Mk2 wins for me on versatility.

As for upgrading, how far do you need to go? 4:2:2 10 bit 4k internal (not the crappy 8 - 10 bit headroom of the GH4 which I also shoot on) and upgrade to RAW output with a 7Q+. 4:4:4 at 2k as well if you're feeling inclined. It's beautiful.

 

[WalterB]

........... I'm using a Ronin M (the smaller one) and c300 not gonna fit on that bad boy where as I think the red raven would quite easily.
.................

Make sure whether the RED Raven fits or not.
A wrong assumption can twist your choice.

With RED you need the hardware to handle the edit as well. So try to get a way to test it first.
Actually: try and test both cameras.
We are all just opinions on the web. We can point you in a direction, but you have to work with the camera.

 

[Nakean]

I have a C500 with the same sensor and am biased towards the Canon line. Reason is a C300 Mk2 is so versatile: You can shoot a movie on it, output RAW if you need to or run 'n' gun documentary style. Canon's colour science is absolutely beautiful as well and I'm in love with the C300 Mk2's image. I think it's breathtaking and the first time I saw it, I was blown away.

REDs are great but when built out (and you have to build the bloody things), they're not exactly run and gun.

Both great cameras but the C300 Mk2 wins for me on versatility.

As for upgrading, how far do you need to go? 4:2:2 10 bit 4k internal (not the crappy 8 - 10 bit headroom of the GH4 which I also shoot on) and upgrade to RAW output with a 7Q+. 4:4:4 at 2k as well if you're feeling inclined. It's beautiful.

I do love the color science. I shoot canon for stills. GH4 outputs 10bit 4:2:2 but then I have to use my ginormous recorder. I have an HD501 I love and I also have the ninja Flame for the ProRes when I need it.

I'm definately leaning toward the c300mkII as it will just get out of the way and let me shoot with a beautiful image to boot! Furthermore, the use of built in ND is such a godsend! Switching lenses without worrying about a matte box or screw on ND will save me so much time!

Thanks for your response! I really appreciate it!

 

[Nakean]

Make sure whether the RED Raven fits or not.
A wrong assumption can twist your choice.

With RED you need the hardware to handle the edit as well. So try to get a way to test it first.
Actually: try and test both cameras.
We are all just opinions on the web. We can point you in a direction, but you have to work with the camera.

Such a good point! If it doesn't fit then it looses a huge edge that I thought it had. I have a gtx 1070 and dual Xeon 14 core(not thread) processors to the workstation is up to the task. I think the c300 just hits that sweet spot of great image without much post work or workflow. It just gets out of the way and I'd be much more inclined to pick it up and film family things with it vs the RED.

 

[gorillaonabike]

I do love the color science. I shoot canon for stills. GH4 outputs 10bit 4:2:2 but then I have to use my ginormous recorder. I have an HD501 I love and I also have the ninja Flame for the ProRes when I need it.

I'm definately leaning toward the c300mkII as it will just get out of the way and let me shoot with a beautiful image to boot! Furthermore, the use of built in ND is such a godsend! Switching lenses without worrying about a matte box or screw on ND will save me so much time!

Thanks for your response! I really appreciate it!

I have a GH4 and it does not output 10 bit 4:2:2 4K. It outputs a 10-bit 4:2:2 4k signal with a 4k, 8-bit 4:2:0 picture profile. It is effectively outputting a codec with headroom so the image can be manipulated in post up to 10 bit from 8 bit. This little info is buried in Panasonic's spec sheet but you don't need to take my word for it, you can test it yourself and when you get your hands on a C300 Mk2, it'll blow you away as the image is the real deal.

Cameras are marketed in a crazy way and I listen to DoPs I respect, independent (scientific) tests and my own hands-on experience. For example, why was the Canon C500 used on The Wolf of Wall Street, Need for Speed, Jason Bourne, Avengers Age of Ultron and a ton of big budget movies and not, for example, a Sony FS700? The FS700 has only been used on five feature movies and none of those were good. Even the FS7 is unloved by Hollywood. On paper, they could be identical and an FS7 should be superior in many respects but in actual real, world shooting, the C500 image is significantly better, particularly at CUs.

And Reds are great but for sheer versatility and use, a C300 Mk2 is signficantly more flexible. It is more of a money earner although Red makes great cameras.

 

[jax_rox]

Cameras are marketed in a crazy way and I listen to DoPs I respect, independent (scientific) tests and my own hands-on experience. For example, why was the Canon C500 used on The Wolf of Wall Street, Need for Speed, Jason Bourne, Avengers Age of Ultron and a ton of big budget movies and not, for example, a Sony FS700? The FS700 has only been used on five feature movies and none of those were good. Even the FS7 is unloved by Hollywood. On paper, they could be identical and an FS7 should be superior in many respects but in actual real, world shooting, the C500 image is significantly better, particularly at CUs.

Because Canon knows how to market to the right people, whilst Sony - frankly - don't. Sony haven't been able to market their cameras correctly (with the potential exception of the A7s, but I would suggest that's based more on spec/price than on actual marketing) since the F900 and F35. The F65 produces a better picture than any Canon, and rivals (if not surpasses) an Alexa. But look at how many movies that things been on. Pales in comparison to say Alexa or RED.

Sony aren't very good at menu designs, nor have they been particularly good at making cameras that aren't big (or small and plasticy) boxes. That, coupled with an inability to properly market a camera means they have for a while been less popular. But look at the F55 - plenty of films and cable TV shot on that camera.

Plenty of productions have jumped onto the FS-series of cameras, particularly ones that may have gone for Canon cameras previously. Don't forget that the C300 is a much older camera than the FS-series (with the exception of the FS700, but that was another product, like the F3, that Sony just missed the boat timing-wise), and so has had more time to bed. Plus, there are plenty of people (particularly owner-operators) who now have EF glass that they cannot use on a Sony - so it makes more sense to go Canon.

That doesn't make Canon the objectively better camera.


On the topic of Raven vs C300...

I, personally, don't love Canon's colour. If you do, maybe the C300 is right for you. As has been mentioned, the Raven (or any RED) is not necessarily an ideal choice for a run 'n' gun camera. However, it does have internal raw/ProRes and many other things going for it, including the ability to shoot off-speed.

Don't forget or underestimate the importance of glass. What do you have now, and what are you going to use with this camera?

For ~$11,000 there are plenty of camera options out there that you can look into. My suggestion would be to hire and see what you like - or at least get hands on with the cameras somehow. Plenty of cameras can look good on paper, and even sound good from reviews - and then disappoint you when you use them. And vice-versa. I was surprised by the F5 (which you could get secondhand these days for about $11k, and you almost get the best of both worlds) which I initially thought was going to be terrible; and disappointed by the original C300 that I thought was going to be great but turned out I didn't like it.

C300 is a known camera, and a known brand - RAVEN is a new product, and we have not yet really seen how the market will react to it.

 

[Nakean]

Because Canon knows how to market to the right people, whilst Sony - frankly - don't. Sony haven't been able to market their cameras correctly (with the potential exception of the A7s, but I would suggest that's based more on spec/price than on actual marketing) since the F900 and F35. The F65 produces a better picture than any Canon, and rivals (if not surpasses) an Alexa. But look at how many movies that things been on. Pales in comparison to say Alexa or RED.

Sony aren't very good at menu designs, nor have they been particularly good at making cameras that aren't big (or small and plasticy) boxes. That, coupled with an inability to properly market a camera means they have for a while been less popular. But look at the F55 - plenty of films and cable TV shot on that camera.

Plenty of productions have jumped onto the FS-series of cameras, particularly ones that may have gone for Canon cameras previously. Don't forget that the C300 is a much older camera than the FS-series (with the exception of the FS700, but that was another product, like the F3, that Sony just missed the boat timing-wise), and so has had more time to bed. Plus, there are plenty of people (particularly owner-operators) who now have EF glass that they cannot use on a Sony - so it makes more sense to go Canon.

That doesn't make Canon the objectively better camera.


On the topic of Raven vs C300...

I, personally, don't love Canon's colour. If you do, maybe the C300 is right for you. As has been mentioned, the Raven (or any RED) is not necessarily an ideal choice for a run 'n' gun camera. However, it does have internal raw/ProRes and many other things going for it, including the ability to shoot off-speed.

Don't forget or underestimate the importance of glass. What do you have now, and what are you going to use with this camera?

For ~$11,000 there are plenty of camera options out there that you can look into. My suggestion would be to hire and see what you like - or at least get hands on with the cameras somehow. Plenty of cameras can look good on paper, and even sound good from reviews - and then disappoint you when you use them. And vice-versa. I was surprised by the F5 (which you could get secondhand these days for about $11k, and you almost get the best of both worlds) which I initially thought was going to be terrible; and disappointed by the original C300 that I thought was going to be great but turned out I didn't like it.

C300 is a known camera, and a known brand - RAVEN is a new product, and we have not yet really seen how the market will react to it.

I do like camera color and own canon lenses already. My canon mount Sigma 18-35 stays on my gh4 99 percent of the time right now. I shoot on a gimbal a lot(less lately with more corporate work) and would love a small form factor that can easily fit on a gimbal. Totally agree that you need to test these cameras out, but that in itself can get expensive and only one of the rentals would I be able to apply to my purchase. I rented the c100 an was amazed at how easy it was to operate after playing around with it for just a few hours. The lack of 4k and the fact that the PDAF was only in the center of the frame killed it for me. Still can't believe the c300 mkII doens't record 60p 4k. 2k might be enough, however.

 

[gorillaonabike]

Because Canon knows how to market to the right people, whilst Sony - frankly - don't.

...

Plenty of productions have jumped onto the FS-series of cameras, particularly ones that may have gone for Canon cameras previously. Don't forget that the C300 is a much older camera than the FS-series (with the exception of the FS700, but that was another product, like the F3, that Sony just missed the boat timing-wise), and so has had more time to bed. Plus, there are plenty of people (particularly owner-operators) who now have EF glass that they cannot use on a Sony - so it makes more sense to go Canon.

That doesn't make Canon the objectively better camera.

The FS700 and C500 both were released in 2012 with similar specs: 12 stops of dynamic range, 4:2:2 10 bit 4k and eventually 4k RAW via 3G SDI. The Sony is perfectly fine but I have a taste preference for the C500.

What I am seeing is a really beautiful colour image through the C500. I'm mega impressed by this and just in love with it. In the hands of Film Autre, it became amazing this weekend and I was just blown away with how he got it to a better place than me! It was beautiful.

However, the FS700's colours, while excellent don't do it for me in quite the same way. The two elements which I don't like are the yellows which seem to carry all the way through their range although the FS7 is much better in this respect from what I've seen.

The second is a 'video' quality. I don't understand where this comes from or why this is but maybe it's a sharpness issue which, in the right hands, goes away. This may just be down to the footage I've seen but this is what strikes me.

So I'm unsure if it's marketing or taste. My taste is very much the C500 over, say the FS700 so is this the same with Hollywood or is it just marketing? I don't know but suspect it may be the nature of Canon over Sony, both of which are great cameras but with slightly different profiles.

 

[jax_rox]

The FS700 and C500 both were released in 2012 with similar specs: 12 stops of dynamic range, 4:2:2 10 bit 4k and eventually 4k RAW via 3G SDI. The Sony is perfectly fine but I have a taste preference for the C500.

The C300 had already been out for a year before both the C500 and FS700 were released - and the C300 was released on the back of a burgeoning 5D for video/film market, so was able to capitalise on that. Sony had only a flailing F3 that was the wrong price at the wrong time. They had the FS100, which was only ever a pseudo-prosumer camera. They brought out the FS700 which - again - was wrong price, wrong place, wrong time. The C500 had 4k raw from the get-go. FS700 was HD with a 4k/raw upgrade 'sometime down the track'.

There's no question the C500 is a great looking camera - but also, it's a different league to the FS700, evidenced in part by the fact that it cost about 3-4 times what the FS700 did. Sony had no real competitor to the C500 save perhaps the F3 which was already failing (and HD only), or the F65 (which was both mroe expensive and more cumbersome, despite a nicer picture).

The fact that an FS700 vs C500 can come down to an argument of taste goes to show, IMO, just how good the FS700 was for a camera that was less than half the price of a C500. The FS700's major competitor was the C300, which it was both cheaper than, and had more features (at least down the line).

That all being said, the image out of the FS700 without the raw/4k upgrade was horrendous, and I used it once and avoided it like the plague. That's mostly why it failed to gain traction. The C300 and C500 had great images SOOC, and the C500 could give you 4k/raw with an external recorder.

Now, though, you can get one with the upgrade for <$4k, which even with a Canon adapter and external recorder brings you in at less than half the cost of the two other mentioned cameras, with a pretty great image to boot.

Just don't ever shoot without the recorder...

Anyway enough of the history lesson

I do like camera color and own canon lenses already. My canon mount Sigma 18-35 stays on my gh4 99 percent of the time right now. I shoot on a gimbal a lot(less lately with more corporate work) and would love a small form factor that can easily fit on a gimbal. Totally agree that you need to test these cameras out, but that in itself can get expensive and only one of the rentals would I be able to apply to my purchase. I rented the c100 an was amazed at how easy it was to operate after playing around with it for just a few hours. The lack of 4k and the fact that the PDAF was only in the center of the frame killed it for me. Still can't believe the c300 mkII doens't record 60p 4k. 2k might be enough, however.

How desperately do you need 4k? Realistically if you're considering RAVEN, you could go for something down the Blackmagic path and have a bunch of change left over for all sorts of other stuff. At least, if 4k's the most important thing you're after.

 

[gorillaonabike]

There's no question the C500 is a great looking camera - but also, it's a different league to the FS700, evidenced in part by the fact that it cost about 3-4 times what the FS700 did. Sony had no real competitor to the C500 save perhaps the F3 which was already failing (and HD only), or the F65 (which was both mroe expensive and more cumbersome, despite a nicer picture).

The fact that an FS700 vs C500 can come down to an argument of taste goes to show, IMO, just how good the FS700 was for a camera that was less than half the price of a C500. The FS700's major competitor was the C300, which it was both cheaper than, and had more features (at least down the line).

How desperately do you need 4k? Realistically if you're considering RAVEN, you could go for something down the Blackmagic path and have a bunch of change left over for all sorts of other stuff. At least, if 4k's the most important thing you're after.

They were all different cameras initially when they were available to buy in 2012 (from recollection). They're much closer with external recorders.

However, although the FS700 does a good job next to the C500, I think of it like my cat. We might share 97% of our DNA but that 3% really does make a difference...

I love the image and versatility from the C300 Mk2. If money is there, I'd just go straight for it. Blackmagic is fine if you can light but if not, prepare for noise...

 

[Nakean]

The C300 had already been out for a year before both the C500 and FS700 were released - and the C300 was released on the back of a burgeoning 5D for video/film market, so was able to capitalise on that. Sony had only a flailing F3 that was the wrong price at the wrong time. They had the FS100, which was only ever a pseudo-prosumer camera. They brought out the FS700 which - again - was wrong price, wrong place, wrong time. The C500 had 4k raw from the get-go. FS700 was HD with a 4k/raw upgrade 'sometime down the track'.

There's no question the C500 is a great looking camera - but also, it's a different league to the FS700, evidenced in part by the fact that it cost about 3-4 times what the FS700 did. Sony had no real competitor to the C500 save perhaps the F3 which was already failing (and HD only), or the F65 (which was both mroe expensive and more cumbersome, despite a nicer picture).

The fact that an FS700 vs C500 can come down to an argument of taste goes to show, IMO, just how good the FS700 was for a camera that was less than half the price of a C500. The FS700's major competitor was the C300, which it was both cheaper than, and had more features (at least down the line).

That all being said, the image out of the FS700 without the raw/4k upgrade was horrendous, and I used it once and avoided it like the plague. That's mostly why it failed to gain traction. The C300 and C500 had great images SOOC, and the C500 could give you 4k/raw with an external recorder.

Now, though, you can get one with the upgrade for <$4k, which even with a Canon adapter and external recorder brings you in at less than half the cost of the two other mentioned cameras, with a pretty great image to boot.

Just don't ever shoot without the recorder...

Anyway enough of the history lesson




How desperately do you need 4k? Realistically if you're considering RAVEN, you could go for something down the Blackmagic path and have a bunch of change left over for all sorts of other stuff. At least, if 4k's the most important thing you're after.

I have come accustomed to 4k. I love the ability to crop or move the frame. It hides noise etc. I could black magic being great for narrative but don't see it as a run and gun camera at all. It seems, very much like a camera you use when you know you'll have extra time both during capture and also in post. I've heard bad things about the noise and also the XLR being very noisy and even emitting a high pitch sound no matter what.

I think I just need to save up and perhaps lease the c300mkII. It seems like the most versatile camera. Great for run and gun with built in ND and XLR. Shoots decent low light footage and looks great right out of the camera without much work. Even C-log takes minimal work to make shine in post.
DPAF will be a life saver when shooting on a gimbal and require me to rig next to nothing when I want to fly the camera. (I will probably have to trade in my ronin m for the original heavy ronin and then also sell and upgrade my gimbal support.

Just shot a gig this week in which they were totally ok using my gh4 with atomos but I'm sure they would have preferred a c300 or FS700 since that's what they're used to. This is the monstrosity that I'm trying to avoid!!https://flic.kr/p/MSXYUW