Description image

A Refreshingly 'Awesome' Canon C300 Camera Test

11.30.11 @ 9:33AM Tags : , , ,

I was just saying something about how the Canon C300 is looking better and better… and now there’s an “awesome” (and funny) camera test further bolstering the case for the initially-maligned shooter. I was actually just doing some scripting for a humorous camera test of my SCARLET-X, but I think by the time my camera arrives in Brooklyn there will have been so many tests that it will be old hat. Still, I’m always a fan of tests that add some humor or story or something to the shot list, and Jonathan Yi’s test demonstrates many of the ways the C300 is superior not only to its cheaper HDSLR ancestors but also to the RED (check out the high ISO tests):

<embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" height="300"></embed>

Jonathan has also shared his thoughts in an in-depth article below:

I believe that Canon made a beautiful camera that is sensible, reliable and portable in a way that I’ve always dreamed a camera could be. It prioritizes great skin tone and has higher ISO sensitivity than any other camera out there. I know there’s nothing I can say to change the minds of the RED fan club. For the rest of the skeptics, I think once you get your hands on it you’ll understand how great this camera really is.

Link: EOS C300 for Cinematographers

[via Canon Rumors]


We’re all here for the same reason: to better ourselves as writers, directors, cinematographers, producers, photographers... whatever our creative pursuit. Criticism is valuable as long as it is constructive, but personal attacks are grounds for deletion; you don't have to agree with us to learn something. We’re all here to help each other, so thank you for adding to the conversation!

Description image 91 COMMENTS

  • Great video. Great test. Great points. I really loved that he added humor and creativity to the test.

  • Bret Douglas on 11.30.11 @ 10:28AM

    That’s the best camera test I’ve ever seen!

  • One day all camera tests will be this entertaining. Can’t believe Canon didn’t want to get behind this. Can imagine this will convert more people to the possibilities of the C300 than anything else currently out there.

  • I love fake the EOS standard profile is. First of all its OVEREXPOSED. Classic marketing bs. I’ve shot with DSLR’s and if the standard profile would be as bad looking as it is in this video, no one would never started using DSLR’s in the first place.

    But regarding the camera itself. I think the it author hit the nailhead when he said its good for documentary making. Doc makers often don’t have any additional lighting available to them so the high ISO performance is perfect, also using zoom lens with a smaller aparture is a good fast and a cheap option. Decent color grading with 8bit is pretty much out of the question sooner or later color banding will occour. A good tool for documentary and television work but not a good tool for filmmaking.

    • So the Canon 5D MKII was decent enough to be used extensively on “Red Tails”, a Lucasfilm Production, but the C300 isn’t?

      • i think they used a 7d for a few second unit shots. Ask philip bloom

      • I said that the native EOS color profile does not look so bad as portraid in this video. The’ve integrated or atleast for this promotional video a DSLR gamma profile that looks really ugly (so the viewer would say to himself “wow this is soo much better than dslr gamma) when in reality DSLR color profiles don’t look anything like. I’ve used 5d,7d, 60d, 550 and none of those cameras do not give such a bad gamma. This video is pure marketing bs to get the viewers thinking that they c300 gamma is many-many times better than DSLR’s.

        • And I understood that and completely agree, what i’m referring to is the color grading on 8 bit footage from c300 and how you say it’s not a good tool for filmmaking. that i disagree with. And yes Bloom used a 7D as well but mainly 5D in Red Tails.

          • Well people have to understand that in big budget movies DSLR’s are used in places where other big camera rigs just don’t fit or are too risky to implement. An thus mainly DSLR’s shoot close ups or smth along the lines because in wider shots the lack of detail when compared to other pro cameras would really show. Yeah you can get away with it in montage if the frames is showed for a 1 second but for a longer period of time naah.

            Plus if you look at the big budget movies that have used DSLR’s you see that all of them didn’t have a major grade. Just some color correction maybe and thats because 8 bit will not stand grading and color banding will appear.

          • You obviously don’t know how Dslr were used in Red Tails mate.
            Over 150 shots from dslr ended up in the final cut and no they weren’t shots taken from restricted spaces like cockpits, visit philip bloom’s website for more info.

    • The “8-bits are not letting me color-grade this footage decently” issue is bullshit. There are plenty of short films (even features) shot on DSLR’s that have been more than “decently” graded, in it’s native 8bit format.

      • Obviously you haven’t used cinestyle and tried to get tottaly different look. Im not talking about color correction here but a decent grade. Going from one look to a completely different one. For example something like this:

        Yes you can achive something like this with 8bit but this comes with visible artifacts like noise in the blacks, color banding and overall flat-gray like picture. Maybe you can get away with on the internet, but when showed on a big screen, it really shows.

        • You’re right. I don’t shoot something then try to radically change it’s look in post to something completely different. I shoot as close as I want the final look to be, then tweak accordingly. I’m no expert, man, but these new technologies are surely making very lazy filmmakers…

  • I want to see what big budget film uses the c300

  • Why did Laforet fail to make a test film this good? I was totally happy with how uninspiring the C300 looked, as something I didn’t want wouldn’t cost me anything. Now I want the C300!

  • I hope they’ll come up with a C100 which has the same basic specs and low light capabilities, but a little stripped down for about $5000 kinda like F100 and F3. Come to think of it, maybe that’s why it is C300, C100 will come to battle the AF and F100 *jumps in joy for a new discovery*

  • I’m surprised people don’t see why Canon isn’t behind the video. Its taking shots at its own products. HDDSLR for video is almost exclusively Canon. So overall the video is saying

    “see how crappy out current products are, for 8x the price you can get something better from us, if you can’t afford an 8x increase, let me remind you what you’re not going to get”

    It makes a good point about larger scale documentary shooting. I doubt your average documentary person is going to shell out that much but camera aside, to me its pretty obvious why Canon would want to put this on their site. “Don’t buy these EOS lines, look at the problems, buy this EOS instead.”

    • Please get things in proper perspective. Canon never released DSLRs with the intent of them being a movie machine, that’s what us users made of it, with all the bells & whistles (rigs, etc) and all of its shortcomings. Of course DSLRs are not perfect! The C300 is Canon’s first step towards products that will *really* change movie making. This time they’ve gone after the F3 and given the Alexa a big FU, RED will be next when their 4K VSLR comes to market. Remember that we came from a situation where no one could afford to make movies or settle for 1/2″ sensors with 35mm adapters.

  • Dslrs cost around 800 to 3000 dollars. C300 will cost around 20k. C300 is too expensive for your average Dslr filmmaker. Don’t see the point in comparing them. 7 to 35 times the price of a Dslr, it should be better.

    • Street prices will be $15k…

      • nice. but still a huge jump in price

        • True. It’s all a numbers game. There just happen to be so many more photographers in the world than film makers. On the other hand, Canon also needs to find more lucrative (higher margin) markets, due to the strength of the yen. Hollywood is used to paying big bucks for equipment, so that’s where they’ve set their eyes on.

  • Now This video I think silences the c300 test on skin tones:

    This video sold me a Scarlet X

    • Try doing that at night with a scarlet

      • Scarlet is a cinema camera, in many cases it will require lighting, which in turn requires REAL cinematography. Because a camera is good in lowlight doesnt mean you dont have to light. Light is to cinematography as paint is to painting :)

        • It requires a lot of lighting because it is crippled, like film is crippled in low light. The only reason people light for film in the dark is because it just.can’t.see. If film had the low light sensitivity this camera does, I doubt a cinematographer would still insist on using the shit-ton of light a Scarlet needs.

          I agree. You still need to light. But you need less. Which means you spend less. Which to us micro-budget filmmakers is a godsend. Using a camera that has better low light sensitivity won’t make you less of a cinematographer… right, Shane Hurlbut?

          Great looking images. Beautiful skin tones. Proven latitude. Low light sensitivity. A workflow I’m used to (and that won’t require me to spend an additional $10k besides the $15k+ I’d spend on a Scarlet + necessary accessories). Enough resolution to project nicely on a big screen (if needed, not all get to that goal). 4k detail downrezzed into a 1080p image (which is not the same as a DSLR *resolving* for 1080p). 50mbps codec. What’s not to like? 8 bit? Well… I’ll compensate by NOT BEING LAZY and planning my shoot accordingly. ;)

          • Dramatic lighting requires lights, high ISO just allows for the use of smaller lights. If you want you picture to look like TV News footage, then no lights needed.

            In a brightly lit downtown area you can use whats there, i.e. street lights for back lights and store window light for key. But you will still need a bounce fill. Next shot is in an ally with No Lighting, nothing, zip … what do you do now?

            The problem with demo shots is that they can Cherry Pick locations. In the real world of movie production the location serve the story. If the script calls for a scene in an attic …

            With some of the modern cameras (high ISO, 360 degree shutter) you have two choices, crank-up the ISO until it looks like noon-day-sun with a black sky or use a more reasonable ISO, along with using some small lights, to preserve the feeling of night.

          • What Dave said.
            Filmmaking isn’t just about the bigger productions, it’s about also about small productions whether we are talking about a simple short film with a 500 euros budget or a feature film with 50000 euros.
            Embrey, what you said about lighting is completely true, being a cinematographer myself i can’t help but agree but, with such cameras even what you call “reasonable ISO” becames something else entirely when compared to film or red cameras. Also it seems to me that you fail to take into account that most people who will use this camera will rent it, not buy it. Why? Because they can’t afford it. Now with cameras such as these that do very well in low light, you can afford to avoid high expenses on lighting and go for simpler kits that will get the job done and well. But I honestly believe you know that just that perhaps you are not recognizing the proper impact such cameras have for the little “guys”

          • Raphael – lighting is groundwork for cinematography, saving money on lighting is like buying a lamborgini for a desert race. Better to have more lights and shittier camera than the other way around. Yeah and in the perfect situation you’ll have both.

          • @ceptor, you’re clearly missing the point. Neither I nor Raphael said “don’t use lights”. If your camera has better low light sensitivity, the lights you’ll use will be considerably reduced and therefore it’s budget. You need lots of light with film precisely because film doesn’t do well in low light, to compensate (which is what these low-light cameras indeed do natively). The point here isn’t “look, you can film without lights”… it’s more like “you can light with less” which saves setup time, and hopefully cost in the ligthing rentals.

          • Exactly, couldn’t have put it better myself.

          • To reinforce my last post… don’t take it from me. This is quoted off of the blog of Shane Hurlbut A.S.C.

            “The exciting thing about the Arri Alexa, F-3 and the new wave of DSLR’s is their high ISO range to minimum noise ratio. This has opened up a whole new way to light as a cinematographer. Whether it be daylight interior or exterior, dawn, dusk, night exterior or interiors the option now exist to use available light in new ways, as well as working with less.”

          • c.d.embrey on 12.1.11 @ 6:32PM

            @ Dave N you said “The only reason people light for film in the dark is because it just.can’t.see. If film had the low light sensitivity this camera does, I doubt a cinematographer would still insist on using the shit-ton of light a Scarlet needs.” Dave N have you ever shot film??? I have, and you would be amazed at what can be done with small battery powered lights. In 1976 (yes, I’m that old) Kodak released 5247 (35mm) and 7247 (16mm) and low budget film making changed forever. Now you could push process to ASA (ISO) 500 and get a usable picture. Within 10 years ASA (ISO) 1500 was possible. I’ve worked on low budgets without a generator with the biggest lamp a 1K. I’ve also burned 1,500 Amps for a shot.

            @ Raphael, I’ve worked on No Budget, Low Budget, Big Budget and Bigger Budget. I’ve worked on Student, Non-Union, NABET and IATSE films. TV Commercials, Documentaries and Narrative Fiction. For the most part with RENTED equipment. I’ve been the smallest of the “little guys”, using nothing but Photo Floods for lighting.

          • And? No one is questioning that Embrey, we are merely stating that these new cameras with greater low light sensitivity allow new possibilities when lighting, which in turn helps save work, time and money, that’s all.

          • @ Raphael, you just don’t get what I’m saying.. Doesn’t matter if the ISO is 100 or 100,000 you still need light. All the new cameras do is make the light source smaller/lighter/less expensive. You don’t need a 40 footer and two 750 amp generators, now-a-days a piece of B&W show card and a couple of hand held battery powered LED lights will suffice in many instances. Oh, and don’t forget a 4′x4′ silk, not everything is shot at night. :)

          • And i never said you don’t need light mate, just that it offers new alternative ways of using said light.

  • RevBenjamin on 11.30.11 @ 3:01PM

    Yeah, I still can’t justify the cost of this vs the cost of the Scarlet. Come on. HD vs 4k. It just boils down to that for me. I have a great camera that does comparable footage to this already… it’s called the GH2.

    • You know the “$10k” Scarlet is only half a camera, right? Remember to budget for little things like power & memory before you go off about “cost.” The $14k Scarlet “ready to shoot” package only comes with 64GB of memory… :)

      And if you only get the 10k Scarlet, here’s the recommended add on list, direct from RED:

      * DSMC Power Pack
      * REDVolts
      * RED Touch 5″ LCD
      * BOMB EVF (BOMB EVF requires DSMC Side Handle or REDMOTE to navigate menu)
      * REDMOTE
      * RED ROCKET

  • Just when I WANT to like the C300, Someone (uhmm uhm Pixel Wiz) points out the visual qualities of the S.X. What can I say. I see what I see!

    P.S. I love what your doing for us Koo. Please keep up the informative work.

  • This is a great test & the images look great but I think the final output may not have been compressed at the best setting. I’m seeing some compression artifacts.

  • ….They could have just made it a 2K camera at the same price, and it would be worth it. 1080p is a joke.

    • I didn’t realize the difference between “a joke” and a good image was 120 horizontal pixels.

    • Hey Sean,
      I thought 4k was the only was to go for digital until I went to go see Drive, while was shot on Alexa to Hdcam-sr tape. That’s right, 1080p. I had no idea watching it that the film was digital, it was as great looking as a Robert Richardson or Roger Deakins-shot film.
      Then came In Time and Hugo, both as gorgeous as anything shot on film, both shot with a Alexa, and both using 1080p 444 to codex boxes. Not even the arriRAW format (all 3 films were shot with Alexa prototype workflow).
      I guess I can’t speak for you, but to my eyes 1080p is not a joke. after seeing those films I suddenly don’t find myself desiring more resolution than 1080p.

      • Couldn’t agree more. Numbers don’t mean nearly as much as actual results. 1080p is by no means the new “standard def” as Jim Jannard said. Drive looked incredible and I saw it on a 35mm print and 2k DCP.

  • Awesome stuff – but in perspective the T3i or GH2 cost around $700. For $13k you could buy 18 of either. Or more logically 1-2 and have enough change for some quality glass, nice lights and various other must have accessories.

    Then what about the FS100? Throw on a Ninja and you’re recording in 4:2:2 prores for $6k – half the price for a package that essentially matches all of the benefits the c300 has over dslrs. Sure the c300 footage should look better in a lot of situations BUT there will likely be a greater number of situations where you would be hard pressed to tell one from the other….maybe…?

    My main concern now is that while Canon could have fixed so many of the problems and drawbacks with the 5dII with a new 5d3 or similar – now that the C300 is out they wont even try or worse deliberately cripple any subsequent dslr products to protect the c300 market.

  • I think this is a biased and very inaccurate review,almost believable but well produced therefore credit is due there. However I can’t ever remember seeing such horrible over exposed DSLR footage. My iPhone has better latitude than that. No doubt that the C300 is better than a 5D and has a few advantages, at $10K it would be a viable option, but even at the proposed $16K, it’s still too overpriced for just 1080P. If the full 4K sensor was used, as I’m sure Canon originally intended, then even at $20K it would be a great investment for what would be a serious tool. That same sensor will appear again in a DSLR body, hopefully at a reasonable price, which already makes the C300 an obsolete toy. If you buy one you have 6 months to make your profit back. A great TV camera!

  • I saw this video today and loved the way he makes his points. A great review.

  • Points raised were kewl, most specially Hi ISO and………that’s about it it. All the other issues like deeper focus, shake, skin tone, moire are all fizable by the huge amounts of various accesories tha you’re SUPPOSED to put in you camera to fix those problems, e.g. steadicam for jelo, lights for ISO,etc.

    C300′s slow motion is PATHETIC! 60p only at 720p?! You loose big time right there. Nex 5N can do better than that at $700.

    Nex 5N’s ISO performance is pretty bad ass too, can anyone with this camera go around the city and shoot stuff too, I tthink it could fare better.

    If the C300 was priced like $5K, then it would have been awesome, but at 16k, no thank you. at 20k. Bwahahahahahaha! Ehem.

    • And about the wider range of lenses, Sony Nex can take ANYTHING!

      • Yeah and you get an awesome video crop that i can live without

        • 1.6 crop = super 35mm. RED crops your video like no other for higher frame rates.

        • Nex 5N does NOT crop video dude, only the DSLTs A65/77. With Nex, the width is NOT cropped on video you getto use the entire sensor’s size, and your lenses wideness is maintained.

          • I was actually talking about when you start filming, the image on the nex5 screen gets smaller. Yes just like the A77.

            Is that something that doesn’t happen on the Sony Nex5n but rather only on the Nex5?

            And yeah, the Scarlet does some weird things, eventually making it so that it doesn’t use the entire sensor to shoot.

            Funny how people complain about C300 due to far less important things yet i don’t see people criticize the Scarlet due to the ridiculous crop.

  • I think the biggest question here is whether or not Canon has the ability to update the firmware down the line to allow 1080 (or higher) with 60p and beyond, as well as allow the camera to use the full 4k sensor (although Mr. Bloom said it was only a 3.5k sensor?).

    If either of these were true, than maybe the $13k pricepoint Mr. Bloom had briefly mentioned might be worth looking into, but otherwise, it seems better just to hold out for the next generation of this camera, or the in-development 4k HDSLR (which, undoubtedly, will lack some features the C300 contains).

  • Those are some hefty improvements over what the DSLR’s can achieve, the ultra-high ISO make it the automatic go-to camera for doc-projects imo. But that price, ooh that enormous price… I’m still leaning towards a Scarlet. If this camera were sub $10k i might’ve actually considered it and held off on owning a 4k camera for a couple more years, not to be.

    • As Philip has been saying, the buck does not stop at $15k for a Scarlet package. Far from it. That’s a bare bones minimum. Soon you’ll be buying loads of accessoiries (extra batteries, memory, RED rocket card, a faster computer) to make the RED work. Plus the added cost of the extra time spent in post in working with the footage. For me, the C300 is starting to make more sense every day, although I do agree that €12k is a heck of a lot of money for a camera. Do I want 4k and 300fps? Sure, I do, but I don’t need it. For now, that is.

      • Ok what about the f3? Its also a competitor

        • The F3 definitely is a competitor. But the C300 still has a major advantage – it takes EF lenses which most DSLR shooters have readily available and, like me, plan to use for the next 8-10 years. The F3, on the other hand, offers its own set of primes (Sony E-Mount). Until an electronic mount from Birger or MTF Services arrives, you cannot use your EF lenses on the Sony’s. This should be imminent, but it’s not available yet.

          IMHO, Sony could have owned this market when they released the F3 and the FS-100 if they had given users the option of an EF-mount. But alas, internal politics favoured the development of their own glass… However, the F3 is more future proof in that it allows for 4:4:4 external recording via dual-link SDI out. But it’s also a much heavier package…

      • Thanks for the opinion Richard, I’m up to speed on RED’s product, shoot with them all the time (first shoot with the EPIC earlier today, it’s impressive). I’m fully aware of the inevitable snowball-effect involved with such a purchase, but it’s what I do for a living so why shy away from it? Certainly some cinematographers do just fine owning ZERO gear, I applaud them for it… but I have enough tech-neediness to want to own (currently have a decent DSLR package) at least a basic camera package and the Scarlet is the best choice for me right now. Like you mentioned the post-production side is where things can get daunting, still weighing all options for my own ideal work-flow and it definitely does not involve a RedRocket anytime soon. One thing to keep in mind with high-performance cameras such as the RED are that things are only going to get faster, easier and cheaper with them in production terms and in post.

  • I like the Freestyle Fixed Shots. I shoot F/F with a Canon DSLR and this blows mine away.

  • You put this next to Laforet’s Möbius and there you go, I’m dying to get my hands on this camera!

  • I get the argument against red, the c300 has an excellent compressed image thats easy in post, theres a market for that.

    But what I want to know is why the attention about competitors is on red and not sony. First off, the f3 provides 13.5 stops of latitude vs 12 plus you have exposure index for even more highlight retention. Next there are options for 4:2:0 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 and you can choose data rates between 35mbs and 880mbs. Plus there is 10 bit vs. 8 bit. Yes c300 might be better out of the box, but this is catered to professionals. C300 is way more limited in customization of latitude, color depth, color space, and data rates. I’d love objectively, what I’m missing.

  • Looks like the C300 gets the crown for guerilla filmmaking. Really appericate this video/info because I was dead set on the Scarlet but if my first feature demands a run n shoot style then the C300 would be better suited considering the low-light record and battery size/performance.

    Ps I’m shocked RED didn’t ship the first batch of Scarlets to you Koo… Isn’t nofilmschool the biggest filmmaking blog?

    • I really appreciated the video too, but I would to respectfully ask why the c300 is more appropriate than the f3 for guerilla filmmaking?

      • In almost all of my posts about the C300 I’ve mentioned the F3… guess I forgot to here. I like the F3 a lot, but the expense of the S-log firmware is a bit off-putting. Once the C300 is out it’d be nice to see a shootout between the C300 in C-log and the F3 in S-log.

        • Thanks for the response, I looked back and the f3 was mentioned, I just think in the forum discussions about which 15-20k camera is the right choice, the f3 should be there. It wasn’t released on Nov 3rd, so its not getting as much attention, even though its impressive as well.

  • “Canon log sounds like a turd” ha. Helpful video.

  • Iain Philpott on 12.1.11 @ 5:07PM

    As a stills fashion/beauty guy I am slowly coming round to this camera. My ideal is Epic – the ability to shoot at 96fps @ 5K, get my movie and pull glorious stills from it seemed to be the perfect camera for me and still might be. Scarlet can’t do that. No other camera can. However while this scenario is also my clients utopia I am starting to see some drawbacks. My clients need very fast turn round. My clients are starting to hate large lighting bills. Red Epic is not fast on the post work flow and it needs lights. Maybe the C300 is a good option. Small enough to fit in your camera bags, easy to shoot with none of my current 5D issues, shoots a great image in really low light so smaller lighting bills, simple in post, same media I’m shooting now, will fit my current Redrock rigs (unlike Epic – because of the high lens mount point)…….. There are starting to be a lot of things going for this camera and I am starting to hear that this sensor really questions do you need 10 bit?
    I really thought this camera was a massive fail on the 3rd – I’m not so sure now…..

    • Iain Philpott on 12.1.11 @ 5:09PM

      Oh and as for my stills – continue doing what I do now which is shoot them on another camera.

    • Yeah iain, I completely agree with you. Scarlet seemed so much better when it came out, but now I think the c300 is the way to go, because it fits a workflow I have grown to know extremely well and doesn’t cost much, whereas to turn to the Scarlet, I need to re-think my onset workflow and then spend even more money getting post up to speed. The c300 solves all the drawbacks of Dslr while still fitting into that whole simple workflow that I like.

    • You can pull stills from the scarlet, why wouldn’t you be able too?

  • no 1080 @60? srsly?

  • I’m confused. It seems that this test is matching the C300 with its hdslr predecessors. Even with the reduced est street cost of around $15K it’s more than $12 K over the 5DmkII. I would hope that I wouldn’t have issues with wobble for that much $. It’s a very nice camera. I think most expected more from that ridiculous pricepoint when it was announced on 11/3. Actually, I’d be willing to bet that most didn’t expect it to cost more than the F3. Which it did.

    • I think that to Canon, the c300 is their next generation DSLR. it was only when Jannard started the whole Nov 3rd competition that people began to frame it as Canon vs. RED. But as the hype has subsided, I think people have begun to realize the c300 is designed to fit perfectly into the already much tested DSLR workflow without hiccups.

      As for the other part of your post, about the ridiculous price point, you are right, and that is why it seems every week since Nov3rd there has been announcements of price drops, I am guessing it will be closer to $12k by the time it actually reaches your preferred vendor.

    • Yeah, totally agree with this post. How can you compare a C300 with the 5D?They are completely different animals really. Some of what he said was very obvious as well (like when I increase the f-stop I see more of the background) yeah, no duh.

      • Best camera test ever!!
        and better to make it too simple (without taking out the stuff that you want to know) than to make it too technical, wider audience ;)
        Great job, now you know why there is so much difference between the 5D and the C300.. though I agree that it’s pretty steep and way out of my budget.

      • I believe he was being sardonic about the idea that shallow depth of field is what makes the image cinematic.

        • @kevin

          I think the point was that with the higher clean ISO’s you are no longer forced to film wide open. Filming on 1,2 or 1,4 is ridiculous most of the time imo. But with run and gun shooting, outside at night or other dark conditions you don’t have a choice. Now you do :D So say hello to sensible DOF and documentary style shooting.

  • That was far and away the best camera test I’ve ever seen. Definitely need to see more like this!

  • I’m still drooling over the amazing 12,500 and 20,000 ISO footage. Imagine what you can do with that kind of light sensitivity! You’d never need heavy 1K lights again, just pack a bunch of small battery lights to aid the ambient lighting and you’re good to go!

  • I laughed! I cried! I learned something, which is pretty cool. Thanks man!