C100: 7 Weeks to NAB - Anyone hearing anything besides conjecture about a C100 MKIII?

mproust14 said:
The c100 is hands down a better camera than the Fs7 - unless you care about 4k and frame rates.
Click to expand...

That's sort of why they need a C100 MkIII. I agree with you, but for a variety of reasons my next camera purchase needs to be 4K even though I have no intention of delivering in 4K. There are lots of reasons that I won't get into here why acquiring in 4K is a good idea. I always want to get at least 3-4 years out of a camera and not having 4K means I probably can't get that many years out of a non-4K camera. C300 Mk II is possible, but for run and gun it's a little heavy to be used handheld without rigging and this coming from someone who shoots handheld with a C300 Mk I.

Honestly, I'd like to have higher frame rates. But if Canon at least came out with 4K 30P in a C100 form factor, I'd buy it.
 
It is simply , canon want to sell mk3 , so they have to give something new , that could be 4k , or something else . For someone 4k is essential , I would like to get more DR , better codec , more frame . 4k is the last thing , but why not . Sometimes ago I found on internet 4k still frame from 1dx . WOW that is mazing how good it was .
By the way , I think 4k is great for landscape , animal wildlife etc... but when it comes to event , hmm I do not think it is so great . In other hand , 4k is for really large screen , most of us has 50 inch , so as long as very large tv are not standard ( above70 inch ) 1080p is enough . There is one more thing where 4k is handy , cropping without loose quality .
 
Last edited:
I really hope they find a way to use more affordable media than CFast. We bought the two biggest, cheapest, canon-approved Cfast cards that exist. They give 80 minutes of dual-slot 4K recording, and it cost over $1300!
 
I found a new Sandisk CFast 2.0 512 gb card at 999.99 usd. However it is a new item and still not in stock.

I was hoping that prices of CFast 2.0 cards will drop down. However, it is holding nearly steady. At the moment recording interviews with CFast 2.0 cards makes me nervous the more the interviewee blabbers. :)

I think the demand for good quality HD will remain atleast for another two years.
 
mproust14 said:
The c100 is hands down a better camera than the Fs7 - unless you care about 4k and frame rates. Most of us don't need 4k and probably won't for the next couple of years. I'll ask you this question: image-wise, how much can the mkiii better the mkii? I would say in most instances it will be negligible. I don't have any need for it and I think that's true for most people out there. The internal color from the c100 destroys any 10 bit or raw from an Fs5 (for example) and saves me so much money on storage and computer processing power--and the image is so much better.
Click to expand...
I will have to kindly disagree. I would say the image from the FS5 (or FS700 for that matter)
sent to the Odyssey is leaps and bounds better than the 'internal color from the c100'.
In fact, the HD, (downrezzed from 4k), is some sort of voodo magic by Convergent Design,
that image is amazing. If you seriously think the C100 image looks better than that.....
I'm not sure what to say. I guess everyone has their own opinions.
 
That's what I'm saying most people don't want to spend 1400 on cfast cards haha.
And yes I'm serious about comparing it to the Fs7. The sensor for the c100 has been used in legitimate motion pictures because it looks damn good, whereas the Sony products are video like in the worse sense of the word and haven't been touched by any dp that I know of. It is all down to preference I guess but if you are simply looking at resolution then I'll have to agree with you. Although you don't state why you prefer the Sony.
 
mproust14 said:
That's what I'm saying most people don't want to spend 1400 on cfast cards haha.
And yes I'm serious about comparing it to the Fs7. The sensor
for the c100 has been used in legitimate motion pictures
because it looks damn good, whereas the Sony products are
video like in the worse sense of the word and haven't been
touched by any dp that I know of. It is all down to preference
I guess but if you are simply looking at resolution then I'll have
to agree with you. Although you don't state why you prefer the
Sony.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused. The 'sensor' for the c100 has been used in
'legitimate motion pictures'? Does that mean the c100 has been
used or some other camera using the same sensor but better recording
codec/resolution etc? Which 'legitimate motion pictures' are these you
speak of using a c100? I'm curious what you consider a legitimate motion
picture I guess.....I know there are Sundance films which have used a
c100......but also others which have used the Sony FS700. I personally
know a ton of DPs who own and use FS7's and F5/55s and only one who
owns a c100, so maybe that is more based on who you know.

You don't really come out and say why you prefer the c100 although
I am inferring from your 'Sony video look' comments that you think the
Canon looks more filmic. I personally think the Sony looks much better,
not as 'thin' of a codec. I've worked with C300 Mark II footage as well
and that on the other hand, looks great. Not fond of the AVCHD footage
from the C100 though, much prefer FS5 footage using Convergent's 4K
raw to HD 'supersampling' voodoo.
 
alaskacameradude said:
I'm a little confused. The 'sensor' for the c100 has been used in
'legitimate motion pictures'? Does that mean the c100 has been
used or some other camera using the same sensor but better recording
codec/resolution etc? Which 'legitimate motion pictures' are these you
speak of using a c100? I'm curious what you consider a legitimate motion
picture I guess.....I know there are Sundance films which have used a
c100......but also others which have used the Sony FS700. I personally
know a ton of DPs who own and use FS7's and F5/55s and only one who
owns a c100, so maybe that is more based on who you know.

You don't really come out and say why you prefer the c100 although
I am inferring from your 'Sony video look' comments that you think the
Canon looks more filmic. I personally think the Sony looks much better,
not as 'thin' of a codec. I've worked with C300 Mark II footage as well
and that on the other hand, looks great. Not fond of the AVCHD footage
from the C100 though, much prefer FS5 footage using Convergent's 4K
raw to HD 'supersampling' voodoo.
Click to expand...

The c100 and c300 share the same sensor. There's plenty of information about that online and found very easily with a Google search. Here are some movies that were shot using a c300. Some were shot on only the c300, some used additional cameras. I would say some of those movies are legitimate motion pictures.

https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/canon-eos-c300-camera
 
Ditto to what Reggie said. Some off the top of my head are Blue is the Warmest Color and Victoria (released in 2015). It was thin for these productions. The sony has horrible color rendition external output or no - you can't quantify codec. Usin words like thin doesn't really tell me anything.
 
mproust14 said:
Ditto to what Reggie said. Some off the top of my head are Blue is the Warmest Color and Victoria (released in 2015). It was thin for these productions. The sony has horrible color rendition external output or no - you can't quantify codec. Usin words like thin doesn't really tell me anything.
Click to expand...

Ok I was just wondering what you meant by major productions
as everyone seems to have a different opinion on what that
means. 'Video look' and 'filmic' don't mean anything to me, just
like 'thin codec' apparently doesn't mean anything to you. I find
these terms to be used by people who can't describe why they dislike
something......these things are very subjective and that's ok I suppose.
But I certainly don't think the Sony has 'horrible color rendition....but I
also tweak Picture profiles quite a bit. I did know the C300 and C100 have
the same sensor, but I personally highly prefer the C300.....I can certainly
tell the difference between it and the C100.....again I guess these things
are highly subjective. Just for the record there have also been plenty of films
shot with the Sony's...,and the Sony F5 (not FS5) has the same sensor as the FS7
so maybe I should include anything shot with it too?
But here are a couple films shot with Sony's
The Pretend One (FS7)
The Amina File (FS700)
Yuuyaraq (FS7000)
 
The c100 shoots a decent codec with an external recorder. But I guess that's what I'm trying to say, a lot of it is preference and so I understand why canon haven't updated their lineup that regularly because it looks good. I don't think too many people will be swayed by the 4k label. If you don't need it, then it is so much more worthwhile getting a c100 and updating your lenses and then when 4k really comes in just get a cheap used c300 mkii. Plus the associated costs of computer systems and storage will have dramatically fallen at that stage.
 
I did a shoot once with a C100 Mark II in Wide DR and an FS7 shooting in 4K with I believe S-log 3, inter-cutting the two cameras for interviews. In the final edit the producer showed me, the C100 was much sharper and I think the image looked considerably better in general than the FS7, though that could have something to do with how they graded it.

I will say that I'm not sure I've ever seen footage from the FS7 that looked as sharp as C100 footage. 4K is a resolution spec but specs don't necessarily mean a sharper image. A 50 megapixel image shot heavily out of focus won't be as sharp as a 480p image that is in focus. In camera processing differs from camera to camera, so the recorded resolution is not always the primary factor in how sharp the image actually is.

I haven't heard of The Pretend One (FS7), The Amina File (FS700), or Yuuyaraq (FS7000), while I have heard of many of the films shot with C-series cameras. I think it is accurate to say the C-series gets much more use on big budget films than the FS7 or F5. I do see the F55 used on a fair number of big films, but the discussion was based on "same sensor" of which the F55 was said to be a different sensor than the FS7.

Considering most people don't shoot raw with the FS7 or Fs-5, I think the internal codecs would be more accurate to compare to the C100.
 
mproust14 said:
The c100 shoots a decent codec with an external recorder. But I guess that's what I'm trying to say, a lot of it is preference and so I understand why canon haven't updated their lineup that regularly because it looks good. I don't think too many people will be swayed by the 4k label. If you don't need it, then it is so much more worthwhile getting a c100 and updating your lenses and then when 4k really comes in just get a cheap used c300 mkii. Plus the associated costs of computer systems and storage will have dramatically fallen at that stage.
Click to expand...

Totally, you are right. If you like the way it looks, then why worry about an update?
I'm personally not all that huge on 4K myself either, I haven't run into any times that I
have needed it yet.....not to say it's not nice to have, but kind of overkill for me at this
point. My friend got a c300 mkii and it's a very nice camera indeed. I get it, I was just
wondering as I had not heard of any 'big time' films that used ANY of these camera although
plenty of indie films have used various ones of the 'cheaper' large sensor cameras. I'm thinking
post also has a big hand in how the film looks, which is where having a codec that you can 'stretch'
could be useful.
 
mproust14 said:
you can't quantify codec.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. And 25mpbs h.264 is not enough for most professional productions. Nor is 8-bit color. C100/mkII does not even leave the starting blocks in the comparison against the FS7 if you are using it for serious broadcast work as the networks won't even touch it.

Everyone has personal tastes and perhaps you personally like the colour from the C100 more, but anybody who knows what they are doing in post can get equally good colour out of the FS7 (let alone raw - which is what you originally compared it to, so it is fair to keep it in the conversation). Claiming otherwise just shows ignorance of the equipment and of other people's knowledge and sounds like you're just recycling catch phrases you've heard on the internet (Sony looks like video, blah blah blah) without ever having used an FS7 (or any camera at all other than your C100 and probably a 5D before that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top