C100: c100 II and 80D or GH4 + lens suggestions

J

JasonMillard81

Active member
Hi all! I am 85% of the way ready to purchase a c100 II but wanted to make the best decision with regards to options and lenses. I don't own any Canon glass anymore and have the GH4 system which I will most likely sell to get a B-cam for my C100II.
I could also keep the GH4 as a b-cam to the C100 II. Is there any strong reasons to sell my GH4 for an 80D? My C100 II will be my A-cam for video and my GH4 or 80D will be my B-cam for video and main stills camera. I'd like to take stills to print large sizes for print. So I could theoretically keep my GH4 for stills and have a decent b-cam with 4K video but no DPAF. The 80D would give me the DPAF but not 4K video. Any thoughts on what to use as a b-cam and stills camera to print images?
As far as C100 II options
1. Body Only: $3999
2. Body & 24-105 4L: $4499
I'm not sure if it is better to start with just the body and get a different "kit" lens or get the body and 24-105 for 500 more which would save me 400-500 on the actual lens.
I think it seems best to have an all-around zoom lens and 1 or 2 lenses that are much sharper for up-close interviews etc since the C100 II could use a bit more help in the resolution department.

Sorry if that seemed stream of conscious.

Thanks in advance!
 
I am just going to give you my biased opinion, having owned or currently own all of the pieces you mention.

1. C100 MKII is a great camera. But are you sure you won't need to deliver 4K to your clients for at least the next year or two? There are rumors afloat of the 4K C100 MKIII but they are just rumors. Guess you could keep your GH4 and M43 lenses for 4K jobs?
2. I owned one of the first GH4s. Personally, I found that the M43 FOV, substandard audio, excessive grain at any ISO above 800 and the really weird colors were all downers and sold the camera to buy my C100. Clients like it a lot more and I like the colors a lot more.
3. I just bought the 80D as B camera to my C100 and to use on the Zhiyun Crane gimbal. It's a nice camera and easily matches the C100 pretty well. It also has more advanced DPAF than the C100, mainly the face tracking, which I love. Once again though, 1080 considerations. 80D has the S35 sensor, much better in low light, compatible with Canon lenses and will color match much better with your C100. Prolost Flat on the 80D and WDR on the C100, touch of color correction and you are matched. The GH4 had really whacked out colors to begin with, in my opinion, the skin tones are mostly awful (cyan/magenta pastels?), although to be fair, I sold mine before the V-Log came out and other users have posted GH4 V-log footage that looked pretty good, after a LOT of post massaging.
4. 24-105 is not a great lens. It's barely even a decent lens. It's heavy, expensive for what it is (although yes, you get a deal with a package deal), excess barrel distortion on the wide end, it is the softest L lens made, and 24mm is not wide FOV on S35 and at F4, the exposure value still changes as you zoom. I went with the 18-135 STM IS and it's been a great little lens for a cheap lens. I've shot BTS all over the world with, even two weeks in the Sahara in 128F heat in May and it came through with shining colors. It's not built as well as the 24-105 but the focal length is MUCH better for an all purpose lens for S35 and it has better IS than the old 24-105 although I have not tested the new 24-105. If you need fast, don't get either of these, get the 17-55 2.8 IS, I just bought it and its a GREAT handheld/walk around lens, albeit a bit on the short focal length side.

The best low end pro lens package, IMHO, is the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 2.8 USM IS II. If you can't afford cine glass, this gives you IS, good DPAF capability, both are razor sharp and 17-200 mm in two lenses, all at a constant 2.8 cannot be beat. If you can't afford the 70-200 2.8 IS II right now, get the 17-55 2.8 and perhaps a used prime? Or an EF 85mm 1.8 for interviews? Before I had the 70-200, the 85mm 1.8 was my go to interview lens and it looks great. Unless you mostly shoot exteriors and events, in which case, get the 18-135 STM IS and be done with it.
 
Hi - I wanted to ask about your lens suggestions - I've got the 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 lenses - I was going to get the C100mkII/24-105 kit for range and IS but now wondering if the 17-55 would be a better choice. Also on the 18-135 STM - does your exposure change through zooming on that lens?
 
I would take the 17-55 2.8 in a heartbeat over the 24-105 new or old versions. Plus you already have two 2.8 lenses there. If it were me, I wouldn't own both the 17-55 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8, they are too similar, unless you prefer the 24-70 for stills or shoot with a second camera often. Compared to the 24-105, the 17-55 is a better lens period and it's nice to have a wide zoom with IS that is fast enough to shoot at night or in dim light. These two are perfect examples of why stills shooters often need different lenses than video. For video, I would always take the 17-55 but for stills, I would prefer the greater quality of the 24-70 and I can live without IS on stills on that focal length.

24mm FF FOV on an S35 imager is 38.4mm, not exactly wide. If I am shooting in bright daylight, I still prefer the 18-135 STM IS over the 17-55 because of the great focal length, it is more handy for what I shoot, which is BTS footage on movie and TV sets, where I often do not have time to do many lens changes and I am supposed to be the low key, "fly on the wall" so I often need to shoot from longer distances but instantly to have to be able to shoot handheld interviews or walk and talks. So interiors, I use the 17-55 IS and exteriors, the 18-135 STM IS. The 70-200 is for interviews or longer lens shots or at night or when I need more than 135mm focoal length. On the 18-135 STM IS, yes, the exposure does change through zooms but it also does on the 24-105, or at least with the old one even though it is an "F4" lens. I never use zooms anyway, it's a variable prime. Hand zoomed zooms with photo lenses are usually clunky and unusable although I find I can use portions of them with the 70-200 2.8 USM IS II simply because the zoom is smoother and heavier and the zoom rotations seems longer.
 
Last edited:
KarlSutton said:
Thanks puredrifting - your context for the lenses was very helpful!
Click to expand...

I'm with puredrifting, if I could only own three lenses, it would be the lenses mentioned. I have most of the other lenses available, but I rely almost entirely on those lenses. Actually, that's not true. I don't have the 17-55 anymore and instead use the 16-35 f/2.8L and 24-70 f/2.8L, but I would be willing to trade them for 17-55 if I needed the extra cash. The only other lens I realized I absolutely needed in some situations was the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Sometimes it is the only lens that will get you what you need at low light events.
 
I thank you for the advice! However, I did got with the 24-105 f4. I do have a leftover lens from my last canon camera:

Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC
Canon 24-105

I will see how I like this combo before I decide whether to keep the zooms and may replace them both entirely. Either way I gambled with the 24-105.

After that I will then look to sell my GH4 and decide whether I want a FF stills or aspc-a.

Also looking for some affordable primes, probably Rokinon (24,50, 85)
 
I like the 24-105. It's sharp enough for most types of shoots. 17-55 is nice for some types of shooting, such as run n gun doc style, but for event shooting where you often can't get closer, the 55-105 range is too useful to give up. I do think I'll replace the 24-105 with the 18-80 once that arrives for a lot of work, but I can still see using the 24-105 for that extra 80-105 range for some shoots.

I haven't used the 80D, but I've used the 70D, 5D, and 7D. And I own a 60D and GH2. GH2 matches up to my C100 way better than the 60D, because the 60D, like probably all non-4K Canon DSLRs (I assume the 80D as well), is very soft, and you can't add enough sharpness in post to match them up well, while you can slightly adjust colors on the cameras to match them up pretty well. A 60D with a super sharp lens is going to be a lot softer than a C100 with a 24-105, so I find it a bit contradictory that puredrifting disses the 24-105 as being super soft, but then uses a (again, I assume) soft Canon 80D which makes all lenses soft.

GH4 in 4K is sharper than the GH2, so should match up even better assuming the colors aren't much different than the GH2.

Here's my interview demo reel where for a few of the interviews in the reel I used the GH2 as the tight shot and C100 as the wide.


A Canon 80D is $1250, and a GH4 is $1500, plus I believe $650 for the speedbooster if you want to use Canon lenses with it. If it were me, I'd do what I did when I was considering a GH4 as a b-cam for my C100, and instead buy a second C100. A used C100 Mark I goes for around $1800, so not much more money.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
…
…
I haven't used the 80D, but I've used the 70D, 5D, and 7D. And I own a 60D and GH2. GH2 matches up to my C100 way better than the 60D, because the 60D, like probably all non-4K Canon DSLRs (I assume the 80D as well), is very soft, and you can't add enough sharpness in post to match them up well, while you can slightly adjust colors on the cameras to match them up pretty well. …
…
Click to expand...

I wonder, since in all the many videos I've seen of the GH4, the colors are markedly different from Canons' colors, especially skin tones.
Maybe the GH2 is a little wonder? …
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I haven't used the 80D, but I've used the 70D, 5D, and 7D. And I own a 60D and GH2. GH2 matches up to my C100 way better than the 60D, because the 60D, like probably all non-4K Canon DSLRs (I assume the 80D as well), is very soft, and you can't add enough sharpness in post to match them up well, while you can slightly adjust colors on the cameras to match them up pretty well. A 60D with a super sharp lens is going to be a lot softer than a C100 with a 24-105, so I find it a bit contradictory that puredrifting disses the 24-105 as being super soft, but then uses a (again, I assume) soft Canon 80D which makes all lenses soft.
Click to expand...

I've used two copies of the 24-105, one from a friend when I was shooting in France and one here that a client owns. Both were just meh as far as sharpness, I suppose it is possible that I came across two bad copies, your footage with the lens looks very sharp. As far as the 80D, I was using the Osmo before, so the 80D, which I have mostly been using with the 10-18 STM IS, has been sharp enough that cutting between it and the C100 hasn't been jarring as far as sharpness, the producers of Dancing with the Stars had no problem cutting between the C100 with the 70-200 2.8 USM IS II and the 80D with the 10-18 STM IS on the gimbal and they have far better monitors and more talented colorists than I do. Shot WDR on the C100 and Prolost Flat on the 80D. The 80D is a step up from the Osmo, but yes, definitely not as sharp as the C100 with any lens. As far as the GH2, I've only owned the GH4 and trying to get GH4 footage to even be in the same realm as C100 footage was impossible, but perhaps the GH2 has different color science than the GH4, allowing a talented colorist to get them closer in color? Your samples look good, much better than I ever got from my GH4.
 
Hey all ! so I did get the C100 II with a 24-105 f4 I lens. I already have a Tamrony 17-50 2.8 VC lens which together I can see if I need faster primes or a better zoom.

That being said, I am looking for a stills camera PRIMARILY for photography features not video.

Stills needs:

1. Good ISO performance (low light)
2. Great colors
3. Shallow DOF
4. Timelapse/other Tech. features for my amateur self to create
5. Decent resolution as i'd like to print very large edits of my images to frame and hang or give to family/friends
6. good to above average 1080p/4K video performance

I have the GH4 which has horrific ISO performance at least I think and I was recommended the 80D by literally anyone that found out I'd be using a C100 II for video and needed a stills camera.

I'm also considering maybe a used 5D Mark III, A7r/s II, 80D, others???

thoughts?
 
5D MKIII is a versatile stills camera. One of legendary status in my opinion. It's an okay video device however. If you plan to use your stills as a b-camera at all, I would go 80D, but for straight stills, the MKIII is a bargain now.

-gl

JasonMillard81 said:
Hey all ! so I did get the C100 II with a 24-105 f4 I lens. I already have a Tamrony 17-50 2.8 VC lens which together I can see if I need faster primes or a better zoom.

That being said, I am looking for a stills camera PRIMARILY for photography features not video.

Stills needs:

1. Good ISO performance (low light)
2. Great colors
3. Shallow DOF
4. Timelapse/other Tech. features for my amateur self to create
5. Decent resolution as i'd like to print very large edits of my images to frame and hang or give to family/friends
6. good to above average 1080p/4K video performance

I have the GH4 which has horrific ISO performance at least I think and I was recommended the 80D by literally anyone that found out I'd be using a C100 II for video and needed a stills camera.

I'm also considering maybe a used 5D Mark III, A7r/s II, 80D, others???

thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
JasonMillard81 said:
Hey all ! so I did get the C100 II with a 24-105 f4 I lens. I already have a Tamrony 17-50 2.8 VC lens which together I can see if I need faster primes or a better zoom.

That being said, I am looking for a stills camera PRIMARILY for photography features not video.

Stills needs:

1. Good ISO performance (low light)
2. Great colors
3. Shallow DOF
4. Timelapse/other Tech. features for my amateur self to create
5. Decent resolution as i'd like to print very large edits of my images to frame and hang or give to family/friends
6. good to above average 1080p/4K video performance

I have the GH4 which has horrific ISO performance at least I think and I was recommended the 80D by literally anyone that found out I'd be using a C100 II for video and needed a stills camera.

I'm also considering maybe a used 5D Mark III, A7r/s II, 80D, others???

thoughts?
Click to expand...

I have both the 80D and the 5DIII. For your use you can get the 80D. It is cheaper and good. The DPAF in the live view is great in the 80D. The 80D has the timelapse feature, so you can easily set it and get the shot. Also, the vari angle LCD helps a lot. In family situations as well as in times when you don't want to spook the subject, you can just use the variable angle LCD to frame and get the shots or video clips without making the subject conscious. I wish that feature would have been there in my 1DXII.
 
I am using the 80D side by side with my C100. Great little camera, the DPAF is a lifesaver for shooting with it on a gimbal and the other features are outstanding. It actually has a better image/newer sensor and more sophisticated DPAF than the 7D MKII at a lot less money, although granted the 7D MKII is built a lot more solidly.
 
puredrifting said:
I am using the 80D side by side with my C100. Great little camera, the DPAF is a lifesaver for shooting with it on a gimbal and the other features are outstanding. It actually has a better image/newer sensor and more sophisticated DPAF than the 7D MKII at a lot less money, although granted the 7D MKII is built a lot more solidly.
Click to expand...

How are you matching them in post?

-gl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top