C100: c100 Mark II and possible successor

This is a very interesting discussion. And it's very relevant to me because I'm currently deciding between a C100mkii and a FS5 for my company's video department. We're already heavily invested in Canon lenses, which is a factor.

I deliver to the internet so the fact that YOUTUBE and VIMEO can do 4K is significant to me, especially if I want to get ahead of my competition.
But, YouTube/Vimeo switching over to 4K suggests that Facebook may not be far behind. And what I've been told by the consultants we hire is that FACEBOOK is rapidly becoming #1 in video in terms of reaching your audience and racking up the views and click-throughs.

But I'm concerned about this long gop codec! I just got the new iMac, that should be fine. But our other iMac was made in 2012. Should I be concerned with the FS5 4K in that case?
 
Speaking as an end-user of YT material, I cannot stream a 4K YT video at 83Mbps without severe hiccups. I do not own a 4K monitor and only when the ones I have croak, would not recycle good ones just to take advantage of 4K content. I understand most of you here are trying to make a living using either a Canon or a Sony but come on, do you really keep cams many years after they have been paid-down? As far as the MKII codec, I process the output daily on a 5 year old water-cooled home-built PC and never go over 45 degC on any core.
 
JimmyMcV said:
This is a very interesting discussion. And it's very relevant to me because I'm currently deciding between a C100mkii and a FS5 for my company's video department. We're already heavily invested in Canon lenses, which is a factor...
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, everything matters. Resolution, dynamic range, work flow, editing, lighting, stage design, etc. if you're shooting indoors on sticks, you can get by with the GH4 with V-Log and an external recorder that takes the 10-bit signal via the HDMI and converts it into ProRes. Control the lighting and the final image can be very pretty. One of the posters who frequents Sony NEX forums shoots with A7s and the external recorder and gets fantastic images for his narratives as well. But, I assume, he is also in full control of his workflow. And Canons, with their dual-pixel auto focus, are certainly far more capable in allowing a run&gun filming. And then there are new BMD URSA Minis (shipping any quarter) and Red Ravens that are designed for the indoor/controlled lighting narratives too.
 
mcgeedigital said:
That's not how it works.

Just because UHD is 4 times bigger doesn't mean the bandwidth to get will be either.

VP9 and other codecs for delivery will ensure that the quality will be there without the bandwidth hit.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected....that is interesting.....got to study up on the new codecs and workflows so.

I do know I will need an upgrade on my PC...

So it comes down to an FS7 - C100 Mark II shootout....
 
JimmyMcV said:
This is a very interesting discussion. And it's very relevant to me because I'm currently deciding between a C100mkii and a FS5 for my company's video department. We're already heavily invested in Canon lenses, which is a factor.

I deliver to the internet so the fact that YOUTUBE and VIMEO can do 4K is significant to me, especially if I want to get ahead of my competition.
But, YouTube/Vimeo switching over to 4K suggests that Facebook may not be far behind. And what I've been told by the consultants we hire is that FACEBOOK is rapidly becoming #1 in video in terms of reaching your audience and racking up the views and click-throughs.

But I'm concerned about this long gop codec! I just got the new iMac, that should be fine. But our other iMac was made in 2012. Should I be concerned with the FS5 4K in that case?
Click to expand...

Despite the arguments I've been making previously, I'd say that if you were looking to buy a brand new camera and you had to decide between the C100mkii and the FS5, then sure, consider the FS5. I honestly can't speak very intelligently about the FS5 or FS7's usability; I've heard mixed things about it's run and gun versatility and the aforementioned codec, but I'm sure it'd do the average Op just fine. They're at about the same price point, and yeah, the FS5 comes with UHD.

OR you could buy a new C100 Mk1 (they'e still out there on B&H, only 3k), save 2500 clams, and have a great rig, especially with your pre-existing Canon lenses. In my opinion, it'd also do you fine for the next 3 or 4 years. When 4K finally becomes more mainstream around 2019, you'll probably be ready for an upgrade anyway. That'll be the time that the arguments on this forum have shifted from the merits of 4k vs 6k or 8k. There's always some new technology that we're trying to be sold on, and there'll always be early adapters who claim you must have it right now to be successful. I personally like to use tech that's established and has been around for a while. Heck, I used a set of Canon XH-A1s up until early this year, no issues.

I think a lot of people who pick up 4K rigs and then try to actually edit with 4K are shocked by it's demands. I shoot entirely on ProRes 422 and I frequently struggle with storage. I can't imagine the hassle of having to quadruple that already existing pain, not to mention having to upgrade my editing box to something that can process 4K. Maybe the Sony codec is gentler on users in that department. I dunno.
 
jthabel said:
Despite the arguments I've been making previously, I'd say that if you were looking to buy a brand new camera and you had to decide between the C100mkii and the FS5, then sure, consider the FS5. I honestly can't speak very intelligently about the FS5 or FS7's usability; I've heard mixed things about it's run and gun versatility and the aforementioned codec, but I'm sure it'd do the average Op just fine. They're at about the same price point, and yeah, the FS5 comes with UHD.

OR you could buy a new C100 Mk1 (they'e still out there on B&H, only 3k), save 2500 clams, and have a great rig, especially with your pre-existing Canon lenses. In my opinion, it'd also do you fine for the next 3 or 4 years. When 4K finally becomes more mainstream around 2019, you'll probably be ready for an upgrade anyway. That'll be the time that the arguments on this forum have shifted from the merits of 4k vs 6k or 8k. There's always some new technology that we're trying to be sold on, and there'll always be early adapters who claim you must have it right now to be successful. I personally like to use tech that's established and has been around for a while. Heck, I used a set of Canon XH-A1s up until early this year, no issues.

I think a lot of people who pick up 4K rigs and then try to actually edit with 4K are shocked by it's demands. I shoot entirely on ProRes 422 and I frequently struggle with storage. I can't imagine the hassle of having to quadruple that already existing pain, not to mention having to upgrade my editing box to something that can process 4K. Maybe the Sony codec is gentler on users in that department. I dunno.
Click to expand...

4 years from now can anyone really predict was will be out there. Somehow I think that all the guys here who are investing in 4K cameras will be forced into something else 4 years down the road. For me my next camera will be a C100 MKI at $2999.00...... it's a no brainer!
 
Michael Thames said:
4 years from now can anyone really predict was will be out there... !
Click to expand...
This is a very broad guideline. But. If you're looking at a market with the annual 50% price drops per given quality, then you could just pick your favorite camera, divide its price by eight and get to the camera of its quality at the end of 2019. It is not likely to be the same brand or model but the general feature set and a statistical evaluation of its image - from resolution to dynamic range to the various color shifts, moire, etc. - would be commensurate. In other words, Alexa won't be sold for $10K but cameras with a similar performance might be.
 
Michael Thames said:
For me my next camera will be a C100 MKI at $2999.00...... it's a no brainer!
Click to expand...

This is a very important point and one a lot of C100 owners need to consider. If you don't actually NEED the features of a camera to improve your business then stay put and put the money in the bank. For some the C100MKI or MKII might not meet the requests of new clients or industry trends and then it makes a lot of business sense to purchase a solution that meets your needs.
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
This is a very important point and one a lot of C100 owners need to consider. If you don't actually NEED the features of a camera to improve your business then stay put and put the money in the bank. For some the C100MKI or MKII might not meet the requests of new clients or industry trends and then it makes a lot of business sense to purchase a solution that meets your needs.
Click to expand...

I say that because I need another C100 to match my C100. The 5D3 is a pain to try to match with the C100.

If what people say that 4K isn't going to be relevant for a number of years, I would just wait a few years then buy a 4K camera. It seems very few people are asking for 4K, at least that's the impression I get from this forum.
 
Michael Thames said:
... It seems very few people are asking for 4K, at least that's the impression I get from this forum.
Click to expand...
Considering that the vast majority of network TV shows is shot on Alexa, the "real" 4K isn't even the current prerequisite in Hollywood ... but it can change in an instant.

PS. And the real story is not necessarily that 4K isn't wanted but that Alexa is that good.
 
jthabel said:
I think a lot of people who pick up 4K rigs and then try to actually edit with 4K are shocked by it's demands. I shoot entirely on ProRes 422 and I frequently struggle with storage. I can't imagine the hassle of having to quadruple that already existing pain, not to mention having to upgrade my editing box to something that can process 4K. Maybe the Sony codec is gentler on users in that department. I dunno.
Click to expand...

Which for me are the biggest points....storage and I would need a serious upgrade to my PC to handle UHD....and I want to budget two of the same Camera....which pushes me to two C100 Mark IIs...
 
Do they need to release a C100 mk2 successor at NAB next year? Or is the current camera still enough because it has the Canon name and its a known quantity? I haven't seen that much stuff made with the C100 mk2 compared to other cameras, but it could be a great seller for them. From my point of view, of course they need to come up with a C200 ASAP, but who knows.
 
As soon as I heard about the C300 MKII and it's cost, I thought the exact same thing. I believe Canon has a hole in their strategy, especially with FS7 buyers.
 
puredrifting said:
As soon as I heard about the C300 MKII and it's cost, I thought the exact same thing. I believe Canon has a hole in their strategy, especially with FS7 buyers.
Click to expand...

Sometimes i have to wonder if Canon execs live in a different world. From the launch Canon has said that it doesn't see the C300II in the same market segment as the FS7 as a justification for price but the reality is that the FS7 will be the #1 camera stealing sales from the C300II and was on market for a year already creating a large user base and familiarity with producers.
 
Larry Thorpe is a smart guy and I believe he has a good grasp of the market. But keep in mind that all Canon USA is is a branch of Canon to sell their products here. They do not manufacture or design cameras here, although they do have input into the design and engineering of cameras. I have no idea how much they play into marketing strategy and segmentation either but I am sure it is some. From what I have heard, and I don't know if this is gospel, product design and the marketing strategy all happens in Japan and Canon is on old school, traditional company with traditional structure. Some would say slow and plodding. Sony used to be this way but the past few years have seen Sony react and change with market demands impressively. The FS5 and FS7 are brilliant answers to market demand whereas the C300 MKII is a logical follow up to a previous success, much more evolutionary than revolutionary.

I really wish I was a Sony guy, my life would be so much simpler. ;-)
 
If you like the Sony image it is a great time to be in the market. I really like the newest Sony colour science personally and my clients do as well or at least they keep booking and paying me which is really what matters most to my small business.


Maybe I'm remembering things hazy but it seems to me Canon follows a pattern. 5DmkII was a huge hit for video. It did what no other camera on the market did and did it very very well. Launching the 5DIII no longer did what others couldn't and was an incremental update to the previous version but the market had jumped ahead leaving the 5DIII just one of many with nothing that put it above the competition. The C300 was a massive success because it did many things no other camera on the market did the biggest fitting into existing broadcast workflows with an internal 50MB/S 422 MXF codec. That was huge and set it apart from very good cameras such as the Sony F3. That set the C300 apart and made it a household name on low/mid productions around the world. The Canon C300II is a logical incremental update to the C300 but the market has leaped ahead leaving the C300II as one amongst many (Some being out for a year of two FS7 & F5) instead of that camera that makes a huge market splash like VRS 1 models. What Canon has set itself a part on is AF and it is in a league of its own. I am not sure in the pro video market how many users AF will be deemed a must have feature.

The C100 is in a different spot as its being pecked a little at the bottom end by the feature packed but ergo poor DSLR world. At the top end they are losing people upgrading to HFR and 4K to add more tools to the arsenal. Since the C300I didn't have any competition i the broadcast spec market Canon was able to set the bar low on other features like 1080p60 which backed the C100MkI into a corner. Up until now no one has come out with a direct competitor instead of stealing from the top and bottom of the C100 market. It will be interesting to see how the FS5 effects the market as its the first direct competitor of the C100.
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
Sometimes i have to wonder if Canon execs live in a different world. From the launch Canon has said that it doesn't see the C300II in the same market segment as the FS7 as a justification for price but the reality is that the FS7 will be the #1 camera stealing sales from the C300II and was on market for a year already creating a large user base and familiarity with producers.
Click to expand...

Not to take anything away from the FS7..... but. If I hear someone bought a new C300II my ears perk up and instantly think this person is successful. It's like how girls react to a guy driving a Ferrari or a Land Cruiser (don't know if they make those anymore). The only case I hear to justify buying an FS7 over a C300II is budget, which is no laughing matter and is a major consideration. For all I know both cameras produce an excellent IQ that is indistinguishable to the masses. If Canon sells 1 C300II to every 2 FS7 they still come out just fine. I mean lets face it a C300II is just way more sexy than an FS7...... and image is everything is this business.

In the case of the 5D3....... everyone knows a Nikon D810 is a better photography camera, but Canon charges more for the 5D3 and people still buy it.
 
Seems way too soon for a successor, but firmware to allow the C100 mkii to output 4K would get a lot more people on board. Everything about the camera is nice - colours, cadence, usability - but people want some degree of future proofing.
 
Michael Thames said:
Not to take anything away from the FS7..... but. If I hear someone bought a new C300II my ears perk up and instantly think this person is successful. It's like how girls react to a guy driving a Ferrari or a Land Cruiser (don't know if they make those anymore). The only case I hear to justify buying an FS7 over a C300II is budget, which is no laughing matter and is a major consideration. For all I know both cameras produce an excellent IQ that is indistinguishable to the masses. If Canon sells 1 C300II to every 2 FS7 they still come out just fine. I mean lets face it a C300II is just way more sexy than an FS7...... and image is everything is this business.

In the case of the 5D3....... everyone knows a Nikon D810 is a better photography camera, but Canon charges more for the 5D3 and people still buy it.
Click to expand...

Many people buy 5D3 over D810 because of their piles of L glass. Also Canon does do a great job of marketing much like Apple they have captured a lot of mindshare.

Canon would love you to believe that the C300II has the sex appeal that the Amira or Alexa mini or Red weapon. I'm not finding in my market the C300II has any sort of cache or sex appeal over the FS7. Most production companies will take either or and not pay a cent more for C300II. In fact there are many series that started production before the C300II was available and went all FS7 or F5 and are requesting those specific cameras for episode continuity. Only on these forums do I ever hear about the image minutia and 'Sony Look'. The new colour science is an improvement over past Sgamut stuff and in most reviews the previous CanonC300I users like the C300II image slightly more. One user commented that the MK2 looked very 'Sony' compared to MKI footage. These forums are a bubble that doesn't represent what most Producers and Creative directors are talking about. With Log high DR codecs and 10bit colour the footage gives users enough to take the look in many directions. Producers and Brand managers never cared when I went from C300 to FS7 footage. No one noticed as the images looked great in their eyes. The ones that care and obsess about image and there is lots of them but they are renting ARRI and RED stuff for their high end projects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top