C100: c100 Mark II and possible successor

Seeing lots of mentions of 4K. In my market, Los Angeles, clients want 4K almost always. Everything is finished in HD, but the ability to re-frame and other post flexibilities, 4K is a huge bonus. So yeah, even though all my clients projects finish in HD, all but one (and he only wants HD 50% of the time) require 4K. Once you go down that path, nobody wants to go back.

i also will add, since my specialty is beauty / artistic footage, 4K 60fps is a must and used on so many jobs that it's unbelievable that the C300 II does not have this.

As for Canon pricing, I'm getting the new / soon-to-be released Red Scarlet-W for the same price as the C300 II. Then, I will have the Scarlet-W for cinematic / higher-end projects and the Sony FS-7 (which is also very cinematic in Cine-EI) for run+gun / doc jobs. Probably the ultimate combo, and yes... I'm super excited for this dream setup. No way would I sell the FS7 as it would be a huge depreciation and the camera is just so popular now and gets so much work.

I loved Canon in the past, but their prices and features are so far behind at this point. It's crazy to think you will soon be able to buy a Red for cheaper than the C300 II. I think one thing Canon needs to learn from Red and Sony is that those two companies are releasing really exciting, cutting-edge products. Canon is just a series of moderate up-grades. This needs to change or else it will soon be crickets.

Edit: I would love a 5D Mark IV - the IV will hopefully stands for 4K, :) - as the look is great and I would love a small camera for certain jobs. IMO, the only decent affordable camera in the Sony line-up is the FS7 because it has CineEI and LC709a which is very cinematic and great colors right out of the box. The A7s and FS5 both lack these crucial profiles, so I would take a pass on those cameras.
 
Last edited:
gene_can_sing said:
I would love a 5D Mark IV - the IV will hopefully stands for 4K, :) -
Click to expand...

But what codec? Canon has not released a DSLR that can record to a professional format (1D sort of, but not really). Their H.264 .mov files just aren't adequate. Maybe they'll have a change of heart. But maybe not.
 
brettsherman said:
But what codec?
Click to expand...

Canon has introduced a very nice codec in the XC-10 with 4k, intra frame, 422, at 305Mbit/s in XF-AVC.

Someone mentioned 100Mbit 4k previously… I wouldn't go there…

Unfortunately, the XF-AVC codec is probably tied to the Digic DV 5 video chip in the XC-10. But if the 1Dx II gets 4k video as expected, I'd want this codec as a minimum. And IF—it's an incredibly big if—Canon can get this codec into the 1Dx II and possibly 5D mk IV, they're in good shape.

A 1Dx mkII with 305Mbit internal, 4k, 422 8bit with DPAF and Canon Log from a next gen sensor would be great. 10bit uncompressed out would be needed if it isn't already 10bit internal.

I've been shooting for a few days with the XC-10 (family visiting for X-mas) and will be posting something about it when I get the chance to look at the images and pull them through FCPX and/or DaVinci.
 
brettsherman said:
... At this point the only advantage Canon has are the lenses, autofocus, and slightly better image to my eye. I'm not sure that's enough. As disappointing as I find Sony's lens selection options, I think I could live with them. And supposedly they are bringing out more lenses (how about some F2.8 zooms?)...
Click to expand...
20-70 F/2.8 has been out in the early testers hands a while (my theory is that its absence has been tied with Sony's deal with Nikon anyway ... Nikon doesn't make 4K bodies and Sony doesn't make E-mount zooms ... that's it ... but now that Nikon is moving onto some sort of a partnership with Samsung, that agreement is over and you'll be seeing both shortly).

AndreeOnline said:
Canon has introduced a very nice codec in the XC-10 with 4k, intra frame, 422, at 305Mbit/s in XF-AVC. ... Unfortunately, the XF-AVC codec is probably tied to the Digic DV 5 video chip in the XC-10. But if the 1Dx II gets 4k video as expected, I'd want this codec as a minimum. And IF—it's an incredibly big if—Canon can get this codec into the 1Dx II and possibly 5D mk IV, they're in good shape.

A 1Dx mkII with 305Mbit internal, 4k, 422 8bit with DPAF and Canon Log from a next gen sensor would be great. 10bit uncompressed out would be needed if it isn't already 10bit internal...
Click to expand...
I'd think that XF-AVC 305 is what you'll see at least in 1D X MKII (the announcement is right around the corner, right?). Depending on when 5D MKIV comes out, it may have that or something HEVC based. I mean, at some point, HEVC will have to become a standard for the DSLR/DSLM's ... won't it?
 
Edit: I would love a 5D Mark IV - the IV will hopefully stands for 4K, :) - as the look is great and I would love a small camera for certain jobs. IMO, the only decent affordable camera in the Sony line-up is the FS7 because it has CineEI and LC709a which is very cinematic and great colors right out of the box. The A7s and FS5 both lack these crucial profiles, so I would take a pass on those cameras.
Click to expand...

But seeing that it's Canon, I'm sure the 5d4 will be an incremental 2k cam, that's 20 lines of resolution over the 5d3, How dare you complain, I mean... after all, it will only cost 4k. And if you want a 5d in 4k, your going to have to wait at least until 2019. Mean while, every other manufacturer will be building 16k for $1,000 bucks. :0
 
Well the thing I gather from all the responses here is that Canon Die Hards have made the switch....I also consider myself a Canon Fan although I did have the Sony Ex3 which was a fantastic camera.

Thing is...now that people have moved to the FS7 and FS5....Canon are playing catch up and by the time they do...Sony will have another few cameras out to keep the people in their camp.

Would Canon come out with Cameras to blow the FS5/FS7 out of the water and get people back?? Consensus here seems to be....Fat Chance!

That is a great shame because of the fantastic lenses.
 
Canon did put out a camera that competes with the FS7 but at twice the price of the year old FS7. It's been crickets from C300II owners outside of the few issues that have popped up.
 
AndreeOnline said:
Someone mentioned 100Mbit 4k previously… I wouldn't go there…
Click to expand...

For delivery in 4K I agree with you. But my intended use for 4K is to down sample to 1080, grab still frames (to replace photogs) and occasional reframing. At 250 kbps I'd have to increase my storage server radically. Right now with 50 TB of storage space, I can store 3 years worth of material. The minimum that is workable for me. This is 50 mbps and 25 mbps footage. I'd have to get up to 500 TB of online server storage to get roughly the same bang. Just not worth it for what I need. But why can't we have both 100Mbit AND 250Mbit?
 
LDBecker said:
So, I just ordered a C100 mk II - to take advantage of the end of the 0% 2 yr lease deal- and reading this thread, wonder if I made a mistake. I do videos for churches and non profits, some fundraising appeals, interviews and so on... And it isn't my main job, so there isn't a lot of money in this for me- it pays for the equipment and that's about it. I still struggle in this market to get people up to HD, so 4K isn't even an issue (I've played with it on my Panasonic GH4 and used it for some B-roll). I currently use a Canon XF300 for most of my stuff, and it's been fine, unless there isn't sufficient light, and sometimes my 5DIII (no AF or proper sound-ugh! Painful for run and gun).
I was torn between the c100 mk II and the C300 mk I- similar price point, more familiar (better?) Codec on the C300, but better AF and newer processor on the c100 mk II (but AVCHD? Ick).
I really should just get the c300 mk II, but I can't see buying a camera for $16K and having it end up going for $6k by the time I'm done paying off the lease. And then it uses $500 batteries and Cfast2 cards. Big $$$$ there.
I guess I'm hopeful that Canon will come out with a firmware release that will have some better codecs, something with at least 50mbs internally. For now I plan to use my Shogun with the C100 mk II with the same batteries I have and cheap-ish SD cards (same as for my GH4). Does that make sense? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem wise to buy a camera which from the start you know you won't make a penny from.
Buy instead a secondhand C100 mk1, or even better buy a superior Sony F3 for even less.
Or just skip a purchase for another year, as it sounds like perhaps you don't really need a new camera?
 
Well... As I said, I have another main gig, but I HAVE used video to promote two fund appeals that brought in over a quarter million dollars... And I'm involved in planning a large venue meeting next June that will highlight refugee resettlement in the LA area... AND I'm putting together a project highlighting three small foodbanks in the Los Angeles area... And did some videos highlighting school administrator training... And a video highlighting Native American school on a reservation... And a series of interviews... And I do regular videos for my own church (I'm the Sr. Pastor), and for my bishop's office... I guess I am coming at this from another angle, but I think it's a valid one. I'm having fun, developing skills, meeting a lot of interesting people, extending what I think is important for people to be a part of and support, and I am finding some success. As to the question of Sony vs. Canon, I've been a Canon SLR/DSLR shooter for decades and have a nice selection of canon primes that I am anxious to see how they work with video on the C100 mk II -anyone use an 85 1.2LII or 50 1.2 on one? I also like Canon color better, and I often need better low-light performance in churches than my XF300 can give. Make sense?
 
Last edited:
EIREHotspur said:
Well the thing I gather from all the responses here is that Canon Die Hards have made the switch....I also consider myself a Canon Fan although I did have the Sony Ex3 which was a fantastic camera.

Thing is...now that people have moved to the FS7 and FS5....Canon are playing catch up and by the time they do...Sony will have another few cameras out to keep the people in their camp.

Would Canon come out with Cameras to blow the FS5/FS7 out of the water and get people back?? Consensus here seems to be....Fat Chance!

That is a great shame because of the fantastic lenses.
Click to expand...
We'll, that may be among posters here but we've delivered a lot of MK IIs....and we have another "name" show that is using 4 MK II PLs starting in 10 days.....so I think claiming the Mk II is not doing well is inaccurate....

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
Canon did put out a camera that competes with the FS7 but at twice the price of the year old FS7. It's been crickets from C300II owners outside of the few issues that have popped up.
Click to expand...
Well, the cameras are selling (we have delivered A Lot) and there are no camera issues...they just work.

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
 
maranfilms said:
What's a lot Jim? Do sale more Sony than Canon? or vice versa?
Click to expand...

Well, on B&H the C300 II has never been on back order and always "in stock" and the FS7 was back ordered and super hard to get for months at the start from anywhere, I would say the C300 II is not doing as well as Canon had thought. Also, Adorama posted an article a few months back and out of their entire rental inventory (camera, lights, lenses, etc...), the #1 most rented item was the FS7.

C300 II is just priced too high and the specs are a bit weak. If they lower the price by quite a bit, they will have a contender. The FS7 is just so popular right now.
 
gene_can_sing said:
Well, on B&H the C300 II has never been on back order and always "in stock" and the FS7 was back ordered and super hard to get for months at the start from anywhere, I would say the C300 II is not doing as well as Canon had thought...
Click to expand...
At twice the price, it's unreasonable to think that C300 MKII would move as many bodies as FS7. It'd be just as unreasonable to think that FS7 would move as many bodies as A7 S/R II's.

Additionally, a lot of C300 MKII's went straight to the studios/production companies without stopping at the retail level.

And, regardless of the above, no one except those high up in Canon management knows how the actual sales fare against the expectations.
 
Jim Martin said:
there are no camera issues...they just work.
Click to expand...

Frame skipping issue that required an immediate firmware upgrade?

The days of Canon reliability and "that look" vs the competition are over, Sony is good enough if you get to know the cameras, so all we are left with is overpriced and/or underspec'd, unless you are a mega rich production house that can spend twice as much to get a small bump in reliability and look.
 
Last edited:
brettsherman said:
Sort of. I've replaced the monitor cables twice on my C300 to the tune of a $1000.
Click to expand...
I got the LCD Cable 1 replaced in 2014 Jan. The spare part cable never looked as sleek. It needed change again in July 2014. Again I changed it on 23rd Dec (2015). Out of courtesy they give me some 15% discount for the cable. However, even after the discount the cost comes to 230 usd each.

Apart from the cable 1, I had to get the sensor cleaned thrice. However I shoot in some pretty dusty conditions throughout India. I have also shot in rain. At times simply placing a towel or just a polythene bag over it. It has worked well. Shot in seabeach, desert, mountains... It works well. I am in the last leg of shooting a Govt. project in 1080p. A couple of corporate projects have asked for 4K but not others. So I will continue shooting with the C300. Canon has told me that they will give a demo of the C300 Mark II for me to decide. I have not yet made up my mind because of the cost. I am unlikely to move over to the Sony camp in the near future though their executives are highly proactive and repeatedly call up for demos etc.

I am waiting for the 1DX II replacement. Need a full frame DSLR for video as well as timelapse and B rolls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top