C100: C100 Mk II or...

D

digitalinnovations

Well-known member
...I know everyone gets tired of these but I've researched quite a bit and cannot come to a conclusion.

I've been happily shooting with my C100 Mk I for quite a while and it has been a workhorse for me but now it's time to add another camera. I've been trying to weigh out the "pros" and "cons" between getting a Mk II -or- the Sony FS7. I even considered the Blackmagic 4.6k but it appears it is still a while off and I need to add another camera in the next couple of weeks. Plus it's hard to judge performance, functionality, reliability on something that doesn't exist yet and the delivery dates are still up in the air.

I realize posting this in the Canon forum may yield some biased replies but I'm hoping that I can gain some objective info from those who have shot (or even better inter-cut) the two. I also total understand the cost difference associated with each camera but what I am looking for is more along the lines of using the two together (with the FS7 as the A-cam and C100 as the B-Cam) and a comparison of picture quality in 1080. I don't particularly need 4K as its a while off before that becomes the "norm" or even deliverable for anything other than features. 4K would more just allow for re-framing in my pipeline and I'd probably shoot as much, if not more, 1080P on the FS7 for a while yet.
 
I looked very hard at C100mk2 but it is not of an enough upgrade from my beloved Mk1 to justify UK cost of £4,000. I personally will not buy another camera at this point that is not 4K capable, even though I don't expect to be delivering 4K to my clients anytime soon.

I also looked hard at the FS7...it is a superb feature set at an amazing price point...but still not what I want or need right now.

Not sure this helps you - but my personal belief is that in mid-2015 there would have to be a very strong case to spend £4,000 on a non 4K camera with so many 4K options around/about to become available at around that price point, a little less and a little more.

Of course, what my needs are and your are might be very different...
 
Thank you both for the input.

The 4K is nice for longevity of the camera system and the added DR of the FS7 means more to me than the resolution honestly.

Andy, was there a particular reason the FS7 didn't meet your criteria? The different color reproduction from the Canon or something? I've heard some people reference the motion cadence of the FS7 being different as well. I just don't want to have to put the C100 Mk I on the shelf as one of my goals would be to have them as A/B cams.
 
I'd go with a C100 Mark II. I can't stand the Sony FS7 menus. They're ultra slow and buggy, and unnecessarily complicated and bloated. The lens situation is also less than ideal.
 
I checked out the FS7 at Abel a few weeks ago, the salesperson told me that they are flying off of the shelves, it's their best selling camera and I suspect B&H would tell you the same thing. Personally, I find the Sony color science to be very unflattering to people and skin tones, I couldn't agree more that Sony has the worse, most confusing menu systems of any of the Big Four manufacturers and their motion signature in 23.98 seems "off" to my eye, when the camera is moved or the subject. Those said, if I sell one of our TV shows within the next six months and am in the market to purchase 3-4 cameras, there is a good chance I will go with the FS7. The networks care about specs more than aesthetics generally and the FS7 specs are unbeatable for the money. I would love to buy four C300 MKIIs but for about 2/3 of the money, I could have four of the FS7s, shoot 4k S-Log and be done with it. I've shot with it once on rental, I hate the FS7 but it has the right specs, at the right time, at the right price for many.

I would not buy a 1080 only camera today UNLESS I could pay it off with work in the next 2-3 months. I agree. For most of us, I would be buying a 4K camera today. I wouldn't touch BMD cameras unless it was as a hobbyist, their reliability, busyness and functionality are not ready for prime time, pro work, IMHO. Great images, but a PITA to work with.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
…
Personally, I find the Sony color science to be very unflattering to people and skin tones, …
…
Click to expand...
It looks like you are not alone here.

puredrifting said:
…
I would not buy a 1080 only camera today UNLESS, I could pay it off with work in the next 2-3 months. I agree. For most of us, I would be buying a 4K camera today.
…
Click to expand...
Why do you need more than FHD (1080p)?
How are 4K cameras paying themselves more than 1080p ones?
 
The Sony FS7/F5/F55's color is very good if shot in SGamut3.Cine/SLog3 with the ALEXA emulation LUT (LC709 TypeA) applied. While not an exact match it does cut better together with ALEXA footage then anything I've shot in C-Log.

But as your B-Cam is a Canon it will be much easier to cut together with another Canon, so I'd stick to one brand.

And while a 4k option is nice, none of my clients want it (yet).
 
Bern Caughey said:
But as your B-Cam is a Canon it will be much easier to cut together with another Canon, so I'd stick to one brand.
Click to expand...

So I guess that would put me at C100 Mk II, if I stick to the Canon brand. The C300 Mk I in some respects is actually less of camera, especially since for my productions I can throw an external recorder on for the majority of my shoots without a size/bulk issue. The C300 Mk II is a while off and honestly is a bit more than I want to invest.
 
Joshua_G said:
It looks like you are not alone here.


Why do you need more than FHD (1080p)?
How are 4K cameras paying themselves more than 1080p ones?
Click to expand...
They're not, but if you deliver to Netflix, Amazon or Hulu, we are pitching to all three, you are required to originate and deliver 4k. It's the price of admission. Why buy a camera that wouldn't allow you to do that when those three outlets alone are quickly becoming viable potential clients? We also deliver to all of the studios and while they are not specifiying 4k delivery or origination yet for our type of programming, they will soon. I have already owned a 4k camera, the GH4. I sold it because it didn't fit my or my clients needs (unflattering colors on talent, limited DOF options, noisy sensor, etc.) I have shot on RED and the F55, FS-7 and IMHO, 4k is all hype, it is totally not needed, required, or wanted by the audience. But the audience doesn't purchase shows, the studios and networks do. If you want to create programming for them, gotta play by their rules. 4K is inevitable as is 8k (probably, unless it gets derailed as a cinema only option like 3D has become). Increased resolution is the last thing we need, I shoot my C100 with the detail at -10 because I hate the over-sharpened look, but 4k is basically a reality today for a lot of us or will be in a matter of months. If I ran the world, resolution would be DONE at 2k and all of the engineers would be put to work creating audiophile level sound recording capability in modern production cameras and creating sensors and processors that can see with the same LATITUDE and DYNAMIC RANGE as the human eye. Chasing reolution is stupid, chasing latitude is very intriguing.
 
Bern Caughey said:
The Sony FS7/F5/F55's color is very good if shot in SGamut3.Cine/SLog3 with the ALEXA emulation LUT (LC709 TypeA) applied. While not an exact match it does cut better together with ALEXA footage then anything I've shot in C-Log.
Click to expand...

Will have to try that Bern, sounds interesting. Maybe it would convert me from a Sony hater. I have owned three of them (A BVW70 Betacam, EX1 and an EX3) and have shot with the other flavors like the F900 for years. Sonys are not bad cameras but they generally have a gamma response, motion signature and colors that are unappealing to me. During the time I had my EX1, even though it was so much cleaner, I much preferred the colors and feel of my HPX170, even though it was softer, noisier, the colors were so much better and the EX1 images just looked sterile video looking to me. But my clients at the time loved the EX1 so that's what I used mostly.
 
digitalinnovations said:
So I guess that would put me at C100 Mk II, if I stick to the Canon brand. The C300 Mk I in some respects is actually less of camera, especially since for my productions I can throw an external recorder on for the majority of my shoots without a size/bulk issue. The C300 Mk II is a while off and honestly is a bit more than I want to invest.
Click to expand...

C300 is a solid camera but for me, if I were shooting for clients, C300 all of the way, simply for name recognition, I still rented one for a shoot last week. But if you don't have clients who know or care, the C100 MKII is a better camera than the C300 MKI.

Plus for the price of one C300 MKII, you can own two FS7s. That says it all to me, even though I think the C300 MKII is a better looking camera, at least so far with my only having played with the prototypes at Canon. I personally think Canon is being shortsighted by not introducing a C200 to compete with the FS7 but they would have to handicap it so as to not compete too much with the C300 MKII. Featurewise, the C300 MKII and the FS7 are in the same league and the price structure points me toward Sony. I would pay $2k-$3k more for Canon but not double the cost.
 
I hate hate hate the Sony menu structure and lag on the FS7. It is so convoluted and counterintuitive.

Canon has nailed down the skin tones mojo and intuitive menus, imo.
 
FWIW, there's been a lot of FS-7 videos posted to the YouTube and alike. Viewing them won't fix the menu but the "Sony look" objections might seem a lot less ... well, objectionable.


Personally, I prefer the warmer Canon look too but, in good hands, FS-7 doesn't exactly look hideous either.
 
Joe Simon posted this, "I mix FS7 and C100 all the time. Looks great!" along with this link http://vimeo.com/134131887

Which obviously makes the two cams look great together but the real questions would be: how long did it take in post to get the two to blend so well and were there any certain/custom profiles used during shooting?
 
digitalinnovations said:
Joe Simon posted this, "I mix FS7 and C100 all the time. Looks great!" along with this link http://vimeo.com/134131887

Which obviously makes the two cams look great together but the real questions would be: how long did it take in post to get the two to blend so well and were there any certain/custom profiles used during shooting?
Click to expand...

Another question I have would be it must have been the C100 MKII because it looks as if almost every shot is 60 FPS or greater? It would be interesting to know which shots are which but agreed, the colors, latitude and feel of the images are quite nice. The post question would also be very interesting to hear about. Thanks for the link Jeremy.
 
DLD said:
Personally, I prefer the warmer Canon look too but, in good hands, FS-7 doesn't exactly look hideous either.
Click to expand...

Definitely not hideous but those skin tones aren't exactly warm and friendly. I see that Sony cool blue/magenta tinge to the whole clip. Interesting that this clip and the Joe Simon clip are at least mostly shot with the FS7. A vast difference in look and skin tones there. This clip wouold discourage me from ever buying the FS7 but the Joe Simon clip would give me hope that the camera can achieve a tonality and look I can live with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top