Curnsie
Well-known member
BTW Drew, I bought an HDMI cable with the twists on it and now it sits snuggly against the unit - no problem
What cable did you buy?
I'm glad you are enjoying the Ninja.
C100: C100 or C300?
- Thread starter rgdfilms
- Start date
What cable did you buy?
I'm glad you are enjoying the Ninja.
They may not but the other manufactures will. There was already a hint there will be over 12 new 4K camcorders at NAB (April). Whether Canon is one of them or not you will have some people selling their C300's to update their camera gear. Good deals to be had imo if you're looking that route.
I was in the same delima a few months ago because much of what I shoot (documentaries) is broadcast, but I decided on the 100…
There's a lot of talk about what's wrong with the C100, but here's what's right about it as a "run and gun" camera (I often run but seldom gun)… It's noticeably lighter and feels much smaller than the 300, the LCD is on the back, which is more convenient for menus and checking clips, and, of course, it's much cheaper. Since they're both 8 bit, and to me that's where the real issue is, it doesn't make sense to spend more than twice as much for the 300. True the viewfinder is "crap", but I've never used it since the day I bought it. I use a Z-Finder EVF and the Zacuto Grip-Relocator so it shoulder mounts.
I had an AF100 for a while and was initially very wary of the AVCHD codec, but I've had three shows broadcast that originated in AVCHD and, except for some banding (much less on the C100), I've never looked back. I use my old version of FCP7 to Log & Transfer to ProRes and edit in X and the image is consistently excellent… Since the Canons see in the dark you seldom need to push images in post, so even the "weaker" codec holds up well.
And, again, it's cheaper. I don't know what you shoot "run and gun", but I'm often in places that could be hazardous to a camera's health, like homeless shelters and bars, and I feel much more comfortable with a $6000 cxamera (inc lens) that I would with a $15000 one.
There's a lot of talk about what's wrong with the C100, but here's what's right about it as a "run and gun" camera (I often run but seldom gun)… It's noticeably lighter and feels much smaller than the 300, the LCD is on the back, which is more convenient for menus and checking clips, and, of course, it's much cheaper. Since they're both 8 bit, and to me that's where the real issue is, it doesn't make sense to spend more than twice as much for the 300. True the viewfinder is "crap", but I've never used it since the day I bought it. I use a Z-Finder EVF and the Zacuto Grip-Relocator so it shoulder mounts.
I had an AF100 for a while and was initially very wary of the AVCHD codec, but I've had three shows broadcast that originated in AVCHD and, except for some banding (much less on the C100), I've never looked back. I use my old version of FCP7 to Log & Transfer to ProRes and edit in X and the image is consistently excellent… Since the Canons see in the dark you seldom need to push images in post, so even the "weaker" codec holds up well.
And, again, it's cheaper. I don't know what you shoot "run and gun", but I'm often in places that could be hazardous to a camera's health, like homeless shelters and bars, and I feel much more comfortable with a $6000 cxamera (inc lens) that I would with a $15000 one.
cowpunk52
Veteran
The C300 is a broadcast workhorse, so if you work in that industry it's a no-brainer to go for that camera over the C100. I love the C100, but there are a lot of things in the C300 that make it more suitable for television and multi-cam production. Great codec, easy and well-established post workflow, more adjustable and adaptable ergonomics, really good EVF and an even better 4" LCD, BNC connections, genlock and TC sync (really important for multi-cam broadcast production), & better weather sealing are the primary benefits of the C300 over the C100. For some, those are going to be worth the premium, and for others they aren't. The C300 has really carved out an established niche in TV production that the C100 doesn't typically fill, so if that's where you work is, then the decision is made for you. Otherwise, the C100 gets you 80% there for less, but there are caveats.
As for whether the C300 doesn't have a future or everything's moving to 4K or whatever; that's not really an issue yet for the C300's primary niche - broadcast and documentary. Television workflows get established and don't change unless there is a really good reason, and 4K is not a really good reason yet. Hell, at the beginning of 2014 I'm going to start 5 weeks on a History Channel show that's being shot on Sony EX3's! Much like the Sony EX series, C300's will have legs for a good while in production where 4K is not needed or wanted, and that's going to be the majority of production for the next couple of years at least.
Unless you need to posit yourself as an early adopter of 4K for your personal business, I advise people to hold out on investing early in 4K cameras. You'll pay a premium for a feature you probably don't need, and the technology will continue to mature and lower in cost. When you're clients start asking for 4K, then start delivering in 4K.
As for whether the C300 doesn't have a future or everything's moving to 4K or whatever; that's not really an issue yet for the C300's primary niche - broadcast and documentary. Television workflows get established and don't change unless there is a really good reason, and 4K is not a really good reason yet. Hell, at the beginning of 2014 I'm going to start 5 weeks on a History Channel show that's being shot on Sony EX3's! Much like the Sony EX series, C300's will have legs for a good while in production where 4K is not needed or wanted, and that's going to be the majority of production for the next couple of years at least.
Unless you need to posit yourself as an early adopter of 4K for your personal business, I advise people to hold out on investing early in 4K cameras. You'll pay a premium for a feature you probably don't need, and the technology will continue to mature and lower in cost. When you're clients start asking for 4K, then start delivering in 4K.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Matt. I don't see it that way at all.
Fisrtly I think the c100 is excellent being the cheapest s35 camera with Nd, xlr and half decent colour - I certainly would have bought it over my fs100 back in the day - but it did not exist.
Now at c300 money you are hitting another plane (entering that other camp)- I don't know the exact costs but I think the f5 is about 2g more - and you get a "route to raw" far chunkier onboard codecs, high frame rates and IMO better ergonomics.
At the cheap end the f5 will work with a cheap hdmi Evf and can use cheap media - or you can hire in pl glass and a raw recorder and have an alexa challenger.
it just seems a far more versatile investment.
Last edited:
All very true for, as you say, 80% of work - but if the OP has an Alexa, then that stuff is covered… In an era when technology changes dramatically at nearly every NAB, it gets difficult to justify an expense that will barely pay for itself (for an independent like myself who's always dialing for dollars) by the time it's deemed obsolete. I've bought too many cameras in the over 20K range that fell through those cracks (from several Eclairs and Aatons, Betacams, DSR300 to an HPX500) and I'm just not doing it anymore… If I can get my finished films broadcast nationally, it's usually becuase of the content, not the technology… For contracted broadcast, maybe not, and for narrative I wouldn't use a C100, but for "run and gun", which was the question, the C100 makes a lot of sense.
Dino
Veteran
I don't agree. F5 is more like $6K USD more than C300 with the same accessories. Whole different market. For rentals, C300 is the most popular video camera in the world. F55 is the more popular rental camera between F5 and F55.
F5 ecosystem is expensive; extra cost VF, media 3x higher, battery 2x higher, battery charger and AC supply extra, EF adapter extra. Really apples and oranges, financially. These days, the difference between a $400/day body and $500/day + body for rental is big, as is a $6K premium on a camera when purchasing.
When it comes to web delivered content and even a lot of cable network content, the C300 still makes a whole lot of sense.
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
With the Ninja, the C100 gets you 100% there imagewise, with an easier post workflow (plug in the drive). I've yet to shoot AVCHD with our C100.
Friends, when films like The Hobbit are not posting ing 4k, 4k is not here. We had a RED, shot in 4k, loved it, but broadcasters literally were clueless about the concept. Hell, they were still acquiring in 720 tape and 'bumping that to 1080.'
I went with the c100, been using it only a few days so far, but this thing is just ridiculously sharp, here is a framegrab from premiere from one of our shoots and damn this thing is sharp, no need for the ninja at least for us, chromakey is great if you know what you are doing before and after the shoot.
Omar N
Active member
I think cowpunk52 just gave the best answer I have ever seen to this question. I faced the same issue my self and ended up going for a C100 and a 1DX (for slo mo and time-lapse). I was super happy with that combo and personally never felt the need to buy into a C300. $14k is a lot of money, and unless you are going to use the camera day and day out for broadcast/TV, I don't see any reason to drop the cash. I would recommend going C100 plus used 5D Mark 2 or 3 for time-lapse. In my opinion, the only real advantage the C300 has over the C100 is the slow mo and viewfinder. Yes of course there is also the 422 codec which is extremely important for broadcast, but other than that, 420 and 422 make such a bad codecs for grading, I hardly even try since it falls apart so easily and almost always looks amateur compared to other codecs which are really meant for grading.
This is just my two cents.
Others may disagree.
Last edited:
Dino
Veteran
I agree with all that Brian posted as well. Another reason I like the C300 is the PL-mount option, nice to have a choice and flexibility to use any a cine lens of the past 30 years. I just don't like shooting with modern auto focus stills lenses without focus stops, and iris rings. It's good that more cine lenses come with an EF mount option these days.
I would hate to be without an HD-SDI output, which often goes right to an HD-SDI DA to make signal distribution to multiple monitors easy. HDMI is a pain for this. The rear positioning of the LCD display is a non-starter for me as well.
I would hate to be without an HD-SDI output, which often goes right to an HD-SDI DA to make signal distribution to multiple monitors easy. HDMI is a pain for this. The rear positioning of the LCD display is a non-starter for me as well.
* This drives me nuts. I'm always being asked by a presenter 'how long was that take?' - I've been using my Pix220 just for the delight of getting a Shot Duration display! This seems to be an issue that's caused by AVCHD - nothing to do with compression or picture quality, just the way it works. I've not seen shot duration display on any AVCHD camcorder.[/QUOTE]
- I have the C100 and shot duration is an issue with me also. That being said, I have 2 other AVCHD cameras (mainly used my Panasonic HMC150) and both show shot duration...there is no limitation of that feature with AVCHD.
- I have the C100 and shot duration is an issue with me also. That being said, I have 2 other AVCHD cameras (mainly used my Panasonic HMC150) and both show shot duration...there is no limitation of that feature with AVCHD.
David W. Jones
Veteran
Except by the time your Ancira spots hit the air they look a little soft after the stations re-compress them into their playback servers.
I have found adding a little post sharpening helps in that regard.
All the best!
Dave