C100: C100 overpriced?

Sure, the BMC has RAW. Not going to start arguing the benifit and NON-benifits of RAW. But can the BMC shot a clean image at 3200 ISO? How about 6400 ISO? How about a useable image at 12500 ISO? Or even and image that with neat video can make a useable image at 20,000 ISO. How about them ND's built into the BMC? XLR, waveforms, built in LCPM sound? How about a monitor that allows shooting above your head or at your feet built in? How about powering the camera? Start adding those functions to the BMC and it's not a $3000 camera anymore. What about moire? C100 is clean as it gets. BMC not so much. Trust me, I've had both cameras. How about serviceability? Canon has service centers around the world. BMC has just one and from what I've read the service and turnaround sucks. And finally, ergonomics! The C100/300/500 are about as good ergonomically as one can get.

Just tools. Pick the one that has the feature or the "FEATURES" that you require.
 
I sold my BMCC and all the batteries and audio gear and ND filters and only needed to come up with about a grand to get the C100 "with" the 24-105L series lens and haven't looked back. I will never say that the C100 has a better image than the BMCC shooting on a properly lit set, but I will say that for 90% of what I shoot, the BMCC was just the wrong tool for the job and a real nuisance to wrangle with all the extra gear. I was enjoying the RAW workflow but now find that my 6TB external array will last a lot longer with the C100 footage being so small. And to my eyes the image quality is every bit as good with no additional crop factor. I am not saying that AVCHD is as good as RAW....but to most the differences are minor.

I love everything about the C100 since I got it and I feel it was worth it. I behaves so much like a real video camera and not some DSLR hybrid. I get the image quality that I want and the convenience that I need. I also have shot to my Atomos Samurai with it and it does hold up much better when color correcting, but 90% of the time the AVCHD codec works out fine.

Dusty.....we were comrades in arms over on BMCuser waiting forever for our BMCCs. I was so obsessed that I didn't even notice when Canon shipped the C100. I literally did not know it existed at all!!! So I seriously wanted to make the BMCC be "that" camera for me....but it wasn't. And seriously....I had nearly $4800 wrapped up in everything to make it workable....so calling it a $3000 camera is not 100% accurate.
 
TheDingo said:
Compared to what?

Is there another $4,000 camera that does everything that the C100 does?

i.e. 12 stops of dynamic range right up to 20,000 ISO

...Right now I don't see any other lower cost camera that has the same feature set as the C100. So how is it over-priced?
Click to expand...

And yet a $1500 GH3 does things that the C100 doesn't do, including 1080/60p, overcranking, better built in codec, etc. Its easy to choose certain specs and say one camera is better than the other. But it really just comes down to if the camera is worth the price for you.

In my personal opinion, the C100 is overpriced even at $5500. But low light abilities are not as high on my priority list as others (where as others may not care about overcranking).
 
TheDingo said:
I would love to see how the BMCC compares at 20,000 ISO. ;-)

- Guy
Click to expand...

Well.....honestly you just can't use the BMCC in situations that aren't controlled or already naturally lit pretty well. In my time with it I had pretty bad results in average lighting. So....I know you were being sarcastic, but it is important to know that the C100 is more of a "jack of all trades" and it does a great job with just about any situation you throw at it. The BMCC will likely outclass it on a scripted controlled movie shoot however. The BMCC is more of a one trick pony....or to be fair a one trick thoroughbred. It really shines bright at what it is designed for but falls way short for just about everything else.

The C100 is really great at a lot of things and I think it compares very favorably when shooting a narrative with proper lighting and care but it really excels when you don't have those things at your disposal and can literally save your tush when the going gets tough.
 
Cory Braun said:
But low light abilities are not as high on my priority list as others
Click to expand...

I'm not a low light fiend either, but dynamic range is something I wish my GH3 had more of. 12 stops would be very nice to work with.
( this is the main reason why I will pick-up a Blackmagic Pocket Cine camera to add to my m4/3 body collection when it ships )
 
icicle22 said:
. And seriously....I had nearly $4800 wrapped up in everything to make it workable....so calling it a $3000 camera is not 100% accurate.
Click to expand...

For you. What about the people who already own a matte box, baseplate, monitor, filters, etc? The only additional things I bought for the BMCC is a battery plate and 2 SSD cards. Everything else (minus NDs), I use just as many accessories for the BMCc that I do for the C100.
 
TheDingo said:
I'm not a low light fiend either, but dynamic range is something I wish my GH3 had more of. 12 stops would be very nice to work with.
( this is the main reason why I will pick-up a Blackmagic Pocket Cine camera to add to my m4/3 body collection when it ships )
Click to expand...

Definitely. I'd love some extra range.
 
i paid 6500, and while i of course would have rather paid 5500, you can't have it both ways, if you need the camera by a certain date, you get it. i planned on using a bmc but when it came to be a week before we were supposed to start shooting i gave up on it and got a c100 right away, and i've been loving it.

seriously, nothing beats it in low light. other cameras can compare to it, but when you start nitpicking sharpness and dynamic range at 20000 iso, the C cameras are just unbelievable. there's just no real nasty video noise, they got it grainy, which is a great thing.

IMO no one has a better form factor and has something that's literally ready to shoot out of the box with a card.

the sensor is a huge part of what you're buying. you get the same damn sensor as whats in a 20K camera. yes i feel a little cheated out of things like any sort of slow motion. but hey, i made a decisions and you have to stick by your decisions.
 
I had been putting off the purchase of the C100 for a while, I raised a few concerns on here and after reading a comment by DustyLense, I decided to just get it and see for myself...

I think it's phenomenal for the price. It's the same price as a mark 3 with an EVF, juicedlink and rig...

Ryan E Walters is like everyone else, we would all like to pay less... If you pay £6500 for something, then that's what is worth.

As a side note, I hear a lot of negativity about noise, I LOVE the noise the camera has... Its a beautiful filmic grain to me..!!
 
Cory Braun said:
And yet a $1500 GH3 does things that the C100 doesn't do, including 1080/60p, overcranking, better built in codec, etc. Its easy to choose certain specs and say one camera is better than the other. But it really just comes down to if the camera is worth the price for you.

In my personal opinion, the C100 is overpriced even at $5500. But low light abilities are not as high on my priority list as others (where as others may not care about overcranking).
Click to expand...
I also had the Gh3. It's a nice camera but riddled with moire and aliasing. Better codec? That All-I on the Gh3 was horrible. Try attaching an external recorder to the Gh3. Oh wait, you can't. Gh3 is still a great bang for the buck though.
 
dustylense said:
I also had the Gh3. It's a nice camera but riddled with moire and aliasing. Better codec? That All-I on the Gh3 was horrible. Try attaching an external recorder to the Gh3. Oh wait, you can't. Gh3 is still a great bang for the buck though.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the 50 codec.
 
TheDingo said:
I'm not a low light fiend either, but dynamic range is something I wish my GH3 had more of. 12 stops would be very nice to work with.
( this is the main reason why I will pick-up a Blackmagic Pocket Cine camera to add to my m4/3 body collection when it ships )
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the same thing, I have too many 8-bit cameras already. 13 stops of 10-bit 220 ProRes is nice.

I like the Ninja for the C100, but the HDMI out is still 8-bit? :/
 
BMCC's value is immediately obvious. Because if we are talking pure specs alone, 12-bit RAW / 10-bit prores 2.5k trumps 8-bit 1080p (4k sensor advantages aside).

The c100 is a hard sell because it pays off in areas you don't think about immediately. Specs aside, it works with a small cost to storage space/gear, a smaller crew, and has so many options on board (it's actually pretty surprising even coming from ML's UI, but quite user friendly). And an super easy workflow with C-Log if you want to work in post. That's very straightforward.

Pricing is hard..I'd say 6,500 is the upper limit, but 5,500 is approaching something realistic, if not already close to optimal market demand. I'm convinced that Canon will need to eventually consider some more serious firmware updates than we've seen, just as Blackmagic is hiring tons of engineers and industrial designers to roll out better iterations of their camera. And this is getting into the pro-area where it probably is needed much more than DSLRs (where video is only half the job).
 
Cory Braun said:
For you. What about the people who already own a matte box, baseplate, monitor, filters, etc? The only additional things I bought for the BMCC is a battery plate and 2 SSD cards. Everything else (minus NDs), I use just as many accessories for the BMCc that I do for the C100.
Click to expand...

I already had a baseplate and mattebox also. I am referring to a battery solution that was specific to the BMCC ($300), an external audio recorder ($400+) a Grid Loupe ($200) 3 SSDs (2 240GB and 1 512GB that didn't even work even though BM listed it as compatible totaling $800) a set of 3 high quality Tiffen Water White ND filters ($239). In addition I bought a Tokina 11-16 specifically to combat the crop factor. I never needed this with my other gear, but I haven't even included that in my estimate. MOst all of these items were specifically bought for the BMCC camera to make it functional for me.

To be clear, I come from a more video background and shooting with HVX200s, Canon XLh1s and the likes....I never needed so many accessories just to do basic functions. So I never really needed to have all of this "stuff" before. So in my case....the BMCC was not very usable at it's $3000 pricetag.

Having said all of this I was able to sell just about everything that I bought and come up with about $4800 which doesn't nearly total what I actually had into it. I did keep my 512MB SSD for use in my workstation however. I sold the Tokina and basically paid for the Canon 24-105L lens with the C100.

Now....I basically have just the C100 and I can do everything I need and I can even shoot great handheld footage without having to put it on my rig. Sure I can mount it when needed and use the mattebox and follow focus.....but I don't need it. My setup has become infinitely simpler and I have everything I need in a small conmpact, easy to use package.

Heck....I didn't want to really go here, but after several months with the BMCC I really felt like I was beta testing the darn thing. So many features were missing and not all lenses were working. I just felt frustrated at spending that much money and feeling like I was using a half ready product. With all the audio issues and issues with lenses not working.....I'd just had enough. And when I saw the C100 and all the rich features that I'd been pining for....well, it was a match made in heaven.

I still think the BMCC is a tremendous piece of technology but ergonomically it is difficult to use and really just missing so many pro features that I need that it made it the wrong tool for my jobs.

The C100 had been a perfect fit. Loving it so far.

Worth every penny. Especially since I got it when it was on sale too. Sorry Dusty. If it makes you feel any better I would not have been able to swing it at full price. I'd still be rocking the BMCC.
 
Until another camera at under $4000 comes out that you can 1. shoots great quality and 2. just take it out of a bag and shoot for 8 hours without any accessories, I don't see a reason why this camera is overpriced.
 
RZE said:
Until another camera at under $4000 comes out that you can 1. shoots great quality and 2. just take it out of a bag and shoot for 8 hours without any accessories, I don't see a reason why this camera is overpriced.
Click to expand...

but youve sold it. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top