my needs changed, doesn't make the c100 it any less of a camera. My next project will be on a couple c300s, wont event be bringing the BMC because the shoot will be to fast paced, I'd rent c100s but SF rental houses don't carry it and online rentals are as expensive as a c300.
C100: C100 overpriced?
- Thread starter alex1
- Start date
alex1
Well-known member
You make a lot of good points. I think it is a great camera, I just don't have the money yet.
alex1
Well-known member
If I ever get one I will let you know
My guess is it probably looks like a Barry Lyndon night scene.
The C100 is a steal. I can't believe the price/performance ratio on it, not just in terms of image but in terms of usability out of the box. There are compromises (bad LCDs, HDMI not BNC, etc.) but the camera is outfitted and usable for its price tag, not just a "brain" like the Scarlet/Epic or BMCC--and image quality is superior on the C100 to both, imo. Even the pre-amps are pretty good! The camera is also unbelievable in low light. Cleaner gain than the Alexa and Red, probably better than the F3, too. It's so close to on par with the Epic, F3, Alexa, etc. that if you're not getting good images out of it under normal circumstances it's your fault. No other camera holds on to color and retains a smooth noise texture at extreme ISOs. The F3 is close. The Alexa and Red are really bad in this respect. The codec is fine, though prores is materially better for some content and 8-bit images should be an issue but if you expose properly they're not that bad.
If you want to start a business I think the EX3 or one of the Canon camcorders with BNC and timecode sync are the best for the cheapest, because those are full professional cameras with all the options needed or mid-level corporate work. (The AF100 seems popular, too.) But if you're a hobbyist looking for look for the money I can't think of a better choice than the C100 or the C300 if you need professional features, not just image quality. That said no camera buy is a good buy in this market unless you've got high end clients and need an F5 or better or you have low end clients and need a 7D. The mid-ground is an awful market for owner/ops.
If you want to start a business I think the EX3 or one of the Canon camcorders with BNC and timecode sync are the best for the cheapest, because those are full professional cameras with all the options needed or mid-level corporate work. (The AF100 seems popular, too.) But if you're a hobbyist looking for look for the money I can't think of a better choice than the C100 or the C300 if you need professional features, not just image quality. That said no camera buy is a good buy in this market unless you've got high end clients and need an F5 or better or you have low end clients and need a 7D. The mid-ground is an awful market for owner/ops.
slidemaster
Well-known member
Threads best quote!
dustylense
Veteran
Well, when I think of what I paid for a Canon 1Ds (the original FF 11Mp digital camera) that cost me $8500 at the time to what I pay for cameras today that make the 1Ds look miserable, I can only wonder why people complain about under performing specs and high price. But guess what? That 1Ds made me 100's of thousands of dollars. Then the 1Ds Mk2 made me 100's of thousands of more dollars. I have all three 5D's. They all have made me 100's of thousands of dollars. I just see every one of the cameras as a tool to generate income in what I love doing.
So the C100 is the next tool for me to attempt that same trait. I'm primarily a stills guy. The Mk2 got me into motion imaging. I'm finally at the point to where the camera (the C100) gives me what I want and need according to my skill level of motion imaging. I had the BMC. I had the Af100. I had the Gh3 and 2. The C100 is the compromise of all those cameras combined and is my favorite image of the bunch. On top of that, it's just user friendly to boot. Almost invisible when shooting with it. If I need a more robust camera or codec for a certain project, I live near LA and I'll rent what is required. If I need a slow motion shot, I'll use my MK3 RAW ML or convert the C100's 60i. But in the end, I really like having a camera that performs, gives me the image that pleases me, and didn't cost $50,000 only to be outdone a year later.
Now if the C100 is too expensive for you it means you're doing something wrong. That is selling your images or marketing yourself. Everyone of my video capable devices has paid themselves off, in one way or another.
This is just my opinion. WHy did I choose the C100? Well.... I'm heavily invested in EOS glass. I now have Canon 5D's for my stills work and Canon C for video. An ecosystem. Simple and they all deliver what I need to get the job done according to my skill set. Skill is what generates the income, not the camera....
Matt Turner
Well-known member
Threads best quote! I see this kind of thread pop up regularly and I just don't get it!
Simple way to boil down the decision, if you are looking at a C100 just think of it like this:
You are paying "extra" $$ for the same sensor, look and ecosystem as a C300 and C500 in a one-man-band form factor.
That's it. No fancy extras, just enough to get the job done in one tight package but with a high quality look, like it's bigger brothers. If that sensor and look is worth the little bit extra to you then get on it now lad!
Also: I understand trying to get best value for money and minimise business costs but as @dustylense said the C100 should be making you money!
Dejikame FTW!
I gave up on my BMCC w8 last December when several big jobs were looming. Since then I'm way into profit from my C100 purchase. It was available when I needed it, I considered it affordable and I was able to be using it with confidence the day I took it out of the box.
I wonder in idle curiosity, how long it will take for the C100 (and C300) to sink in price to those of the likes of AF100, which can be had for as little as $2K - $2.5K used. I mean, it hasn't taken very long! Now, the C100 started from a higher price point, but still. I'm shocked at how quickly prices of cam gear are falling. It used to be that people would get angry if they paid "full" price, and barely a year or two later the price was 50% of that - whole threads would get started by the bitter early adopters. But what are the options? If you need the latest and the greatest immediately, you'll pay a premium. If you can wait, or you're OK with going with the previous generation technology, you can pick up that stuff for a song - after all, full features, respected features were released for theatrical distribution and were shot on a dvx100 (the name of this site!)... if it was good enough then, I can't believe it wouldn't be enough today, as long as you've got compelling material. And how much is a dvx100b these days, like $500?
So, if you feel the C100 is overpriced, just wait a little and you too can pick it up for a song. Meanwhile, you can already shoot on great gear that's dirt cheap, no reason to get hung up on the C100. Those who are happy with the C100 and paid full price are still happy. Those who feel it's overpriced have other options. Everybody should be happy. No?
So, if you feel the C100 is overpriced, just wait a little and you too can pick it up for a song. Meanwhile, you can already shoot on great gear that's dirt cheap, no reason to get hung up on the C100. Those who are happy with the C100 and paid full price are still happy. Those who feel it's overpriced have other options. Everybody should be happy. No?
dustylense
Veteran
If you worry about return in resale value then again, wrong business. Computers tank in resale value no? TV's, machinery, grip trucks, anything digital where a successor comes out a year later. They all lose value. The game is making them pay for themselves in the now. That way, when they do sink in value who gives a crap? You made your money. Move on, sell it for market value and use a set aside profit to buy the next tool that helps you make more profits. Good lenses are about the only thing that keeps value because they don't turn over the next year. It might take 5 or 10 years for a version 2 or upgrade to come to a particular optic.
I had the Af100 and it paid itself off 3 times in a single shoot. Great camera with lots of features. I like the C100 far better but the AF100 served me well. I sold my Af100 at a ridiculous price along with lots of Lumix glass. I then wrote it off as a loss. You can still try to sell it for as much as you can get if you're patient enough. There is a buyer for everything.
I sold off my Af100, BMC, Gh3 and Gh2, and all my lenses for the M4/3. Just a hodge podge of gear and am left with the C100, the Mk2 and MK3, and the XF105 which I can pretty much match them all together. Sure, I can wait for the C500 to be cheap but by then there will be technology that should outshine it. But I do know that there are people out there that bought my offloaded cameras and I trust they are making great images with them as those cameras were very capable of doing that.
Unfortunately, the business of image making is a very expensive one. What you can't afford should be rented and billed into the contract. I bill all my cameras into my contracts just as I charge for gas and wear on my vehicle. All that money goes to a fund that builds to update gear in the future. In the 20 years I've been shooting I've never been questioned once about those fees. Basically, when one of my clients hires me they rent all my gear from camera to car. Even a $1 battery will be charged $2 to them.
So yea, I bought the C100 before the price drop. I could have saved the $1000. But I made more than that from the time I bought the camera to the price drop shooting with it. Who wouldn't wanna pay less for a camera? As far as I'm concerned, the C100 is the best tool at the $5500 mark when you take features and user experience in mind as an all around camera. You have the BMD cameras but they really are not for everyone. But the beauty is that both the C100 and the BMD cameras are so affordable considering what each are capable of delivering. It just boils down to what and how you shoot. For me, it's the C100. Now if your not generating income with image capturing devices it's a whole different ball game and the decision is that much harder.
You're 100% right, and I really have nothing to add - it's exactly as you describe. Still, I'm shocked at how quickly cameras lose value. Now with lenses you're right, they hold value, and sometimes even go up in value... I remember when the voigt 25mm came out it, and then people figured it out, and the price actually went up. You could actually make a profit on the lens. Try that with a camera . Anyhow, who are we to complain - anyone remember how much cameras used to cost? Today they are massively cheaper and massively better... not that some still won't think they're overpriced. It's like Louis C.K. says "everything is amazing and nobody is happy":
. Anyhow, who are we to complain - anyone remember how much cameras used to cost? Today they are massively cheaper and massively better... not that some still won't think they're overpriced. It's like Louis C.K. says "everything is amazing and nobody is happy":
Spartacus
Veteran
While I agree with everything you say, I want to know more about those "100's of thousands of more dollars" now! :cheesy:
If I'd be thinking about maybe doing that zombi short I thought about lately, I´d also be wondering about "is it really worth it?". For anyone earning his living with video, the C100 is a no-brainer - well, at least considering its price...
Just curious as to why the higher end camera's don't use this codec if it is so robust? Not even the C300 or 500 uses this codec and bitrate. If it is so wonderful, why don't the high-end expensive camera's use the avc codec? Perhaps because it isn't that great when compared to raw or even the C300's 50 mb/s 4:2:2.
Your avatar shows a greenscreen shot. You can't honestly say that 24 mb/s 4:2:0 is very efficient and robust compared to higher bitrate cameras out there for doing green screen work. If it was so good, Arri, Red, and even Blackmagic would be using it on there cameras wouldn't they?
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Really?
I'll just leave this here:
https://vimeo.com/20035191
Proper Green Screen keying has less to do with the camera and MUCH more to do with good lighting.
I'll just leave this here:
https://vimeo.com/20035191
Proper Green Screen keying has less to do with the camera and MUCH more to do with good lighting.
MattDavis
Well-known member
AVCHD uses newer 'technology' than, say, XDCAM - though the images are comparable. I'd even tip slightly in favour of the C100 over the EX1/3 in terms of IQ. Behind the furore over 'everything must be 50 Mbit 4:2:2 for broadcast', there are situations where XDCAM is 'absolutely fine' because of its lighter touch in the production pipeline.
The C100 is aimed at people delivering for the web, which doesn't need the robustness of a 7-12 generation workflow from camera original to viewer's TV. AVCHD and its transcoded edit masters hold up well for 5-6 generations or so and is visually almost identical to 4:2:2 50 Mbit material, then it quickly degrades - much faster than 4:2:2 50 Mbit material - which is why the latter works for broadcasters.
Can you chromakey from AVCHD? Yes, on the proviso that you light correctly, light well, don't need lots of wriggle room to match studio lighting to plate lighting, the comp is fairly undemanding (no motion matching) and you use a hybrid rather than pure chroma keyer (so it uses some luma and colour difference info to make an edge matte at the resolution of your original footage).
Whilst AVCHD isn't exactly the most edit friendly format in the world, it travels well (e.g. I can shoot here, and upload the rushes to be downloaded 'over there'), it archives well, and within 3-4 generations on well exposed material you're not going to sweat the difference between that and ProRes 422 unless you're into specialist stuff.
Oh, and whilst we're onto the ProRes thing: an intra-frame codec like ProRes needs significantly more bandwidth to capture somewhat 'grainy' rushes from cameras like the EX1 and C100. With a little nod and a wink to Dustylense, may I present (again) this evidence that AVCHD does better than ProRes in capturing the icky nasty stuff between IRE20 and IRE30 that seems to haunt all 8 bit camcorders, until we get to ProRes HQ:
I'll still use a 4:2:2 recorder for official green screen shoots, but I know I can get usable results (for simple talking heads for display on the web at 1080p without transparency of liquids or wardrobe issues with spill) with AVCHD when I turn up at a budget corporate shoot and have a lousy location:
You still get this:
Sorry about the witness protection. But note well: I put a daylight dichroic on the 3/4 back light knowing that the background plate was a shot using mixed daylight and 'not quite tungsten' fluoro interior lamps. Sort of 'lighting jazz' - hit a bum note? Play it again, harder. Repeat.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
Strange skin colours on the forehead...
indiawilds
Veteran
A couple of years down the line, I won't be surprised if people start calling the C100 as a "classic".