C100: C100 vs C300 vs FS5

M

mattsezer

Member
I've been thinking about upgrading my 5D MKII, which I shoot most of my personal stuff on. I use my company's cameras for most of the stuff I do for money, but I'd potentially want to have a better camera to use for outside freelance work.

I shoot mostly documentaries and documentary-style corporate videos, with a lot of run and gun shooting. The turnaround times are normally pretty quick, so I normally only have time to do minimal color correction.

I recently rented a C300 MKI for a shoot and I loved almost everything about it, minus the lack of 1080p slow-mo and the tallness of the camera with the handle and mic on it. I've seen used C300 MKIs in the $4k-$5k range.

That's obviously still a lot when my primary income wouldn't be coming from that camera. Then, I discovered the C100. At this point, the C100 MKI is going for only $2,500, which got me thinking I should pick one up if it's anything like the C300. Would this be the case? The lack of 4:2:2 wouldn't matter for most of the stuff I shoot, but even when it would, I could just use an Atomos and it would be almost the same quality as the C300?

This got me thinking, if I'm spending all of this money with both of these cameras being already outdated technologically, if I should look at something like the Sony FS5. Theoretically, it does everything I'd want a camera to do and more; I have no need for 4k.

However, at least so far, I haven't been that impressed with any of the footage I've seen out of it. A lot of it might just be I don't like the color correction, but like I said before, I don't want to have to spend a ton of time in post just to get realistic looking skin tones.

Obviously, the best way for me to decide would be to rent the cameras and test them in real world conditions, but until I do that, what would you guys recommend as far as the pluses and minus of each camera?
 
I have been shooting with C300 Mark I since 2012 and am pretty happy with it in wildlife as well as corporate and documentary situations. The best thing about this camera is it is easy to grade. Even with a 17 inch macbook pro (early 2012) editing is easy and hence I can do it in the field. Also in one corporate situation, I was creating a 1 min message of a senior executive. He wanted to see the edit as well. I did it right in his cabin and then he wanted a retake which I did. Then he was taking a call and I was playing with a black and white grading and he saw it through the corner of his eye and later asked me to do that. All this in the macbook pro. So go for camera whose files you can grade easily in a minute or two.

Sony flaunts its specs and if I would have been in my 20s then I would be ogling at it the way students give lecherous look at women. On the other hand C300 is like a solid wife, a real support like a partner. Very less trouble. :D

By the way Sony is yet to come out with firmware support for the macro blocking and visible artifacts in the FS5. So if you want to buy it then wait for its firmware update.

At the moment the demand for 4K is less. C300 still continues to produce very detailed files. So terming it as old technology is not right. My C300 will co-exist with C300 Mark II. My first impressions with the C300 Mark II is that the 4K files are super, very nice. So even in wildlife, most of the times I will be shooting in 4K and only in very specific situations I will be using the slow motion.

C100 is a very under-rated camera. If you can deal with the pains then it can actually give you the most bang for the buck. Also, keep an eye out for used 1DC. Despite that camera getting lot of online hate, it has been used in many films. In India, 1DC has been used to shoot more indie films than the C300.
 
mattsezer said:
I've been thinking about upgrading my 5D MKII, which I shoot most of my personal stuff on. I use my company's cameras for most of the stuff I do for money, but I'd potentially want to have a better camera to use for outside freelance work.

I shoot mostly documentaries and documentary-style corporate videos, with a lot of run and gun shooting. The turnaround times are normally pretty quick, so I normally only have time to do minimal color correction.

I recently rented a C300 MKI for a shoot and I loved almost everything about it, minus the lack of 1080p slow-mo and the tallness of the camera with the handle and mic on it. I've seen used C300 MKIs in the $4k-$5k range.

That's obviously still a lot when my primary income wouldn't be coming from that camera. Then, I discovered the C100. At this point, the C100 MKI is going for only $2,500, which got me thinking I should pick one up if it's anything like the C300. Would this be the case? The lack of 4:2:2 wouldn't matter for most of the stuff I shoot, but even when it would, I could just use an Atomos and it would be almost the same quality as the C300?

This got me thinking, if I'm spending all of this money with both of these cameras being already outdated technologically, if I should look at something like the Sony FS5. Theoretically, it does everything I'd want a camera to do and more; I have no need for 4k.

However, at least so far, I haven't been that impressed with any of the footage I've seen out of it. A lot of it might just be I don't like the color correction, but like I said before, I don't want to have to spend a ton of time in post just to get realistic looking skin tones.

Obviously, the best way for me to decide would be to rent the cameras and test them in real world conditions, but until I do that, what would you guys recommend as far as the pluses and minus of each camera?
Click to expand...

FS5 is a nice camera if you like specs but don't care about image.

A7RII is a great b cam, not sure it's full-featured enough for video with a fast turn around.

My experience with Sony has been inconsistent. The colors are often just really bad from their cameras, including the F5/F55, but varies between cameras a lot. A7SII and A7RII look better, but there's still chroma clipping.

I'd get a C100 Mk II. Better color, better codec, better low light (than the C300) and 60p for slow motion. Excellent AF and much better finder; the finder on the C100 is bad. External recorders aren't really necessary except in rare cases–anything projected theatrically maybe because you can see macro blocking then but on web or tv the compression there will be a lot worse than AVCHD, and extreme low light or high dynamic range images, you do lose some shadow detail at high ISOs.
 
The C100 Mk1 is a great value. The Mk2 has a few improvements, namely the viewfinder and ability to do capture slowmo, but if you want to save a few thousand bucks, go for the C100 Mk1. Great colors and image right out of the camera if you use WideDR, and if you have time to grade, you can use CLOG, shoot with an Atomos Blade for Prores HQ, and get gradeable C300-type footage to your heart's content. I'll say this: using a Blade with a C100 can get a little cumbersome with run-n-gun, just because it's an extra accessory you have to attach and account for on the unit. With structured/planned shoots, it's not an issue. If you're chasing people down the street or shooting docs, it can be an impediment. But then you always have the internal codec to fall back on for those types of shoots, and AVCHD looks perfectly fine most of the time, especially if you aren't grading.
 
If you don't like what you have seen out of the FS5 then that should disqualify it right there. I think the attack on Sony's colors are overblown especially in the Canon circle. That being said if you want great color with little to know fuss I would go with the C100 MK1/2. My C100 is still a strong earner for me and going out to an atomos recorder is not really that cumbersome in my mind. And by adding on those you are getting c300 quality for a lower price.
 
I recently had a colleague upgrade from a C100 to FS5. He does a lot of handheld doc style work and doesn't intend to shoot 4K except when specifically required for freelance work. We did a little comparison work.

The FS5 has some nice ergonomic features like an quick adjusting handle and a monitor that can easily be moved around. The adjustable ND is a really nice feature, as is the internal digital zoom and sensor crop when needed. The pictures are very different.
 
Mickey G said:
I'm curious different in what way, Good or bad? Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
We were just testing to see if the FS5 and C100 could be used on a two camera interview with stock profiles and immediately came to the conclusion that they could not. At least not without some significant color grading work. Skin tones in particular and handled differently between Sony and Canon. I'm sure that other people on this board have much more information and experience on trying to compare Canon color to Sony color.
 
well, you've got both in your hands ! You're in the perfect position to tell us.
I'd be very happy to hear anything you have to say regarding image differences.

Sensation of detail ? Color tint ? aspect of skin tones ? natural tones (skies, grass, rocks, ... ?) handling of artificial light ? fluorescent light ?

thanks !
 
always curious as to whether, regarding these debates, these cams could actually be matched with a little profile tweaking.
 
Josh Bass said:
always curious as to whether, regarding these debates, these cams could actually be matched with a little profile tweaking.
Click to expand...

There's a real difference in how Sony and Canon approach color. There are F5/F55 profiles that clamp and roll off saturation, but don't seem to be such custom profiles for the FS5. Because of this the entire look is different–digital/slide film/video from the Sony, more color negative/"film" look from the Canon.

If you shoot carefully and do a fair amount of work I have no doubt you can match the two okay in post, but the colors out of the box will be very different, even with profile adjustments.
 
Unless you are doing broadcast, I would lean towards the C100 mk2 over the original C300. The 60p on the C100mk2 is really quite nice.

Regaring Sony, their colours are not as nice as the EOS cams, but they're also not as bad as a lot of people suggest. If you're doing highly stylized work, it really doesn't matter as much.
 
mattsezer said:
That's obviously still a lot when my primary income wouldn't be coming from that camera. Then, I discovered the C100. At this point, the C100 MKI is going for only $2,500, which got me thinking I should pick one up if it's anything like the C300. Would this be the case? The lack of 4:2:2 wouldn't matter for most of the stuff I shoot, but even when it would, I could just use an Atomos and it would be almost the same quality as the C300?

This got me thinking, if I'm spending all of this money with both of these cameras being already outdated technologically, if I should look at something like the Sony FS5. Theoretically, it does everything I'd want a camera to do and more; I have no need for 4k.
Click to expand...

If you're going to splurge out on a "technologically outdated" camera (the F3 isn't) then go get the Sony PMW-F3 instead, it is cheaper than the C100 mk2 secondhand and is technically superior to the C300 mk1!

Otherwise, the next best option is the FS5 (check out the good work being done by the FS7 guys with LC709A, same can be done with the FS5 too). As the FS5 is a very very fine FHD camera, with 4K as a nice added "bonus". (as the FS5 isn't really a 4K camera, but it at least exists there for when the world moves on and 4K becomes a must. Or when you're in a rush rush to grab all the shots in time, and quality isn't so super important to grade later on, then you can use 4K to give cropping options in post. So yes, the 4K is a handy "bonus" which can be useful now and then!)
 
IronFilm said:
If you're going to splurge out on a "technologically outdated" camera (the F3 isn't) then go get the Sony PMW-F3 instead, it is cheaper than the C100 mk2 secondhand and is technically superior to the C300 mk1!

Otherwise, the next best option is the FS5 (check out the good work being done by the FS7 guys with LC709A, same can be done with the FS5 too). As the FS5 is a very very fine FHD camera, with 4K as a nice added "bonus". (as the FS5 isn't really a 4K camera, but it at least exists there for when the world moves on and 4K becomes a must. Or when you're in a rush rush to grab all the shots in time, and quality isn't so super important to grade later on, then you can use 4K to give cropping options in post. So yes, the 4K is a handy "bonus" which can be useful now and then!)
Click to expand...

"Technically superior" is nice when you don't care about ergonomics, or how the image looks subjectively. The FS5 is also still broken out of the box.

I might be being unfair, my only experience with Sony has been the F3 and the F5 in early release, and while I don't like either much, I believe the F5 has been improved by firmware updates. And it's not terrible. The FS5 might be a good camera... in six months.

Rent before you buy if you can.
 
Last edited:
Thanks everybody for all of the great info. I actually got my hands on an FS5 (just inside a store) and at least personally, I feel the ergonomics are almost perfect for my uses: better than the Canons which are good, but always seemed a bit top-heavy. It would also work well on my Steadicam Merlin.

Anyway, based on the images I've seen coming out of it online, I'm not sold on the FS5. A lot of the grades are intentionally stylized, but I haven't seen a lot of natural looking skin tones in the images. The lighting in the store wasn't great, but the skin tones didn't look bad in non-slog.

I'm not in a rush to get anything now. I'll probably just wait until some of the kinks of the FS5 are worked out. If I'm liking the stuff I see coming out of it then, I'll reconsider it. Otherwise, I'll probably just pick up a C100 MKI which is less than half the price to hold me over until "better" comes out.
 
mattsezer said:
Thanks everybody for all of the great info. I actually got my hands on an FS5 (just inside a store) and at least personally, I feel the ergonomics are almost perfect for my uses: better than the Canons which are good, but always seemed a bit top-heavy. It would also work well on my Steadicam Merlin.

Anyway, based on the images I've seen coming out of it online, I'm not sold on the FS5. A lot of the grades are intentionally stylized, but I haven't seen a lot of natural looking skin tones in the images. The lighting in the store wasn't great, but the skin tones didn't look bad in non-slog.

I'm not in a rush to get anything now. I'll probably just wait until some of the kinks of the FS5 are worked out. If I'm liking the stuff I see coming out of it then, I'll reconsider it. Otherwise, I'll probably just pick up a C100 MKI which is less than half the price to hold me over until "better" comes out.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear the ergonomics on the FS5 are great. The F5 was a big improvement over the F3, but its menu system was sort of broken. Great viewfinder, better than the C300 even and much better than the C100 MkI's terrible excuse for a viewfinder. Sony is getting there, but it usually takes them until a given product has been out quite a while.

I feel the same way about the images I've seen from it, and from Sony images in general. I disliked the F5's color out of the box, but there's a new gamut and gamma available to download that clamps saturation (Alexa-mimcry, basically) and I've seen better results from that, less obviously video. For a very stylized look, either should be fine. When the FS5 gets raw, that might be gradable to something fine, but it's so much work and time and time is money....

The C100 remains a good choice for the money if you can tolerate the terrible viewfinder and your clients don't request 4k. Far better ergonomics and out-of-the-box image than the F3 despite worse specifications. Lack of slow motion is frustrating, but it's all around good enough for most clients.
 
I sold my C100 mark 1,i buy FS5..i am very happy with new cam 4k..display monitor is ok,color is not wdr..but s-log3 is perfect :-),i put this camera on my ronin M..just flay :-)
 
Policar said:
Glad to hear the ergonomics on the FS5 are great. The F5 was a big improvement over the F3, but its menu system was sort of broken. Great viewfinder, better than the C300 even and much better than the C100 MkI's terrible excuse for a viewfinder. Sony is getting there, but it usually takes them until a given product has been out quite a while.

I feel the same way about the images I've seen from it, and from Sony images in general. I disliked the F5's color out of the box, but there's a new gamut and gamma available to download that clamps saturation (Alexa-mimcry, basically) and I've seen better results from that, less obviously video. For a very stylized look, either should be fine. When the FS5 gets raw, that might be gradable to something fine, but it's so much work and time and time is money....

The C100 remains a good choice for the money if you can tolerate the terrible viewfinder and your clients don't request 4k. Far better ergonomics and out-of-the-box image than the F3 despite worse specifications. Lack of slow motion is frustrating, but it's all around good enough for most clients.
Click to expand...

Between the c100 with dual pixel upgrade and c300 1 with no upgrade which is best for narrative work??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top