C100 vs C300

F

Fahnon

Well-known member
So I've been looking at the specs and wondering why I would buy a C300 over a C100 and external recorder (if the avchd implementation doesn't hold up). $16k vs $7.5k. I mean the 300 is financially out of my reach anyway, but still... Will the 300 be mostly for rental purposes? Is it only for the SDI? What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
C100 has better ergonomics, push button AF WB and exposure, LCD on stripped body without handle, lighter weight and slightly smaller size. C300 has much better internal codec so that for broadcast jobs you do not require an external recorder though that will still be the best signal, SDI outputs, genlock, 720 60p, better EVF, and the ability to get you high level jobs that require a camera and operator.

Our team was offered a C300 EF at $10,300 US and decided to go with two C100s. Not my money but that was the consensus.

I have graded C300 footage and it is definitely a superior codec, but the ergonomics and push button controls meant that we could have less skilled operators if needed, and that's huge in our nonprofit shooting
 
Last edited:
philiplipetz said:
C100 has better ergonomics, push button AF WB and exposure, LCD on stripped body to handle, lighter weight and slightly smaller size. C300 has much better internal codec so that for broadcast jobs you do not require an external recorder though that will still be the best signal, SDI outputs, genlock, 720 60p, better EVF, and the ability to get you jobs the require a camera and operator.

Our team was offered a C300 EF at $10,300 US and decided to go with two C100s. Not my money but that was the consensus.

I have graded C300 footage and it is definitely a superior codec, but the ergonomics and push button controls meant that we could have less skilled operators if needed, and that's huge in our nonprofit shooting
Click to expand...

You make some good points. For me personally (run and gun guerrilla filmaking), the only thing that hurts is the lack of a slo-mo frame rate and even that is mitigated by the fact that I already own a 7D I need to keep for stills. The external recorder being an option makes the choice for me clear.

Of course if it wasn't an option the BMCC would be the only camera I would be thinking about...
 
Forgot to mention that push button AF WB and exposure is ideal for run and gun. Also, forgot to mention that the C100 HDMI is locking, so that removes some of the headache of using HDMI.
 
avro said:
HDMI out is only 4:2:0!!
Click to expand...

In the C100 output thread Avro says that Canon Japan says it is really 4:2:2 out. Since the manual does not say there ought have been some internal debate about the quality off the C100 output. it can still be 4:2:2 and be crippled to protect the C300. Sony did this with the FS100. Someone ask Canon at their October 18th Hollywood Center presentation.
 
The C300 has a bigger EVF. It also tilts, & extends, while the C100's is locked in place like a stills camera's.

I'm also not sold on the C100's LCD placement, but need to handle it before passing judgement.
 
philiplipetz said:


In the C100 output thread Avro says that Canon Japan says it is really 4:2:2 out. Since the manual does not say there ought have been some internal debate about the quality off the C100 output. it can still be 4:2:2 and be crippled to protect the C300. Sony did this with the FS100. Someone ask Canon at their October 18th Hollywood Center presentation.
Click to expand...

i dont believe it, and i see no point doing it..... what to protect ? its already cut in peaces i would say......... old codec, smaller monitor, crappy evf, no slow/fast motion at all

what are the pluses in ergonomics? weights less for 300g? questionable!
monitor placement on c100- for sure away from perfect location, i would say c300 at least has a better monitor and in quality and in size!
 
Last edited:
anatusa said:
i dont believe it, and i see no point doing it..... what to protect ? its already cut in peaces i would say......... old codec, smaller monitor, crappy evf, no slow/fast motion at all

what are the pluses in ergonomics? weights less for 300g? questionable!
monitor placement on c100- for sure away from perfect location, i would say c300 at least has a better monitor and in quality and in size!
Click to expand...

I agree with you in part.
There was a VERY careful distribution of assets between the two cameras from Canon's strategic thinkers in order to place them as they have.

But they also positioned the concepts differently and perhaps very smartly - we won't know until we handle a C100.
But at lease initially I'll offer these counters to your points.

Having a slightly smaller monitor that fits permanently on the body is a strong+ for the C100 depending on resolution.
For their target user, not having to attach and take off a monitor on the fly is great and the fact that it's flexible although not as much as the C300 is also a strength.

I was very disappointed regarding the smaller fixed EVF. But, until I hold one and look through it, I cant say. It might be a fine compromise for this camera.

The "old codec", again, I agree I'd love to have 50mps to CF card as an option.
But given the specs and real world results of the new sensor I'm guessing that the C100 will be a major leap beyond the 5D and even 1DX image - even with the onboard codec.

So, until we shoot and review results of the C100 it's impossible to say whether it's bad compromise or a good compromise on balance, between the two.

Personally, for half of what we do, I would simply prefer the fixed monitor, smaller from factor and even some button choices, and the codec would work fine for final delivery.
For the other half of what we do, on set, I'd much prefer the C300.

I think that's Canon's thinking with the new line and I can't deny their intelligence.
A company like ours should consider both models - and would, if one offered 60p.
 
Bern, I am not sure you are correct about the EVF on the 100. Jim M. has done a Youtube video that shows that the EVF rotates, not like you and I would assume from the normal footage.

(Correction based on later post) - Duh. My mistake...of course I was typing faster than I was thinking...
 
Last edited:
It will be sometime before I get a C100 for testing. Please understand that Canon has differentiated the filmmakers into different groups. People moving up from DSLR shooting will find it easier to shoot with C100 due to the push button AF, WB and exposure. Canon is creating a path for them to move into using proper film cameras. It is not branding the C100 as a Cinema camera rather the term video is used. This model will bring in the volumes. There are many corporate jobs people do which doesn't require a broadcast approved codec. This sensor, being similar as C300 is expected to produce the similar looks as the C300, however, we don't know till we test it.

The EVF of C100 will be a step up for a lot of people who are shooting with DSLR. However, I agree that a better EVF (spec wise) would have been good.

People used to stills and HDSLR shooting will find the difference in ergonomics of the C100 from C300 good.

If Canon would have provided a HDMI out (locking one) in the 1D X, like C100 then a lot of C100 sales would have been cannibalised. Canon has taken decisions of specs of its lineup and the market will respond soon.

Personally, I am waiting for a 1D C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top