C100: C100 with DPAF or C100 MKII for what I already have?

C

craftyphotons

Active member
Hi, everyone! First of all, I just want to thank everyone here for being such an incredible resource in my research for my first upgrade to a real cinema camera. I've been shooting for awhile with my D750 and am now solidly set on plunging into a C100 in about a month and a half. At this point, most of what I have left to decide is whether to get a C100 MK1 with the DPAF upgrade or just go all in on a C100 MKII.

The thing that just prompted me to start thinking about this instead of just getting a MKII is that I already have a Ninja Blade for my D750. I was planning on using the Ninja Blade mostly permanently attached to whatever C100 I get, so I'm not sure if the fact that the better viewfinder on the MKII really makes it worth that extra $1k or so, and getting the MKI instead would also allow me to budget the 70-200/2.8 instead of the 70-200/4 in my lens set (which I've still been waffling back and forth on but is increasingly looking like it's going to be the Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55, and either the 70-200/4 or the 70-200/2.8 if I can find room in the budget for it).

Hope that gives some context and makes this not just another C100 MKI vs MKII question!
 
Please forgive my impulsive post, I think I got caught up thinking about the Ninja Blade for a moment and forgot about all the other changes to the MKII :) I might need to change this question to more along the lines of.. is the 70-200/4 good enough or should I get something like the 85/1.8 to hold me over for awhile until I can afford the 2.8 IS II :smile:
 
Although Im not a professional I feel a certain resonance with your dilemma, cause I just bought a C100 MKII to complement my C100 MKI two weeks ago. I've had the MKI for a couple of years and love it! I do everything indoors and no run and gun type stuff..... all on tripods and sliders. I needed another C100 because I got tired of trying to match the 5D3 and C100 together. I also got a Letus Helix, (see Slaviks post today) and after using it with a Rode video mic, struggled with it throwing it off balance so I needed a scratch mic. The scratch mic was the primary reason I wanted the MKII. Also, i found the LCD screen to be soooo much better and flexible. I could now turn it to face me as I was recording and didnt have to use the Ninja Blade as a monitor for that purpose. Since I got the MKII, I took off the top handle and end up taking it with me just shooting stuff around town because of the scratch mic in the body. This for me is worth the extra price alone. Also, I'm shooting Slow motion which I never did before.

If you have the budget I would definitely go with the MKII, its worth every penny of improvement ergonomically over the MKI. Image wise there seems to be a slight edge in sharpness to the MKII, but pretty inconsequential and not a reason to buy it alone on that. After getting the MKII I never use the MKI except as a complementary second camera.

Another consideration is to buy a used MKII. There are people selling them here on the forum. I bought mine used from Terry Nixon and got a good deal on it. I also bought my MKI here on the forum form Jbregar. Both great deals!

I agree with Duane the 70-200 f4 IS is a great lens, one of the very best Canon makes......I have one too! Although, we once had a heated discussion here about the sharpness and quality vs the 70-200 F2.8 is mkII. The 2.8 is better, (IMHO) but weighs a ton, and costs a fortune.

Anyway....... definitely get the MKII. You can find a used one down in the low $3000 range just a hair more than you would pay for a new C100 mkI.
 
So I take it that 4K is not important for your end product? There will be a C100 MKIII coming that will be 4K, probably will show at NAB or sooner. But if you need something right away, there are some good deals out there on used, b-stock and new C100s, both MKI and MKIIs. I own the C100 MKI, the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the Ninja Blade. If you can swing the money, get the C100 MKII, it is a better camera with better features. It has more advanced DPAF than the MKI, the eyepiece is a lifesaver, 60P is very nice and the angle you can use the flip out screen is so much better. The MKI is a great little camera, I love mine but the MKII is better, I rent them occasionally. The 70-200 F4 IS is a fine lens but every person I know who owns one wishes they had the 2.8 IS II instead. Yes, it is bigger, heavier and more expensive but it is probably the best bang for your buck on the market. For $2k, you end up with image quality that is basically very similar to what you would get on a $30k cinema lens. Sure, it doesn't have the ergonomics or build quality but the end image is very close based upon my experience, especially in 1080. Also, the extra speed is so much better than cranking up the gain on your camera.The 85mm 1.8 is a great, inexpensive stop gap lens for interviews, etc. while you save for the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I bought a pristine used 85mm 1.8 for under $300.00, I love it. I use the 70-200 2.8 IS II now for interviews, mainly because it looks more impressive for clients but the 85mm 1.8 looks almost as good at that focal length. The Ninja Blade is a great companion to any C100, you'll love it.
 
Puredrifting, I hung on every word you said about the 70-200 f2.8 is mkII. Your experience with it has reconfirmed my feelings. It is nice to know you compare it with the best Canon cinema lenses. I want to make one my own. Perhaps my next obsession, if it weren't for the fact, two friends have them and offer them to me anytime I need it. Although its not the same as having your own. I have a feeling in the coming new year I'll end up marrying one.
 
Using friends lenses is a nice option to have. Yes, it is $2k but it will far outlast your next half a dozen camera bodies if you don't drop it. They retain their value better than almost any other EF lens, worn pro ones that have been dragged all over the world still fetch $1600.00 - $1700.00 used, there is a reason for that. I interviewed Russell Carpenter, ASC, the DP of Titanic, he is an Oscar winner. When he asked me my favorite lens, I mentioned the 70-200 2.8 IS II and he concurred it is one of his favorite lenses as well. We both agreed that we would rather have a nice cinema lens but when spending $10k to $50k for a lens is not on the table, the $2k 70-200 2.8 IS II is an astounding value.
 
I'd get the Mk1, especially since you already have the Ninja Blade. I've got the same combo, and it works perfectly. I rely on the Blade for focusing and rarely if ever use the eyepiece and never really rely on the Mk1s LCD.

With the Mk2, you get 60p. You can do 60i on the Mk1 and drop it into a 24p timleline, adjust the speed of the clip, and get it where you need to be. It works fine for me.

Your idea for saving money buying the Mk1 and then using the extra $$$ to buy quaility glass is very, very smart. You can use the glass for decades. You'll only be using you camera body for the next four or five years. Wise investment.

If you do any level of indoor work and you need the extra reach, I'd recommend the 70-200 2.8 versus the 4. F4 indoors sucks, especially for run-n-gun. I have the non-IS version of the 70-200 2.8 and it works great. It really depends on how much you plan on using it, though. I use a telephoto lens for maybe 5% of my work. I probably use my Tokina 11-16 more than my 70-200. Which, by the way, is a one of the lenses you mentioned, and is a great investment.

The 17-55 2.8 is a good lens, and I know a lot of folks on here rely on it. That said, the IS is wonky and has a tendency to "jump," and the IS also has a tendency to break on many copies after extreme use or after few years, and dust gets into the barrel quite easily. I'd explore the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, or, if you can afford it, the Canon 24-70 2.8, which doesn't have image stabilization, but is simply the best/sharpest prosumer zoom lens out there. A 24-70 2.8 is on my camera about 85% of the time, so it makes sense to me to dish out the extra money since it's my primary glass.
 
jthabel said:
I'd get the Mk1, especially since you already have the Ninja Blade. I've got the same combo, and it works perfectly. I rely on the Blade for focusing and rarely if ever use the eyepiece and never really rely on the Mk1s LCD.
Click to expand...

There is a post somewhere on DVX where I said the exact same thing, looking back now I was in denial. I was literally minutes away from just ordering a another mkI when Terry emailed me with a good price on the MKII. Until you actually hold an MKII in your hands and are able to use the viewfinder and flip the screen around, and take off the top handle strip it down and have an onboard mic, it's hard to understand how each of these little things add up to a complete experience, an experience I believe is worth the extra loot. Also, if you ever contemplate using a C100 on any sort of Gimbal or stabilizer you will thanks your lucky stars you have a built in mic.
 
Michael Thames said:
There is a post somewhere on DVX where I said the exact same thing, looking back now I was in denial. I was literally minutes away from just ordering a another mkI when Terry emailed me with a good price on the MKII. Until you actually hold an MKII in your hands and are able to use the viewfinder and flip the screen around, and take off the top handle strip it down and have an onboard mic, it's hard to understand how each of these little things add up to a complete experience, an experience I believe is worth the extra loot. Also, if you ever contemplate using a C100 on any sort of Gimbal or stabilizer you will thanks your lucky stars you have a built in mic.
Click to expand...

You make good points here. For the record, I've used a Mk2 many times. It's nice, and if you can afford one, get one, I say.

That said, you can get a new Mk1 -- or better yet, a used Mk1 -- for thousands cheaper than a Mk2. That extra two thousand dollars could buy the Op who started this thread the lens(es) he needs, which he'll use for many years to come.

As far as swinging around the LCD goes -- I use an arm on my hotshoe for my Ninja Blade, which gives me complete flexibilty in where and how I want to position the display on my Mk1. I rely on the Blade for export to Prores as well, so even when I've used the blade on my Mk2, I've still not relied on the LCD. Although I admit, it's a nice perk.

I've never removed the top handle from my C100. I rely on the XLR connections for almost all the work I do.

It just comes down to what you need and plan to do with the camera.
 
jthabel said:
You make good points here. For the record, I've used a Mk2 many times. It's nice, and if you can afford one, get one, I say.

That said, you can get a new Mk1 -- or better yet, a used Mk1 -- for thousands cheaper than a Mk2. That extra two thousand dollars could buy the Op who started this thread the lens(es) he needs, which he'll use for many years to come.

As far as swinging around the LCD goes -- I use an arm on my hotshoe for my Ninja Blade, which gives me complete flexibilty in where and how I want to position the display on my Mk1. I rely on the Blade for export to Prores as well, so even when I've used the blade on my Mk2, I've still not relied on the LCD. Although I admit, it's a nice perk.

I've never removed the top handle from my C100. I rely on the XLR connections for almost all the work I do.

It just comes down to what you need and plan to do with the camera.
Click to expand...

Very true. Its funny we have the opposite needs. In over two years Ive never once plugged a mic into the XLR's. I record everything on an external recorder. When I needed something quick, I have used the rode video mic, but I can take off the handle and just plug it into the mini jack and attach it via the hotshoe.

I use the blade too for the serious stuff, cause I worry about post color grading, and it's convent way to store the files. I wonder in reality just how much the AVCHD image suffers do to basic color grading.

But yes, would be good to hear back from the OP about his needs.
 
Thanks everyone, you've given me so much good stuff to help make my decision. It's still about a month and a half away until go time so I have some more time to waffle over things :)

With regards to puredrifting's question, 4k is not important to me for this purchase. Being this is my first investment in a cinema camera as my workhorse and that I this is all just for fun at the moment, I'm not at all interested in splitting the budget further to upgrade my editing suite and storage capacity to support a 4k workflow. What I'm looking to build out is something that will allow me to do some nice run-and-gun short docs as well as a series of gear-related videos for web distribution for my other hobby as a flashlight/everyday carry gear enthusiast.

Slavik's posts have actually been one of my main inspirations for what my loadout is looking like it's going to be, and I've been bugging him up to this point on Facebook for some feedback on certain things :)

Anyways, this is still quite up in the air and I haven't really looked at used prices for the MKII option because the bundle gets me the 17-55 at quite a good discount, but here are a few of my main options I'm looking at so far:

Option A

  • Canon C100 MKII + 17-55/2.8 bundle (brand new)
  • Canon 70-200/4 (used)
  • Tokina 11-16/2.8 (used)

Option B

  • Canon C100 MKI w/DPAF (used)
  • Canon 17-55/2.8 (used)
  • Canon 70-200/4 (used)
  • Canon 10-18/4.5-5.6 (used)
  • Letus35 Helix Jr. Aluminum, Letus35 Rod Monitor Mount, Zacuto Grip Relocator

Option C

  • Canon C100 MKI w/DPAF (used)
  • Canon 17-55/2.8 (used)
  • Canon 70-200/2.8 (used)
  • Tokina 11-16/2.8 (used)

Bearing in mind I'll stlil be getting the Helix at some point, just pushed off by about seven months :)
 
Well after a bit more finnagling with my budget for February and deciding it's best to just put off the gimbal until a bit later in the year, I think I've come to a very good list. Hopefully I can bring it down even further once the time comes by finding a used MKII and 17-55 for less than the current bundle price :D

  • C100 MKII + 17-55 bundle (new)
  • Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II (used)
  • Tokina 11-16

Until then I'll keep trucking along with my D750 and Ninja Blade. Really looking forward to everything though! Thanks again everyone for all of your input.
 
craftyphotons said:
Well after a bit more finnagling with my budget for February and deciding it's best to just put off the gimbal until a bit later in the year, I think I've come to a very good list. Hopefully I can bring it down even further once the time comes by finding a used MKII and 17-55 for less than the current bundle price :D

  • C100 MKII + 17-55 bundle (new)
  • Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II (used)
  • Tokina 11-16

Until then I'll keep trucking along with my D750 and Ninja Blade. Really looking forward to everything though! Thanks again everyone for all of your input.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just get the MKII with one lens, then just add to you collection as your budget allows?
 
Just wanted to revive this a bit more again now that I'm getting so close (just a couple weeks) away from making my purchase. I'm once again on the debate of a C100 MKII vs a C100 MKI w/DPAF, influenced by a couple of recent developments, one of the main ones being my coworker decided to gift me his 17-55/2.8 as he got rid of his old Canon APS-C DSLR!

My current lineup for the C100 MKII is looking like the kit that comes with the 18-135, and additionally the 10-18 and 70-200/4 IS, plus the free 17-55.

I know a lot of you seem to still be shooting with and loving your MKIs, and this being my first cine camera as an upgrade from my DSLR (Nikon D750), I think that says something about what someone like me will get out of even the MKI. The question is, if I'm still going to put that extra $1k into gear alongside the C100, what's going to make it worth my while to not just get the MKII? I could spring for the 70-200/2.8, put more money into audio and lighting, etc. Another option that would fit inside that extra $1k would be a Glidecam, but I'm already budgeting to get a Letus Helix Jr this summer. I also already have a Ninja Blade that I use with my D750, so I wouldn't need to put in any additional money to shore up the viewfinder on the MK1.

My current list of non-camera gear within the same budget already includes an Audio Technica AT875R to live on the camera permanently, a Sennheiser MKH-416 or MKH-8060, and a RodeLink Filmmaker with a Sanken COS-11D, so I think I'm already sitting pretty good audio-wise. I already have an Audix SCX1-HC for indoor dialogue, and my budget also already includes a Westcott Ice Light to use alongside my set of three Aputure Amarans.

To give a little more context, what I've been shooting so far with my D750 has been mostly corporate video at work. I'm a software engineer but my company generously indulges me the opportunity to do video work whenever it comes up for internal stuff, and I'm even starting an internal video channel now for training videos. My plans outside of work with video are looking firmly towards documentary (I have no interest in narrative, ENG, weddings/events, etc.), hence the leaning towards zooms. The C100 is going to be my real plunge gear-wise into video, and so I'm considering it a tool for me to really get into filmmaking and learn the ropes over the next couple years, without having to fight my DSLR setup like I've been doing with the D750. Anything I do on my own will be distributed for web, and my workstation at home would not support 4K with no plans on upgrading in the near future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top