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

[puredrifting]

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.

Based upon your needs, I too would hold off on a gimbal. They are cool and flavor of the month for sure but I only use mine for very specific situations like shooting Marilu Henner and Derek Hough for a piece I did with Dancing with the Stars for a sponsor. For that coverage, the gimbal was essential but I shoot a lot of interviews and shoulder mounted hand held with my C100 where a gimbal just wouldnt work as well. You have probably seen by now that gimbals are a creative tool and can be used is many ways but they have a "look" that may or may not work for a given project. In this business, in general, think about it this way.

1. Cameras are disposable and a terrible value. They are not an investment these days for most, they are a necessary expense.
2. One of your best actual investments is grip and lighting gear. It doesn't change that much, although it does continue to evolve and refine, but my Arri Softbank IV kit I bought in the mid-90s is just as usable today as it was 20 years ago. OTOH, my Betacam I paid $70k for the same year is stitting in a landfill somewhere. Take the long view, grip and lighting is necessary and useful and you can charge good money for it and it rarely breaks, doesn't need firmware updates and is rarely outdated to the point of uselessness, unlike cameras and computers.
3. Glass. It is so important to the quality of your image. If you buy the right ones, Canon EF lenses are a smart purchase, glass will last you your next half dozen cameras, possibly longer. Personally I avoid third party still lenses as their value plummets quickly, they generally have lousy resale, although functionally they can be great (Tokina and Sigma ART lenses are great) but their resale will generally suck in a couple of years compared to Canon desirable glass. I am talking about still lenses here. Of course, when you step up to cinema glass, then most all of it is good with decent to great resale value.
4. Believe it or not, audio gear is generally a good investment. Especially quality microphones and microphpone support gear like mounts, zeppelins and boompoles, IF you buy the right stuff. Unfortunately audio recorders are starting to become like cameras, they outdate fairly quickly. Sound Devices introduces a new recorder/mixer at least once a year and once it is out on the market, you need the new model that all of the cool kids are using to keep up. Good audio is not cheap either. Figure $4,000.00 minimum and probably more for a good recorder/mixer. A good shotgun or cardioid mic is easily $1,500.00, wired lavs are $500.00 for the cool Sankens or DPAs. Wireless mics, the industry standard is Lectrosonics and they are going to run you $3k to $5k per channel and you need at least two or three, preferable half a dozen. Then, on top of all of this, add VR audio to the equation and you discover a new sound mixer, starting from scratch, is EASILY into their total gear package for $40k to $50k, abou the same as a camera owner operator if he wants Red, Varicam, C700 level package.

Pertaining to your situation, I would defer to quality glass over a fancier camera, personally.

 

[craftyphotons]

Based upon your needs, I too would hold off on a gimbal. They are cool and flavor of the month for sure but I only use mine for very specific situations like shooting Marilu Henner and Derek Hough for a piece I did with Dancing with the Stars for a sponsor. For that coverage, the gimbal was essential but I shoot a lot of interviews and shoulder mounted hand held with my C100 where a gimbal just wouldnt work as well. You have probably seen by now that gimbals are a creative tool and can be used is many ways but they have a "look" that may or may not work for a given project. In this business, in general, think about it this way.

1. Cameras are disposable and a terrible value. They are not an investment these days for most, they are a necessary expense.
2. One of your best actual investments is grip and lighting gear. It doesn't change that much, although it does continue to evolve and refine, but my Arri Softbank IV kit I bought in the mid-90s is just as usable today as it was 20 years ago. OTOH, my Betacam I paid $70k for the same year is stitting in a landfill somewhere. Take the long view, grip and lighting is necessary and useful and you can charge good money for it and it rarely breaks, doesn't need firmware updates and is rarely outdated to the point of uselessness, unlike cameras and computers.
3. Glass. It is so important to the quality of your image. If you buy the right ones, Canon EF lenses are a smart purchase, glass will last you your next half dozen cameras, possibly longer. Personally I avoid third party still lenses as their value plummets quickly, they generally have lousy resale, although functionally they can be great (Tokina and Sigma ART lenses are great but their resale will generally suck in a couple of years compared to Canon desirable glass. I am talking about still lenses here. Of course, when you step up to cinema glass, then most all of it is good with decent to great resale value.
4. Believe it or not, audio gear is generally a good investment. Especially quality microphones and microphpone support gear like mounts, zeppelins and boompoles, IF you buy the right stuff. Unfortunately audio recorders are starting to become like cameras, they outdate fairly quickly. Sound Devices introduces a new recorder/mixer at least once a year and once it is out on the market, you need the new model that all of the cool kids are using to keep up. Good audio is not cheap either. Figure $4,000.00 minimum and probably more for a good recorder/mixer. A good shotgun or cardioid mic is easily $1,500.00, wired lavs are $500.00 for the cool Sankens or DPAs. Wireless mics, the industry standard is Lectrosonics and they are going to run you $3k to $5k per channel and you need at least two or three, preferable half a dozen. Then, on top of all of this, add VR audio to the equation and you discover a new sound mixer, starting from scratch, is EASILY into their total gear package for $40k to $50k, abou the same as a camera owner operator if he wants Red, Varicam, C700 level package.

Pertaining to your situation, I would defer to quality glass over a fancier camera, personally.

Thanks for the additional advice! I was just playing with the numbers oriented towards audio and realized I could really make a good investment there if I dropped down to the MKI/DPAF. It looks like I could go from a Rodelink + COS-11D and a Sennheiser 8060 all the way up to a Sennheiser AVX + COS11D, a Sanken CS-3e, and a Rode Blimp, which seems like it would make a pretty solid investment.

I definitely learned the value of good grip and lighting gear when I got into photography, and fortunately a lot of the expensive grip equipment that I bought there carries over nicely to heavier duty video work it seems (all of my c-stands, flags, clamps, etc.) Unfortunately the lighting gear I'm invested in there is all strobes, so no use for video! I'm actually very happy with the Aputure Amaran HR672W/S lights that I have, with the currently booked addition of a Westcott Ice Light in my budget.

I'm feeling more and more like it makes sense for me to just put the $3k into the C100 MKI now and put more money into either audio, glass, or both because the camera body is the one thing out of those that's most likely to get cycled out sooner if I make good investments in the other two things like you said.

Generally I still feel pretty good about my base set of lenses that I currently have on the budget: the 18-135, 10-18, and 70-200/4 IS. The 17-55 is in the bag now thanks to my coworker, so the outstanding question I'm asking myself right now is basically, do I spring for a the 70-200/2.8 IS II instead of the 70-200/4 IS, or do I get a really killer audio setup? As most of my shooting right now and for the foreseeable future does not seem to require stopping down below f/4, I'm leaning towards the audio upgrades instead, but interest to hear more opinions on that now that I have a more specific comparison to give

 

[Reggie Brown]

As most of my shooting right now and for the foreseeable future does not seem to require stopping down below f/4

Oh boy, I said the same thing and started investing in f4 lenses (70-200L f4 IS and 16-35L f4 IS). Great lenses, but like one of the other members said, "everyone I know that bought a 70-200 f4 wish they had bought a f2.8", I'm one of those ppl. I figured I'd always shoot at f4 so I would make sure I keep the talent in focus, but now I find myself shooting a f2-f2.8 on my primes. I rarely use my 70-200, but I often use my 16-35 as wider angles receive more light from more directions. Have you considered looking into getting all primes? I bought a 85L 1.2 for the reason of opening the aperture up (or stopping down in this case) to f2.2 on that lens specifically; although I could have did that with the 85 1.8, but I like the colors of the L lenses better...may just be a placebo effect. Anywho, my other primes usually live between f2-2.8. You may think you'll be ok with f4 lenses now, but when you need to open that aperture up to f2.8 you'll instantly get buyers remorse when you can't!

 

[craftyphotons]

Oh boy, I said the same thing and started investing in f4 lenses (70-200L f4 IS and 16-35L f4 IS). Great lenses, but like one of the other members said, "everyone I know that bought a 70-200 f4 wish they had bought a f2.8", I'm one of those ppl. I figured I'd always shoot at f4 so I would make sure I keep the talent in focus, but now I find myself shooting a f2-f2.8 on my primes. I rarely use my 70-200, but I often use my 16-35 as wider angles receive more light from more directions. Have you considered looking into getting all primes? I bought a 85L 1.2 for the reason of opening the aperture up (or stopping down in this case) to f2.2 on that lens specifically; although I could have did that with the 85 1.8, but I like the colors of the L lenses better...may just be a placebo effect. Anywho, my other primes usually live between f2-2.8. You may think you'll be ok with f4 lenses now, but when you need to open that aperture up to f2.8 you'll instantly get buyers remorse when you can't!

That actually leads me back to something I hadn't thought of in awhile! Since I'm going to have the 17-55, 10-18, and the 18-135 for more run-and-gun type scenarios, I wonder if it might just make sense right now to get say, a 35/2 and 85/1.8 instead of the 70-200/4, and then see about that 70-200/2.8 down the road (i.e. later this year). IIRC someone here said they ran with an 85mm for awhile before they got the 70-200/2.8.

 

[puredrifting]

That actually leads me back to something I hadn't thought of in awhile! Since I'm going to have the 17-55, 10-18, and the 18-135 for more run-and-gun type scenarios, I wonder if it might just make sense right now to get say, a 35/2 and 85/1.8 instead of the 70-200/4, and then see about that 70-200/2.8 down the road (i.e. later this year). IIRC someone here said they ran with an 85mm for awhile before they got the 70-200/2.8.

That was me. I ran with the 85mm 1.8 for a few years before I could afford the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I was renting the 70-200 often and finally decided to just buy it and be done with it but the EF 85mm 1.8 was and is a wonderful interview lens.

 

[slidemaster]

Based upon your needs, I too would hold off on a gimbal. They are cool and flavor of the month for sure but I only use mine for very specific situations like shooting Marilu Henner and Derek Hough for a piece I did with Dancing with the Stars for a sponsor. For that coverage, the gimbal was essential but I shoot a lot of interviews and shoulder mounted hand held with my C100 where a gimbal just wouldnt work as well. You have probably seen by now that gimbals are a creative tool and can be used is many ways but they have a "look" that may or may not work for a given project. In this business, in general, think about it this way.

1. Cameras are disposable and a terrible value. They are not an investment these days for most, they are a necessary expense.
2. One of your best actual investments is grip and lighting gear. It doesn't change that much, although it does continue to evolve and refine, but my Arri Softbank IV kit I bought in the mid-90s is just as usable today as it was 20 years ago. OTOH, my Betacam I paid $70k for the same year is stitting in a landfill somewhere. Take the long view, grip and lighting is necessary and useful and you can charge good money for it and it rarely breaks, doesn't need firmware updates and is rarely outdated to the point of uselessness, unlike cameras and computers.
3. Glass. It is so important to the quality of your image. If you buy the right ones, Canon EF lenses are a smart purchase, glass will last you your next half dozen cameras, possibly longer. Personally I avoid third party still lenses as their value plummets quickly, they generally have lousy resale, although functionally they can be great (Tokina and Sigma ART lenses are great) but their resale will generally suck in a couple of years compared to Canon desirable glass. I am talking about still lenses here. Of course, when you step up to cinema glass, then most all of it is good with decent to great resale value.
4. Believe it or not, audio gear is generally a good investment. Especially quality microphones and microphpone support gear like mounts, zeppelins and boompoles, IF you buy the right stuff. Unfortunately audio recorders are starting to become like cameras, they outdate fairly quickly. Sound Devices introduces a new recorder/mixer at least once a year and once it is out on the market, you need the new model that all of the cool kids are using to keep up. Good audio is not cheap either. Figure $4,000.00 minimum and probably more for a good recorder/mixer. A good shotgun or cardioid mic is easily $1,500.00, wired lavs are $500.00 for the cool Sankens or DPAs. Wireless mics, the industry standard is Lectrosonics and they are going to run you $3k to $5k per channel and you need at least two or three, preferable half a dozen. Then, on top of all of this, add VR audio to the equation and you discover a new sound mixer, starting from scratch, is EASILY into their total gear package for $40k to $50k, abou the same as a camera owner operator if he wants Red, Varicam, C700 level package.

Pertaining to your situation, I would defer to quality glass over a fancier camera, personally.

I agree!

 

[craftyphotons]

Well my budget at work that I proposed for some AV equipment for doing internal training videos and such got approved and I'm now the proud overseer of a C100 MKI/DPAF at the office Much better than having to rent it to see if it's what I really want for my own camera, but now I know for sure. I'm getting a C100 MKI!

P.S. The EVF on this thing is indeed terrible but that's my only complaint and something I expected from reading about it everywhere

Now to make some final decisions on glass for my personal C100...