Camera upgrade recommendations?

roxics

roxics

Veteran
Still working with my trusty old C100s for client shoots, but I'm getting the itch to upgrade to something else. No push from clients. I mostly work as an editor these days but do get a handful of smaller shoots every year.
Figured I should probably get something that does 4K. Looking to stick to around the $1500 used range give or take.

Here's what I'm considering:
Canon C200
Canon C300 mkII
Sony FS7mkII
Sony FS5MkII
Sony F55
Sony F5

I may be reaching with those last two in terms of what I need versus what they do. But I thought I would check into them. The F55 does have global shutter, that could be nice.

Things to keep in mind, I've been working with 8bit 4:2:0 footage for my entire twenty year career and DV (NTSC 8bit 4:1:1) before then. While I have cut 10bit footage and worked with raw photo files, anything like that would be new to me when shooting video and I'm not sure it's necessary, although it might be nice to have and try out.
Right now I have Canon EF-S lenses but not many. But it would be nice to keep using them and not have to buy new lenses.

What I want:
EVF
Built-in NDs
UHD and/or 4K (as an option along side good 1080p)

What I shoot:
Mostly web videos for organizations that end up on YT and Vimeo and embedded in their websites.
Videos shown at events.
Political videos during election years used on social media and at events.
I shot one short film a couple years back, may do it again. Used to do it all the time twenty years ago. Would like to get back into it as a hobby.
My typical setup is tripod based but also run and gun at events, either on a tripod or monopod or sometimes handheld.

What do you guys think? Right now I'm just thinking it over and figured I would get some input from others. These are older cameras that some off you will probably have used for years and maybe even many of them, so getting your first hand experience/opinions could be helpful.
 
Last edited:
So here is the current thoughts.

C200 I think might be the best match for me.
It offers HD at a slimmer 8bit 4:2:0 size similer to what I'm used to with my C100mki while also giving me the option of UHD/4K at 150Mbps. But also 10/12bit RAW if I decided to do another short film.
It gives same 60p recording which my C100 mkI doesn't have.
Better EVF and better LCD screen.
Still uses SD cards.
Similar form factor (though larger).
On-body XLR and Mic vs C100 mkI

C300mkII would give me 10bit recording but loses 60p as a trade off. Also not sure I like the top LCD screen design.

FS7mkI/II was an industry workhorse that people swore by for years and I've cut footage off of it (and FS5), but I don't own any Sony lenses and its a new platform for me. I haven't owned or shot with a Sony video camera in 25 years. I could love it or hate it.
FS5mkI/II simialr to the FS7 but smaller and less features, but might be a better size for me. Same drawbacks though. Prices between these four models today are so similar though.

F5/55 - I think these appeal to the indie filmmaker in me and the image quality is nice, but I'm not sure how practical they would be for me. All new everything, including memory cards and accessories and it seems like I can kiss my small files sizes I'm used to goodbye. But I am very intrigued. Just not sure if I would be biting off more than I can chew.
 
If you are comfortable in the Canon ecosystem there is an argument to be made for sticking within it. Especially for keeping the cost of upgrading as low as possible. This is doubly true regarding media. Lens and media purchases will easily double or triple what you spend on the camera body.

We use Canon C300 mkII's at work (in addition to a C70 and C80) and it's definitely not my favorite body to shoot with. But I'm also not wild about the quasi-DSLR style body of the C70/C80. I've never used a C200 so I can't comment there. The biggest drawback for you regarding the C300 mkII (in my view) is that you'd have to buy all new media and the camera lacks a lightweight 4K codec. Also it will do 60p, though I'm not sure if does 4K60p (60p might be HD limited). Also I don't believe there are any good slow-mo options. But it produces a great image and is a workhorse.

That said, if you'd like an Fs5 I'm currently selling mine for $800! (It's mark I but it does have the RAW upgrade.) But the Fs5 (both versions) is very easy to source these days, and well under $1500. You can pretty easily find them sub $1000 if you look around.
 
Those are good used camera choices/options that you listed for sure. Lots of potential winners.

Agreed on staying with Canon since you already have Canon EF lenses. You have basically listed out all of the pros and cons to a T.

I previously owned the C200 and it was a great camera for me. I used it on a ton of shoots and I was always pleased with the image.

I mostly shot in the Canon RAW codec since I would typically be editing my own material. If you're able to do the same then the RAW image out of the C200 looks great. I also shot the 8-bit on occasion and it still had a really nice image as long as you are able to light, don't clip the highlights, etc.

Eventually the reason I sold it was because it didn't have a 4k, 4:2:2 10 bit image option and I was needing to hand off footage more and more to other editors who didn't want to deal with the RAW.

If you need to hand footage off to other people more than you'll be editing stuff yourself, then the C300 II may be a better choice, IMO.
 
Have you ever considered a camcorder? Used XF605s may be in your budget. I shot this event with my Canon XF605 in UHD 422 10Bit 30p.

 
roxics said:
Still working with my trusty old C100s for client shoots, but I'm getting the itch to upgrade to something else. No push from clients. I mostly work as an editor these days but do get a handful of smaller shoots every year.
Figured I should probably get something that does 4K. Looking to stick to around the $1500 used range give or take.

Here's what I'm considering:
Canon C200
Canon C300 mkII
Sony FS7mkII
Sony FS5MkII
Sony F55
Sony F5

I may be reaching with those last two in terms of what I need versus what they do. But I thought I would check into them. The F55 does have global shutter, that could be nice.

Things to keep in mind, I've been working with 8bit 4:2:0 footage for my entire twenty year career and DV (NTSC 8bit 4:1:1) before then. While I have cut 10bit footage and worked with raw photo files, anything like that would be new to me when shooting video and I'm not sure it's necessary, although it might be nice to have and try out.
Right now I have Canon EF-S lenses but not many. But it would be nice to keep using them and not have to buy new lenses.

What I want:
EVF
Built-in NDs
UHD and/or 4K (as an option along side good 1080p)

What I shoot:
Mostly web videos for organizations that end up on YT and Vimeo and embedded in their websites.
Videos shown at events.
Political videos during election years used on social media and at events.
I shot one short film a couple years back, may do it again. Used to do it all the time twenty years ago. Would like to get back into it as a hobby.
My typical setup is tripod based but also run and gun at events, either on a tripod or monopod or sometimes handheld.

What do you guys think? Right now I'm just thinking it over and figured I would get some input from others. These are older cameras that some off you will probably have used for years and maybe even many of them, so getting your first hand experience/opinions could be helpful.
Click to expand...
For the price you can buy them for I think a shoutout to the evergreen FS7 models, especially the MkII are worth a look at. I still keep one as every now, and again I have broadcast clients who still insist on the old XDCam 50-mbit 4:2:2 HD interlace footage for quick hand off. I can't do that with the FX6. With a decent matrix set up, the FS7s still deliver a very decent picture. If you are not super familiar with the FS7 this video goes over the pluses and minuses of both the Mk I and II versions. Might be worth a watch.

Chris Young

 
I would consider this before changing cameras..

"I hate my C100 becuase.."

If you dont hate your C100, keep it. Buy another one.

If you think the c100 AF is poor the FS7 is not your solution, if you want long roll time 4k.. the fs7 might be your solution

If you think the 8 bit of the C100 is a bit sht the 12bit raw of the C200 might be your solution.. but not if you want long roll times

If you hate the XLR on the monitor christmas tree design.. the C300ii is NOT your solution but the C200 is.

As cameras have got more modern and more costly things to hate are melting away.
C300iii and C500ii are kind of good.. if had cheap enough .. not much too hate there - just no 24-105 2.8 to lust over.

Actually almost good cameras..
The FX6.. XLR, ND, thin 4k codec, functional AF body IS
The C400 XLR, nd many codecs, functional AF (no body IS)
both miss an evf for the sunny days

These are cameras I do not hate, entirely.

--

The R3 and R5c might be 'enough' and super light to carry.
Same with some sony mirrorless

--

Im lost as 'where to be' - maybe kind of a sticks camera with XLR and a floatabout broll .. a mirrorless.
The C400 is a bit too big to float about with!

No one sells a camera I lust over. I guess that would be a C80 with R1 size evf... maybe its called the FX2.
 
Last edited:
I still use a C100ii occasionally on a gimbal and with a teleprompter. Thought about upgrading it last month to a C70 but I (somehow) kept my GAS in check because work is a bit thin on the ground at the moment. Main camera is a C300iii and that does everything I need but the downside is it's quite bulky and heavy when rigged.

I have a C200 as B camera and I'm happy enough with the 8 bit image from it for corporate work, pretty much everything I do ends up on social media. I very occasionally use RAW if the location has difficult lighting. If your clients are ok with the image from a C100 then the C200 is a great move.
 
So many great replies.
drboffa said:
If you are comfortable in the Canon ecosystem there is an argument to be made for sticking within it. Especially for keeping the cost of upgrading as low as possible. This is doubly true regarding media. Lens and media purchases will easily double or triple what you spend on the camera body.

That said, if you'd like an Fs5 I'm currently selling mine for $800! (It's mark I but it does have the RAW upgrade.) But the Fs5 (both versions) is very easy to source these days, and well under $1500. You can pretty easily find them sub $1000 if you look around.
Click to expand...
Very true. That seems like a good price on the FS5. Honestly I don't know enough about the differences between those cameras mkI and II. Or that camera in general. I'll have to look into it more, but like you said, there is an argument to be made sticking with the canon ecosystem.

DustinSchmidt said:
Those are good used camera choices/options that you listed for sure. Lots of potential winners.

Agreed on staying with Canon since you already have Canon EF lenses. You have basically listed out all of the pros and cons to a T.

I previously owned the C200 and it was a great camera for me. I used it on a ton of shoots and I was always pleased with the image.

I mostly shot in the Canon RAW codec since I would typically be editing my own material. If you're able to do the same then the RAW image out of the C200 looks great. I also shot the 8-bit on occasion and it still had a really nice image as long as you are able to light, don't clip the highlights, etc.

Eventually the reason I sold it was because it didn't have a 4k, 4:2:2 10 bit image option and I was needing to hand off footage more and more to other editors who didn't want to deal with the RAW.

If you need to hand footage off to other people more than you'll be editing stuff yourself, then the C300 II may be a better choice, IMO.
Click to expand...
Does the C200 have a 10bit 1080p image? I don't think it does but I may have missed that. I know it's 8bit 4:2:0 for 4K unless shooting raw. I'm fine with that. It is a little extreme on both ends, but we know they did that not to hurt C300 sales. Which is unfortunate.
I'm the one doing the editing 99.9% of the time. I think only once or twice I had to hand some b-roll off years ago. I'm usually the editor getting the footage handed off to me from other videographers around the country. Surprisingly most of the time that's still 1080p 8bit and sometimes 10bit.
So I'm not worried about having a camera where I quickly hand off footage.

nutmegger said:
Have you ever considered a camcorder? Used XF605s may be in your budget. I shot this event with my Canon XF605 in UHD 422 10Bit 30p.

Click to expand...

I used to shoot with Sony and Canon camcorders all the way back to the video 8mm days and through DV and HDV. But it's hard to go back once you get used to a bigger sensor and interchangeable lenses. Though I still have some nostalgia for them.


cyvideo said:
For the price you can buy them for I think a shoutout to the evergreen FS7 models, especially the MkII are worth a look at. I still keep one as every now, and again I have broadcast clients who still insist on the old XDCam 50-mbit 4:2:2 HD interlace footage for quick hand off. I can't do that with the FX6. With a decent matrix set up, the FS7s still deliver a very decent picture. If you are not super familiar with the FS7 this video goes over the pluses and minuses of both the Mk I and II versions. Might be worth a watch.

Chris Young

Click to expand...
C200 aside, the FS7 is probably the second camera on my list. Though I'm concerned about size, weight, media type, etc. But the price seems right and people seem to swear by them, aside from some color adjustments needing to be made, which is no big deal. So that is definitely a top contender.
But it's not just me that has to get used to the new camera, a couple of my videographers would as well, and they are used to the C100 and I feel like the C200 would be easier on them. Not sure yet.

morgan_moore said:
I would consider this before changing cameras..

"I hate my C100 becuase.."

If you dont hate your C100, keep it. Buy another one.

If you think the c100 AF is poor the FS7 is not your solution, if you want long roll time 4k.. the fs7 might be your solution

If you think the 8 bit of the C100 is a bit sht the 12bit raw of the C200 might be your solution.. but not if you want long roll times

If you hate the XLR on the monitor christmas tree design.. the C300ii is NOT your solution but the C200 is.

As cameras have got more modern and more costly things to hate are melting away.
C300iii and C500ii are kind of good.. if had cheap enough .. not much too hate there - just no 24-105 2.8 to lust over.

Actually almost good cameras..
The FX6.. XLR, ND, thin 4k codec, functional AF body IS
The C400 XLR, nd many codecs, functional AF (no body IS)
both miss an evf for the sunny days

These are cameras I do not hate, entirely.

--

The R3 and R5c might be 'enough' and super light to carry.
Same with some sony mirrorless

--

Im lost as 'where to be' - maybe kind of a sticks camera with XLR and a floatabout broll .. a mirrorless.
The C400 is a bit too big to float about with!

No one sells a camera I lust over. I guess that would be a C80 with R1 size evf... maybe its called the FX2.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't feel like I do enough shoots each year to afford/merit a newer more expensive camera. As it is, the ones I initially listed would be an upgrade over my 2012 era C100s. Which I don't hate at all. I'm jut thinking it might be time for an upgrade, and even then I'm not totally sold on this idea yet. I'm just looking around.


Kubicixfactor said:
I still use a C100ii occasionally on a gimbal and with a teleprompter. Thought about upgrading it last month to a C70 but I (somehow) kept my GAS in check because work is a bit thin on the ground at the moment. Main camera is a C300iii and that does everything I need but the downside is it's quite bulky and heavy when rigged.

I have a C200 as B camera and I'm happy enough with the 8 bit image from it for corporate work, pretty much everything I do ends up on social media. I very occasionally use RAW if the location has difficult lighting. If your clients are ok with the image from a C100 then the C200 is a great move.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if I need to do the same with keeping my GAS in check. I'm usually very good about that. Focusing on what I need to get the job done rather than what I want and no one is calling for. Technically I have one client I do a handful of shoots for each year, the rest of my clients are just editing jobs, and he's of no concern that we're still using C100s. It doesn't seem to bother him and he still likes the results and so does his organization. So I question if I'm just throwing money away upgrading even to an older used camera like the one's I've listed. And especially what they will cost me in hard drive storage, where jumping to 4K is going to run me 4-6 times my storage space at minimum, and that's assuming I'm shooting 8bit 4K at 100-150Mbps. Technically I have an old GH4 that can do that and I stopped using it in 4K mode years ago because it was costing me too much hard drive space. I can only imagine what 600Mbps XAVC-I or worse 12bit Canon raw light would do to me. Yet part of me is intrigued. But another part of me knows I get by fine without heavy grades or chromakeying so what do I need 10 or 12 bit heavier files for? Even 4K?

This all may be for nothing. But I figured I made some good money on some recent jobs and thought I might consider an upgrade now while have the spare coin for it. But I may just be spinning my wheels. Still thinking about it, but definitely leaning more toward the C200 or FS7 if I do. More the C200.
 
nutmegger said:
Have you ever considered a camcorder?
Click to expand...
I second that suggestion. Based on the OP's own comments and questions, I'd steer him towards a Sony NX800 (or Z200). It ticks all his boxes and would be relatively simple and fool-proof to master, while providing image quality that is just as good as many of the more complicated options being suggested. It's ready to go right out of the box without messing with a bunch of extra lenses or other accessories, and has better AF than any other video camera. I use my Z200 more than my FX6, F55, Z750, and FS7 combined.
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
You're crazy!! I've never heard anything so outrageous.

(I hope that is the reaction you wanted)

You're crazy!! I've never heard anything so outrageous.

(I hope that is the reaction you expected. Happy to help out anytime.)
Click to expand...
I only ever wanted a simple large format camera.

I hated the 5d because it cut ths shot when the hdmni wobbled losing me an interview.
I hated the FS100 when I shot in super sunny portugal with no ND filter (internal) and a base of 1000
I hated the F3 as I could not pick it up by the time I had added a 2012 1080 monitor and 10 bit recorder
I hated the FS7 becausee of the mushy screen and various menu snafus.. like a total restart to engage HFR
I struggle with the AF on my C200 and the thing caning 256gb in 20 mins
I like my R6.. apart from the jello lack of ND, lack of photo video switch.
Each increment is a bit less uselss than the camera before :)

You will note I have not hated on not getting 500FPS 8k for $2k,, its the basic menu and ergonomic errors that do me.

S
 
Well, I've been shooting a of video lately with my A1, and I'm getting a lot more comfortable being away from the cine/camcorder ergonomics. If it had a rotatable VF like the new FX2 it would be pretty damn near perfect for my needs when traveling. It turns out you can teach an old Doug new tricks.

I've got a four-month 14,000 mile road trip to Canada and Alaska coming up, and between the A1 and the Z200 I feel like I've got 95% of my bases covered. With my Action5. Osmo3, and Mavic2 rounding out the other 5%. Can't wait to hit the road at the end of the month.
 
The C200 would probably be the easiest upgrade from the C100. I never loved that camera, but I shot everything in raw lite and I found the footage too noisy above ISO 200. The H264/AVCHD workflow is much simpler.

Too bad that the C70 falls out of your price range because to me, that is the true spiritual successor to the C100. From my first shoot with it, I knew that it was going to be a five-year camera for me. It might actually end up being 7 or 8.
 
QuickHitRecord said:
that is the true spiritual successor to the C100
Click to expand...
My GAS is re-ignited now :D One thing that really made me stop and think with the C70 (and C80) is no EVF. In my desperation to justify buying one I looked at how easily I could mount my Gratical Eye to it and then realised I'd be hanging a load of stuff off the body and defeating the object of having a lightweight alternative to my old C100ii. Wondering how everyone who works with a C70 gets on with just using the screen?
 
As a c200 owner.. I can say that the EVF is a total win vs the C70,C80 and almost C400 (which would be better if one could evf the stock screen)

I cannot see a C70 or C80 'working' in a professional environment.
 
Doug Jensen said:
A1, and I'm getting a lot more comfortable being away from the cine/camcorder ergonomics. If it had a rotatable VF like the new FX2 it would be pretty damn near perfect for my needs when traveling. It turns out you can teach an old Doug new tricks.
Click to expand...

So maybe you are swinging my way that a small camera with good EVF (and some body stabilisation) is fast becoming the sweet spot!
 
Here are the three tracks. My feel is that the rode mics are being saturated in the bay and by the exhaust pip and they are the wrong mics.
Maybe the C200 cant record.. but my 'feel' is that it is recording bad sound from the mics well.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top