C100: Canon C100 Mark II Announced 60P, New VF, & New OLED Panel Texas Media Systems

dustylense said:
There is not, nor will there ever be, a single definitive camera that does it all.
Click to expand...
Dusty speaks the truth. Either buy it or don't! Canon C100 still get's the job done! If you want the C100 MK II, it's only $5500. You can get $3800-$4000 for your used C100 on ebay. I'll use my C100 until NAB 2015. Shoot Now, Make Money Shooting Now, Enjoy Life Shooting Now! No Whining about Cameras!
 
dustylense said:
There is not, nor will there ever be, a single definitive camera that does it all.
Click to expand...
Well, I recommend you to try the AMIRA.

It's A-M-A-Z-I-N-G.

And it does it all. Run and Gun, Commercials, and Drama/Film. HD, 200fps, 2K, 4K. Simple to operate, stunning images, stupidly simple workflow.
 
jindrich said:
Well, I recommend you to try the AMIRA.

It's A-M-A-Z-I-N-G.

And it does it all. Run and Gun, Commercials, and Drama/Film. HD, 200fps, 2K, 4K. Simple to operate, stunning images, stupidly simple workflow.
Click to expand...


It it does it all except 1 thing...

...be affordable for most small businesses.
 
I've been loving the look of the BM camera since we started using them several months ago.
But this new Canon looks really attractive. I've always really liked producing with their cameras - great look, solid and dependable.

Yes, put ProRes in there and it would be pretty irresistible for me re production and post.
But still, if the image is as good as it likely will be, that could be largely academic most of the time and for those times (we do a good deal of green screen too) then shoot the BMs.
But with the improved VF and monitor and 60p, the new C100 is probably about as comprehensive a 1080 production tool as has been made.

The Amira is amazing, but even owning a pretty busy creative/production firm, I could never justify owning one.
I'll rent one on the occasion where it's needed, but this new C100 is a definite "own a couple" if you're producing 1080p exclusively, as we are for broadcast, cable and web.
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
It it does it all except 1 thing...

...be affordable for most small businesses.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Like I said, there never will be a perfect camera. Just lots to chose from. That is the key word. Chose. Chose the one that works "with" you. For many people, the C100 MK1 fills that bill. For others, the Sony F55. For some, the Amira. So many cameras of awesome quality at different price ranges and all I read is "yeah but it can't do and should cost". BS! These are the people I refer as ones that think the camera is going to make them better visual artists. But yet they all want it at Top Ramen prices. Guess what guys and gals. It's a free market. If you don't like any of these cameras, why groan about it? Buy the one you're comparing it to and go out and shoot. Just be careful though. The one you buy won't automatically make your images interesting. Pick the one that has the specs that fit your style and go out and use it.
 
GH4 + Speedbooster vs Canon C100 Mark II?

Pros vs Cons?

The only ones I can think of is the lack of dual pixel AF for the GH4, lack of redundant recording and it doesn't have higher ISO. Depth from defocus technique is inferior in my opinion.
 
ectobuilder said:
GH4 + Speedbooster vs Canon C100 Mark II?

Pros vs Cons?

The only ones I can think of is the lack of dual pixel AF for the GH4, lack of redundant recording and it doesn't have higher ISO. Depth from defocus technique is inferior in my opinion.
Click to expand...

C100 pros over gh4:

You might consider great color science, C-log, built in NDs, XLR ports, full size HDMI ports, ergonomics (built in top handle), the ability to seamlessly match with 2 other cameras that are some of the most rented cameras in the industry, great native glass options that don't require investments in adapters (that can also break), superior low light resolution, and good dynamic range (in c-log), native 35mm sensor, and the ability to use optically stabilized lenses (not sure if that works on the GH4).


edit: Oops...I just saw it was a comparison with the Mark II. So all of that...plus the upgrades.


c100 cons over GH4

no 4k internal
limited high frame rate (60i workaround)
more expensive
 
Last edited:
Let's see.

C100 over the GH4:

-more professional inputs/outputs. Tougher in hot climates and rough usage.
-more ergonomic body, size, better buttons, top handle, manual controls and feel and look overall
-XLR inputs and good audio internally
-Internal ND filters
-tiltable EVF and waveform option
-dual media recording to two SD cards
-LUTs applied to full HDMI output for monitoring (also in-camera LCD)
-HDMI triggers external recorders.
-dual pixel AF
-Better log mode. (Cinelike D is terrible)
-Super 35mm sensor. Vs m43s(over non-speedboosted gh4)
-significantly better high ISO performance
-higher dynamic range, about 1 to two stops.
-significantly less rolling shutter
-internal 4K to 1080p downsample, fast jobs like this.
-Better reputation for clients and looks better for them. It's a factor to consider.

GH4 over C100 mk II
-Smaller size and weight, better for low key shooting
-internal 4K recording for post downsample and or/reframing
-96p over crank mode (very low quality though)
-4:3 mode for 4k anamorphic shooting
-10 bit output via HDMI vs 8 bit.
-smaller battery yet lasts longer
-weather sealed so can take a bit of rain
-m43s mount is adaptable to more lenses than Canon EF.
-Takes 16mp stills.
-Lower price, about half.


I think that's it. I left the subjective things like canon's colour science and filmic feel of the image, it's purely personal.
 
Last edited:
This is interesting. A friend at Canon claims a more-than-expected image quality increase compared to mk I and c300, in all sharpness, aliasing/moire performance, high ISO noise, compression artefacts and colour fidelity.

From what I could understand the difference is this, On the mk I, the four (R, G1, G2, B) components were combined and scaled down directly to 1080p, while on this mk II, the R channel is interpolated to form a full 4K red image, the B channel is interpolated to full 4K blue image, and the two G channels are combined and interpolared to a full 4k green channel, then the 3 4K images are combined and scaled down to 1080p.

He says it's due to the signifcantly more powerful Digic IV processor that cam perform fast interpolation, upscaling and high quality super sampling.

no idea whether this is true or not, but I trust the guy for what it's worth.
 
The C100 was a great step up from DSLR's with its XLR's and video camera features like peaking/zebras etc.

But i'm selling my C100 and going for the FS7. Hand held the C100 just doesn't cut it without a rig. The FS7 ticks all my boxes so its bye bye little C100 :)

And all this 4K talk just is overload who really needs 4K ..maybe in a few yrs but for now who cares.
 
BeeHop said:
Hand held the C100 just doesn't cut it without a rig.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate, since the C series seems to be the only camera designed for no-rig shooting in mind: Side grip and "broad and high" form factor.
Granted, the C100 is considerable worse than the C300, since you cannot really use the LCD, when "locking" the camera between shoulder and chin.
But this could be handled via a 5" mounted from the top handle - still no "rig" in my book.
Also, since this is about the MarkII, the better EVF will eliminate this problem anyway (while I think the V1's EVF with peaking and DAF, is rocking it already...).
 
With the original C100, with its questionable viewfinder, I agree that hand holding was difficult since the viewfinder is a much needed point of contact.

If the new mkII viewfinder is usable, then I'd say the C100 mkII will work well without additional support.
 
Curnsie said:
From an an outsiders point of view the Mark 2 is a very attractive proposition especially if you are a "Canon look" fan with its clean 1080p image up to 60p plus the new evf and lcd. I believe there's interesting days ahead for the EOS Cinema line.
Click to expand...

+1, absolutely a fan and ready to pick one up when released.
 
ectobuilder said:
GH4 + Speedbooster vs Canon C100 Mark II?

Pros vs Cons?

The only ones I can think of is the lack of dual pixel AF for the GH4, lack of redundant recording and it doesn't have higher ISO. Depth from defocus technique is inferior in my opinion.
Click to expand...
The Micro HDMI on the GH4 is awful. I've already had one camera fail and returned it. Now my other one is cutting out. Both live in a cage with clamp. I have a micro to HDMI adapter in the camera and lock it down. I like the GH4 a lot but if you need to monitor or want to use an external recorder often it wont hold up.
 
jindrich said:
Well, I recommend you to try the AMIRA.

It's A-M-A-Z-I-N-G.

And it does it all. Run and Gun, Commercials, and Drama/Film. HD, 200fps, 2K, 4K. Simple to operate, stunning images, stupidly simple workflow.
Click to expand...

AMIRA's a great camera but it's hardly a panacea. Just some of the issues: the 4K is uprezzed, it's ISO challenged (compared to Canon & Sony), & the body lacks numerous features of the ALEXA, including a RUN button on the dumb-side. Also ARRI should offer a Smart Grip.
 
Last edited:
Spartacus said:
Please elaborate, since the C series seems to be the only camera designed for no-rig shooting in mind:
Click to expand...
Only really for short shots. They're "box" cameras, not "cat" cameras, designed for your arms to hold all the weight in space vs. being supported by your body via draping over a shoulder. Works for some things, but in many situations a C-camera still very much benefits from rigging.
 
mcbob said:
Only really for short shots. They're "box" cameras, not "cat" cameras, designed for your arms to hold all the weight in space vs. being supported by your body via draping over a shoulder. Works for some things, but in many situations a C-camera still very much benefits from rigging.
Click to expand...

I have always felt the C series was terrible for shoulder rigging because you need to access buttons on the back forcing you to keep the camera ahead of of your shoulder not on your shoulder. Also having the audio level pots on the furthest forward and highest part of the body made audio adjustments on the fly a pain for me. This is why I was blown away with the FS7 its the answer to most of my C series body complaints.
 
Erik Naso said:
The Micro HDMI on the GH4 is awful. I've already had one camera fail and returned it. Now my other one is cutting out. Both live in a cage with clamp. I have a micro to HDMI adapter in the camera and lock it down. I like the GH4 a lot but if you need to monitor or want to use an external recorder often it wont hold up.
Click to expand...

Eric, you need a YAAAGH! Said with a sly grin <8-)

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