C100: Canon C100 Setup Overview
- Thread starter perrostar
- Start date
Thanks for posting the article.
Shared it on the Texas Media Systems Facebook page and on the Canon C100 Facebook page.
Shared it on the Texas Media Systems Facebook page and on the Canon C100 Facebook page.
cpreston
Veteran
That's quite a setup. I started reading the blog post and what immediately made me pause was this: But you know, these cameras aren’t really workable without third party accessories. I have always looked at the C100/C300 as maybe the only large chip cameras for which this wasn't the case.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
The 300 yes. The c100's vf is abysmal and you need either an external vf or monitor to really make it work.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
It also depends on what you want out of the camera. I like the C100 for it's form factor and that you can get such a good image out of a relatively small and affordable camera. Add on $10,000 of accessories and it's no longer small or affordable.
If you're looking to replace a much more expensive ENG style camera, then yeah…adding on all the rigging and bits and bobs will get you there and probably even cheaper/better.
If you're looking to replace a much more expensive ENG style camera, then yeah…adding on all the rigging and bits and bobs will get you there and probably even cheaper/better.
sonofaresiii
Well-known member
****. i guess i better tell the producers on the job i worked last week that they need to trash all their footage, since the camera wasn't working due to not having an external vf on it. i mean, they sure seemed to like what we ended up with but i'll make sure to let them know it is, in fact, garbage.
Erik Naso
Veteran
Thats not at all what he meant. His comment was from an operators perspective and I agree 100%. The viewfinder isn't good. Known fact. The image is great known fact. Matt uses the C100 a lot and he has a Red Epic too!
I was "okay" with the LCD most of the time until I used the NinjaBlade and now I wonder how I ever thought the LCD was acceptable. I do still occasionally shoot barebones and use only the LCD of the camera....but the entire time I am thinking how what I am seeing is actually looking almost nothing like what I am recording.....color and exposure wise.
The one benefit of this experience is I now have a better idea on what to "not" trust on the C100 LCD since I know some of it's weaknesses. I never realized how far the image I was seeing on the LCD and the image I would see when editing later were so far apart until now. It is completely usable however.....so it's not a complete waste. But it is highly inaccurate.
The one benefit of this experience is I now have a better idea on what to "not" trust on the C100 LCD since I know some of it's weaknesses. I never realized how far the image I was seeing on the LCD and the image I would see when editing later were so far apart until now. It is completely usable however.....so it's not a complete waste. But it is highly inaccurate.
Tim Nitsch
Well-known member
Last edited:
sonofaresiii
Well-known member
Ohh okay, so I'd better tell the OPERATOR that the camera wasn't working-- no wait, I was operating too. Hm.
Turns out, that maybe the c100 is fantastic in a whole lot of situations and DOESN'T "need" an evf to "work", but that there are situations where it can be useful.
I think we all know what he meant, but my underlying point was that it's getting to be a problem with people talking about all the stuff you "need" to make a camera "work." it's prevalent for any camera, but I see it most with the c100. Yeah, it's a cheaper camera without a lot of additional features the more expensive cameras have. If you need the additional features, go get a more expensive camera. But it works just fine without it, for the jobs it was made for. Because, like I said before, I used it without an evf and still managed to do a damn fine job on a documentary last week-- at least, the producers thought so.