Canon C100 Vs Panasonic AG-AF100

Mikungfu

Mikungfu

Active member
I know that some people may be thinking: Here comes yet another meaningless "this vs that" thread. I know that it all depends on what you need to do and what you want the camera for... But if you read below, you'll understand why I got to this dilemma.

I have had a pair of Panasonic AG-AF100 (101 more precisely) for two years. When these cameras came out they were the first ground breaking game changers "DSLR Killers" but... Throughout these last two years, many other cameras came up, delivering in most cases sharper image, better low light performance and in some cases better codecs and more slow motion options, etc... But nothing convinced me. I still thought that for the price point, my AG-AF100 had the best "bang for the buck" solution, with better form factor, HD-SDI, ND filters, etc... And cheaper than most competitors, some of them lacking ND filters and HD-SDI out (like the FS100).

However, it was when the Canon C300 came out that I thought: Now this is the camera I always wanted!.. But then I realized the huge price difference. Canon always manages to make things more expensive than other brands. It's a known fact.
But then came the C100, and I thought: This is it!.. But then I start noticing: It has the same quality AVCHD codec as the AG-AF100, it has a ridiculous viewfinder, no slow motion and an LCD that sticks out when in use. It is more expensive and uses natively more expensive lenses (EF lenses against the cheaper Micro 4/3).

So let me list the pros and cons of the Canon C100 (please feel free to add):

Canon C100:

* Pros:


  • Larger Sensor (super 35 vs micro 4/3)
  • Sharper Image
  • Better Chip
  • Better Low Light Performance
  • Smaller Form Factor (much easier on hand held)

* Cons:

  • No Variable Frame Rate
  • No continuous Auto-Focus (as the AG-AF100 has over newer Lumix Lenses)
  • Only HDMI Out (No HD-SDI)
  • Fixed and small EVF
  • LCD sticking out when use.



Now, lets forget the price difference for a moment... If I could sell my AG-AF100 and buy a Canon C100 without loosing any money, would this be a good deal?.. Ok, the truth is that I don't use Slow Motion a lot but I do need good low light performance. The codec is pretty much the same in both cameras but... The resulting image seems superior in the Canon, in all aspects! The HDMI of the Canon seems to solve most typical HDMI issues and it does carry time code.

Also to consider is the fact that, if I ever want to sell my AF100 cameras, it has to be now. At the current obsolescence rate, they will be worth half the price in one year... And warranty will be over.

So... Who in my place would sell the AF100 to buy the C100 and why?.. I would like to know your personal opinions even if we all know this depends a lot on what our work is and... Well, on personal tastes. I might as well add that 70% of my work is events and institutional video, while 30% is short Indie Film making and documentary.
 
Last edited:
If you are happy with what the AF100 do for you why change camera? To me the C100 is perfect for anybody that already have a set of EF lenses and want a basic 1080p camera with good quality video.
 
Mikungfu said:
I might as well add that 70% of my work is events and institutional video...
Click to expand...

For event's I wouldn't use neither. For event's I got my trusty HPX171. I never understood why people torture them selfs wit large sensor cameras for shooting events... Okey
I get it, there are some benefits (low light performance being the most important one) but generally for events I want a servo driven lens with a decent throw and I definitely don't want
a shallow DOF. Okey, my opinion aside, I would chose C100. Why? Because of the IQ. It has a LOG like profile and this means the most to me. AF100 is to contrasty And I really dislike how
it handles them highlights. But then again my HPX171 does the same thing and it doesn't stop me from doing events and news conferences, etc. with it.

So I guess that for events and such in your place I would keep the AF100 but for narrative work I would buy the C100. But I would probably be just fine with AF100 for narrative work.
I would upgrade only if the narrative work would pay off.

Look at it like this: both cameras do essentially the same thing - they are both large sensor camcorders - the only difference being is that the C100 does it better.
The question is then do you need the better performance that the C100 offers or not? Remember they both do the same thing. They offer you a S35 FOV and an
S35 shallow DOF and that's it. The difference is that the C100 IQ is better. Do you need it? For documentary work a LOG profile should come in-handy if you ask me.
As for the resolution, if you're not doing work for the big screen I don't see why you would need the extra res that the C100 offers.
 
Last edited:
Our team is shooting with a C100 and the EVF in the shipping model is much better than in the preproduction model I played with. I use it a lot for run and gun. Focus still iffy without peaking but the image is so much better Than the preproduction EVF. also they made it possible to adjust the iris without the hand grip, something lacking in the preproduction model. many small improvements that made me like a camera that I was lukewarm about before.
 
Mikungfu said:
So let me list the pros and cons of the Canon C100 (please feel free to add):

Canon C100:

* Pros:


  • Larger Sensor (super 35 vs micro 4/3)
  • Sharper Image
  • Better Chip
  • Better Low Light Performance
  • Smaller Form Factor (much easier on hand held)
* Cons:

  • No Variable Frame Rate
  • No continuous Auto-Focus (as the AG-AF100 has over newer Lumix Lenses)
  • Only HDMI Out (No HD-SDI)
  • Fixed and small EVF
  • LCD sticking out when use.

as well add that 70% of my work is events and institutional video, while 30% is short Indie Film making and documentary.
Click to expand...

EVF better than on prototype
Continuous auto focus coming next year for STM lenses
HDMI out is locking
LCD is solid enough to mount a Z Finder

Everyone says the C300 is the best doc and event cam, and the C100 inherits the same
 
I took my c100 along with a Zeiss ZE 25mm f2 out all morning today and tested it on Main Street and the Huntington Beach pier.

So light I had no problem holding and using it for hours. Didn't even use a bag. Just carried my camera around like it was a dslr. It was so small, everyone thought it was a dslr. No one questioned me taping even in stores. Managed to get some video of Tito Ortiz and his kids, lol. When I was done my 64GB card was just over a fourth full and and still had over half my battery. Used the Nd filters constantly, and I mean constantly (what a godsend). Looking through the shots, the quality can not be compared to my 7D. So much better.

if you want a rig with movie quality IQ and a profile that is almost invisible, I don't think there's a better camera out there.
 
@ Sfernald
You sounds like a happy customer. Good stuff!

@ philiplipetz
My PM has been blocked. Maybe for being so new. I will check th B&W function on my camera and let you know. Cheers
 
Sfernald said:
I took my c100 along with a Zeiss ZE 25mm f2 out all morning today and tested it on Main Street and the Huntington Beach pier.

So light I had no problem holding and using it for hours. Didn't even use a bag. Just carried my camera around like it was a dslr. It was so small, everyone thought it was a dslr. No one questioned me taping even in stores. Managed to get some video of Tito Ortiz and his kids, lol. When I was done my 64GB card was just over a fourth full and and still had over half my battery. Used the Nd filters constantly, and I mean constantly (what a godsend). Looking through the shots, the quality can not be compared to my 7D. So much better.

if you want a rig with movie quality IQ and a profile that is almost invisible, I don't think there's a better camera out there.
Click to expand...
Nice! Load up some footage.
I used to live on PCH and 8th street down in HB. Say hi to Coach for me.
 
Sfernald said:
I took my c100 along with a Zeiss ZE 25mm f2 out all morning today and tested it on Main Street and the Huntington Beach pier. So light I had no problem holding and using it for hours. Didn't even use a bag. Just carried my camera around like it was a dslr. It was so small, everyone thought it was a dslr. No one questioned me taping even in stores. Managed to get some video of Tito Ortiz and his kids, lol. When I was done my 64GB card was just over a fourth full and and still had over half my battery. Used the Nd filters constantly, and I mean constantly (what a godsend). Looking through the shots, the quality can not be compared to my 7D. So much better.if you want a rig with movie quality IQ and a profile that is almost invisible, I don't think there's a better camera out there.
Click to expand...
If he saw you he would've kicked your behind!
 
I've been struggling with the same question (I have 2x AF100, 1x HMC150, and an AC who has an HPX170). I also have EOS 5Diii and virtually all the L glass up to 200mm. My use case is right now 100% industrial/event and 0% indie/film.

For me, the AF100s are this >< close to having the IQ I could be happy with. I have been reading with interest the thread on the AF100 list that there will be a 10-bit version coming to Japan and possibly the rest of the world at some point, but unless there is also an upgrade to the sensor to get the AF100 from 680 honest lines of resolution to something higher, I'm not sure I want to double-down there. I thought seriously about trading up to the HPX250, which does reach 1000 lines of resolution, but I'm put off by a lens that seems to be more ambitious in its specification than its implementation. The HPX600, announced last year, is supposed to start shipping next week, and perhaps that will provide the happy medium that combines a high-IQ sensor with a range of long-reach lenses that fit the type of videography I do. A few of those with a trio of extra-wide, regular, and telephoto zooms could do some real damage.

If Canon had priced the C100/C300/C500 all down one notch (i.e., C300 for the price of the C100, C100 for the price of the AF100), that would have been a game-changer and I'd have switched immediately to that platform. As it is, I'm looking at the SONY F5, which looks like a seriously future-proofed camera at a game-changing price. I realize that the price of that camera is way more than both the AF100 and the C100, but it packs so much value into the package that it makes me willing to consider changing my budgetary math completely.

The bottom line for me is that the IQ bar is going up, and any more I make has to rise at least as much to be interesting. I'm bummed that Panasonic has not been a more aggressive leader in that space, choosing to be the low-priced alternative instead. And I'm bummed that Canon has not been more aggressive in terms of price. So I'm waiting to see what really happens in February of next year.
 
I've owned two AF100's and had a love/hate with both. I LOVED the ergonomics of the camera. Sturdy handle I could just pick the thing up and hold it at my side and walk, lift it up and hold it simple enough, etc. Weight wasn't heavy, had internal ND's (huge plus), and the best feature by far for me which was insanely hard to give up was the red focus peaking. With peaking turned on and red focus turned on I never ever missed a shot. People probably think I'm nuts because I saw some folks post about it and hate it finding it unreliable but I never worried about focus when using that. Sad I can't get it on a C100 or C300, just peaking. The codec wasn't fantastic but it was OK, and the image was OK but nothing crazy. I got some great footage over the year+ I had one, but I had far more bad footage then good footage. The dynamic range was fairly low, the rolloff in the highlights wasn't great, the color of the camera wasn't my favorite, and the IQ overall in the sharpness/detail department left a lot to be desired. I have some very nice shots with it, and for the price you can buy one right now, it's a STEAL, but I want something better.

The C100 is close to being the AF100 I wish I had before. It's missing the HD-SDI, 60p, etc. but it has the image quality and internal ND's. The picture is so detailed and sharp. C300 is wonderful. Crazy sharp footage, a good step up in DR (when you're used to 9-10 stops going to 12 is pretty amazing), nice form factor, internal ND's, 60p, HD-SDI, HDMI, the genlock/tc when/if you need it, batteries that'll last all day, and ISO performance that's wonderful.

Price differences alone makes comparing them a little weird, but I see the C100 / C300 series as a means to have a quantum leap in IQ and a very noticeable bump in DR without giving up a lot of the ergonomic advantages the AF100 has. It totally depends on your needs, your current lens set, etc. I think the C100 hits a really good balance of features AND IQ. Yes it's missing HD-SDI, yes it's missing 60p (however you an shoot 60i and conform to 60p...did that on my first feature and it looks good...very comparable in resolution loss to 720p60 upresed to 1080p), LCD placement is stationary, EVF isn't as good as C300 but AF100's EVF wasn't anything to go crazy about, C-Log, 12 solid stops of DR (not 12 on paper and 11 usable or any of that garbage), and the codec is AVCHD but for a lot of us who aren't going to need to pull sliders all over the place...it'll hold up just fine. Canon pricing irks some, but they make solid products. The AF100 required a lot of research and digging to make sure you had good internal profile settings, and then very careful operation to nail your exposure otherwise you might come home disappointed, but Canon is known for being very forgiving on that end. Of course we should all strive to shoot well, expose well, etc. but at times you're moving quickly and mistakes happen. I like the fact I would have that extra headroom in the darks/lights and a much more pleasing rolloff.

People talk about the C100 / C300 as the perfect doc or event cam, but I see that advantage comparable to indie film. Yes you have more time even on an indie set to do things a bit more legit (most of the time), but I like the idea that my whole setup is fairly small, I can pick it up and move quickly...set my shot...and go. I don't want a 25lb monstrosity like I did last time...it was annoying. I think they're great indie film options as well.

The AF100 is no slouch...not at all, but today I would spend the extra dollars for the IQ / DR advantages...it's just too good to pass up.
 
KyleProhaska said:
The AF100 is no slouch...not at all, but today I would spend the extra dollars for the IQ / DR advantages...it's just too good to pass up.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we are very much on the same page. Here's hoping that when the F5/F55 come out, Canon allows its network to price the C300 realistically.
 
For the price of a C100, you're getting into FS700 territory. The 700 has SDI out, crazy slo-mo capability and the possibility of shooting 4K.
If the OP would switch from Panasonic to another brand, then he'd need to buy all new lenses anyway, be it Canon or Sony. Just something to consider.

I am in the same situation as the OP, as I am considering moving up from my FS100. The natural progression (price wise) is the C100 or FS700. Or the PMW200, or the JVC HM600. Or stay put and do nothing.
 
Also weighed the C100 vs. AF100. Decided to stick with the AF100 for the below reasons (which you can fit into your pro/con listing if you like)

- Budget. Shooting C100 wouldn't get me any more jobs or increase my day rate. While I've plenty of Leica-R and OM primes that would work on any system, I also frequently use zooms, and would have to buy 2-3 Canon zooms to cover the same range and quality of my Lumix zooms. In truth, this is the biggest issue... if I had all the requisite glass on hand, the body cost difference would be almost negligible to take advantage of their auto features.

- VFR. I shoot a fair amount of projects (including sports) with some amount of mild slow-motion, and having VFR and 60p available is a distinct plus. Not available on C100, AFAIK.

- System size. The C100 itself looks more compact, but throw a 70-200/2.8 zoom and it gets somewhat larger. So does your lens bag. With the AF, I can do 7-300mm (14-600 equiv) in four very good quality lenses that fit in one smallish shoulder bag. Being mostly a one-man band, that's huge (anti-pun intended).

- Sensor size. In truth, I wouldn't put this in the pro pr con categories... it's just a difference. For the way I work, I find it easier to hit focus and get tight details with the M43 sensor vs. S35 and definitely Full Frame. I shot night game sports highlights a few weeks bag with a rented, client-specified 5D3, and it was just a nightmare (no pre-record, shallow focus, huge honking cumbersome tele lenses... ick). S35 is of course far more manageable than full-frame, but M43 is even moreso. You can open your iris all the way up to .95 and still have perfectly useable DOF in uncontrolled shooting situations, while still having the benefit of .95 exposure. For this reason I'm not always so quick to pan the AF's low-light abilities, or suitability as an events camera.
 
Wow!.. I honestly didn't expect these many replies in such short time. Thank you all for the valuable input!.. Allow me address individually as many replies as possible:

@Editman Sweden: It's not like I'm exactly unhappy with the AF100. But I'm not exactly happy either. To some kinds of works (corporate and specially events), the AF100 becomes a bit cumbersome, specially for a one man band like me. With hand held shoots, this becomes even more evident. It's heavy but it's not shoulder mounted... And most operations like zoom and focus are basically manual. Then the IQ is something I'm not very happy with, specially when lighting is not optimal. The 680 lines of resolution may also be related. I don't happen to have any EF lenses. I only have Micro 4/3 lenses and a pair of good F lenses from Nikon. So... That is something that will sure weigh in my final decision.

@Kinoks: You bring up a crucial issue, that I didn't mention in my initial post, because I didn't want to make it too long: I do have two AF100 but I only considered buying one C100. The other AF100 I intend to "switch" for a Canon XF305. Because 70% of my work is events and corporate, my goal is to have a 3 camera system with two Canon XF305 and one Canon C100 (or C300 if I had the money). This way I am equipped both for events and for narrative. In events I can have two XF305 capturing most of the footage and use the C100 for the most artistic shots. When shooting narrative, I'll use the inverse logic, using the C100 for most of the footage and use the XF305 only for general shots. Ok, you guessed... I don't see myself working for the big screen in the years to come.
Now that I clarified this, I think people can understand where I'm coming from with my idea of changing to a C100. I want a good large sensor "digital cinema" camera to complement one or two "events" camera.

@philiplipetz: It always pleases me to hear positive feedback from a new camera. Specially when I'm considering purchasing it. Thanks for sharing all the improvements that the pre-production model suffered. It's good to know the EVF, Iris and IQ have been improved. The future autofocus for STM lenses is wonderful news.

@Sfernald: Great! Please share some footage when you have a chance.

@MichaelTiemann: You have the advantage of already having lots of Canon L glass. I don't have it.
From what I heard, the new AG-AF100A won't have significant improvements over the AF100, specially considering how long Panasonic have been without releasing a successor for the AF100 or any new large sensor camera. The (only) 680 lines of resolution you mention is something that shows in the IQ. Not to say that the image is bad... It's actually good, untill you start comparing with the C100, amongst others.
You're absolutely correct: All Canon cameras should have their prices toned down one notch, including the XF305!.. I'm sure that even commercially, Canon would benefit from that because 80% of people who wish to buy Canon, are only prevented to do it by the disproportionate prices.

@KyleProhaska: I agree with you that the AF100 has great ergonomics and very solid too. When I look at the C100 handle, I can only see it breaking at the slightest carelessness... The red focus peaking is a great asset but quite frankly, I got used (or eye trained) to focus without the help of the peaking. I simply zoom in, focus, then zoom out. At least with my 14-140 Lumix Lens. But all you say regarding IQ and low/high light performances is something I have experienced first hand.

@Vanvideo: The thing is that I really don't like Sony. I don' buy Sony since my first Video-8 Handicam back in the 80s. I don't like the native image tone (too greenish), although that can always be twicked in post. But I also don't like the plastic look of the cameras. I like the design though... And the P5 looks great, although a bit of a copy of the RED One.

@mcbob: Regarding budget, I don't necessarily aim at using the cheapest possible gear that can get the job done. I know I'm not going to raise my day rate but, if I identify myself better with the better quality of the work, then it already justifies making the upgrade. In the long term it may increase demand for my work.
In my case, I rarely use VFR... And I can always work that in post, should I need to do slo mo for some job. But I don't need it in terms of shooting fast actions. I don't shoot sports.
Of courselenses can dramatically increase system size. But we're comparing bodies only. If I had the same lens to the AF100, then it always ends up being bigger. Regarding sensor size, I understand and can agree to some extent with what you're saying.
 
Last edited:
Yep, I don't aim for the absolute cheapest either (I could probably get by with the GH2 for 75% of things, in truth), but I have to be realistic in what my current work load can finance. Right now, I'm in the AF100/VG###/5D3/D800 budget group, and only one of those reliably works for my jobs and the way I work. ALMOST at the C100/FS700/etc level, but for what they're offering above what I already have, it's probably not a worthwhile business investment - I'll sit out a generation and hopefully have a little more budget for the next zowie-box. For anyone else, that decision may be completely different... ie, a shooter with established EOS lens kit, no need for VFR, no need for SDI, multiple clients already requesting Canonesque look, frequent C100 renter, etc. Maybe I'll become one of those guys some day.

I could use this paragraph to go on a screed about how I learned from experience that buying into more camera than I could afford with only hopes that it would bring more and bigger jobs is a surefire way to growth-sapping long-term debt, but... oh, wait...
 
@mcbob: Yep, I basically agree with your point of view. In fact, in this current economy, one needs to be very realistic about the market and how much the customers are willing to pay for quality. Much more expensive gear which provide only a small increment in quality, are at least a questionable investment, specially in this economy. However, in my case, I'm hoping to sell two AG AF101 + custom made flight cases (fit like a glove) + 5 Lumix Lenses (7-14, 14-140 (x2), 45-200 and 45mm Macro) and with that money, buy a C100 body (new), a XF305 (almost new) and if possible a used EF 24-105mm Canon L lens. I simply do not intend to spend any money... If I see that I don't manage to sell the AF101 for the price that I need, I simply won't sell them.

@Miko: Thanks for the link. Nice comparison!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top