Canon EOS C100

Yep - spot on Philip! Let's all put this 4.2.2 to bed shall we. There has been so much miss-information floating round the web about this. It's no surprise that Canon knobbled some features to protect their C300 but with the uncompressed 4.2.2 out of the locking HDMI I can basically get C300 picture quality out of the C100 as long as I bolt on an Atomos Ninja2 (or similar). At the price point I can get this at it'll come as no surprise that I pre-ordered the C100 as soon as this was established within hours of the announcement. That's an amazing sensor in a superbly well built, rugged and very ergonomic body - and it'll even do a few things that the C300 cannot (currently) do.

Sure, lack of 1080p50/60 or 720p50/60 and variable frame rates was a blow (and a bit naughty of Canon) - but I have other cams that do all that anyway - really well. As has been said many times. There is no perfect camera and everyone want's stuff cheaper - but it's to each person to decide what their business needs and how well a particular camera fits their style of shooting and workflow (as well as budget). For me, C100 is a (near) perfect fit. Can't wait until the baby arrives!
 
I find it hilarious that people are comparing the fs100 to the c300. At 4 times the price dont you think it should have a better result? I guess its like when people compared to canon dslr's to RED. Weird.
 
jambredz said:
I find it hilarious that people are comparing the fs100 to the c300. At 4 times the price dont you think it should have a better result? I guess its like when people compared to canon dslr's to RED. Weird.
Click to expand...

4 times? It's more like 2 times. And the sole purpose of comparing FS100 to C300 is for getting an estimate on how the IQ is going to look like comparing FS700 to C100. Two cameras that ARE at the same price point. There is nothing funny or inappropriate here if you ask me...
 
KINOKS said:
4 times? It's more like 2 times. And the sole purpose of comparing FS100 to C300 is for getting an estimate on how the IQ is going to look like comparing FS700 to C100. Two cameras that ARE at the same price point. There is nothing funny or inappropriate here if you ask me...
Click to expand...

More like 3 times, if you ask me. Anyway, i feel comparisons should be made to the fs700, not the 100, although admittedly, they have very similar images quality.
 
Donald Ong said:
More like 3 times, if you ask me. Anyway, i feel comparisons should be made to the fs700, not the 100, although admittedly, they have very similar images quality.
Click to expand...

Anyway, the price at CVP for FS100 is 4650€ and for the C100 is 5250€. FS700 goes for 6650€. I don't know if CVP can change the price on an item after you already paid the pre-order amount.
If not than at this point in time we really should be comparing C100 to FS100 and not FS700.
 
FS100 body only $4,200
FS700 Body only $8,000
C100 body only SRP $8,000, rumored to be $7,000

(even if it goes down to $6000 its still pricey without VFR.)

you know what? lets see what the final image quality first. if its the same as the c300, a Ninja would make this camera worth more
 
I like the FS700 because it is 4K ready. I don't need 4k today but I do not want my camera to become obsolete in a few years if 4k really takes off. The Blu-Ray consortium is already in the initial process of developing a 4k standard. The process is time consuming but it usually does not take longer than one year for the parties to agree on a standard.
 
buy 4k when you need it - by then Im sure there will be better cheaper alternatives....
but I agree - if the c100 image is up there with the c300 this camera will sell very well
 
For the record, I want 60p but never said anything about the price/value. And I don't consider myself spoiled :) What 60p and sitting down with an accountant have anything to do with each other I'll never know... (just kidding!) Maybe both sides can come to an agreement? - high horsers & pimpled whiners?

Since one can record out of the HDMI, protecting the C300 is kind of gone. Maybe the chip design favors 1080p and requires gymnastics to get 720p? But anybody who shoots footage related to sports would need 60p, not just to impress people on YouTube.
 
But the objection I will run into is that my clients will tell me that the C100 is a very nice camera but operators for it are a dime a dozen. I don't think they can say that about 4K.
 
Unless you have a RED or F65 you do not have 4k, and with rapidly dropping prices it may be cheaper to resell thE FS700 to get a 4k solution. MY experience is that clients will not pay for 4k when they do not use it. Only theaters really do.
 
Last edited:
i agree with getting 4k when you need it. I mean c'mon peeps, I know we'd all want 4k but who really needs it (right now at least)? For most of us 2k scaled down to 1080p is damn good. Most of use shoot for tv or net anyway. And the dudes needing highest res for films (big screen projection) are renting REDs (and even f3 footage looks great on those screens). By time we actually need 4k, the fs700 will be obsolete technology and there will be a very good camera for you waiting, best believe.
 
Last edited:
androbot2084 said:
But the objection I will run into is that my clients will tell me that the C100 is a very nice camera but operators for it are a dime a dozen. I don't think they can say that about 4K.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, you can buy the JVC HMQ10 for $5,000. It's a 4K camera that's probably cheaper than the C100.
 
vanvideo said:
Well, actually, you can buy the JVC HMQ10 for $5,000. It's a 4K camera that's probably cheaper than the C100.
Click to expand...

They call it a 4k, and it pretty much is, but technically it is QuadHD, since it is 3840 x 2160 (4 x 1920x1080 frames). It also requires 4 HDMI outputs to record at that resolution.
 
Guys, reminder that you don't have to finish in 4k for the extra rez to be extremely useful. Especially for music videos and other such creative endeavors.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Since one can record out of the HDMI, protecting the C300 is kind of gone. Maybe the chip design favors 1080p and requires gymnastics to get 720p? But anybody who shoots footage related to sports would need 60p, not just to impress people on YouTube.
Click to expand...

If you look at the specs for the sensor on teh Canon White Paper, the camera actually shoots 60p to generate 30p, and 50p for 24p.

That is one way it reduces rolling shutter.

The sensor is also true color, in that it does not interpolate color. It uses R+B+G+G to generate the final output. I think this is one of the reasons it looks so good even at 8 bit HD. It really is a larger sensor engineered just for video.

Canon said last November that they were enabling 4K on the front end right away, but that the back end 4K pipelines would take a bit.

It is nice to see the Log Codec on the lower end bodies. Unfortunately (for me), I need the 5D3 for stills, so I am not sure I can justify a secnd camera for the incremetal video quality for what I do right now. I am still hoping for a 3D-C or 7D-C, more video centric than the 5D3, but still with decent stills.

The C100 looks like a great next step!

Best,
Michael
 
Last edited:
unadog said:
If you look at the specs for the sensor on teh Canon White Paper, the camera actually shoots 60p to generate 30p, and 50p for 24p.

That is one way it reduces rolling shutter.

The sensor is also true color, in that it does not interpolate color. It uses R+B+G+G to generate the final output. I think this is one of the reasons it looks so good even at 8 bit HD. It really is a larger sensor engineered just for video.

Canon said last November that they were enabling 4K on the front end right away, but that the back end 4K pipelines would take a bit.

It is nice to see the Log Codec on the lower end bodies. Unfortunately (for me), I need the 5D3 for stills, so I am not sure I can justify a secnd camera for the incremetal video quality for what I do right now. I am still hoping for a 3D-C or 7D-C, more video centric than the 5D3, but still with decent stills.

The C100 looks like a great next step!

Best,
Michael
Click to expand...

Its for this reason I can't wait to get my hands on a 1D-C. 4k and stills. Of course I can't actually afford one of those personally and it'd be a recommendation for a standard company rental.

But back to the c100 if it comes in at $5k I will probably buy one for myself If the footage looks like the c300 (even if I have to buy an external recorder to get it there). I have a bmcc on preorder, but this camera just seems so much easier to work with out of the box that it may work better for the stuff I have planned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top