Canon EOS C100

One reason that the C100 outclasses similar cams is that unlike anything else that I have seen, including the BMCC, it maintains a wide DR in all light and so that avoids the DR contraction that all other similarly priced cams do, a contraction that ruins the viewer experience.

If you do doc work, or shoot without controlled lighting then this is invaluable. I have used C300s on some projects and was amazed at how much it's sensitivity and wide DR allowed colors to come through as a single shot went from bright to extremely dim during a walk around pan. The human eye is very sensitive to changes in DR, more than chroma. The Canon Cinema EOS line seems to be the only "lower priced" line that maintains DR in all conditions.

Now, the real question is how good is their AVCHD implementation. What is the C100 worth? Competetion determines that. What will Photokina bring to the full featured video cam market? That will drive price. But $8k wil most definitely drive away customers.

Canon has a really great sensor in the Cinema EOS series and few people realize it since it is buried in really expensive cams. Canon really did not want to create the hybrid DSLR market, and this sensor is a way to pull people back into dedicated video cameras. But that will happen only if they appeal to the same price market when you include the cost of a top hybrid DSLR and the rigging needed to get it going. They could have made this explicit by including the improved codecs that are on the 5d MKiii, but then that would have been smart, and going against Canon's corporate culture of divisions not competeting against eachother.
 
Last edited:
Donald Ong said:
So no chance of an AF200 with a proper 1080 sensor and better DR/low light? aww.
I was hoping for panny to throw that one out.
Click to expand...


Panasonic wants to make the GH3 more professional and grab the mid and lower end of the hybrid DSLR market. The C100 is aimed at the upper end of that market. Pannie will wait to see the response and then introduce the AF200. I hope I am wrong.
 
philiplipetz said:
Panasonic wants to make the GH3 more professional and grab the mid and lower end of the hybrid DSLR market. The C100 is aimed at the upper end of that market. Pannie will wait to see the response and then introduce the AF200. I hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a shame... So, anyone knows when are we going to start seeing reviews for the EA50a nd c100?
 
Last edited:
philiplipetz said:
One reason that the C100 outclasses similar cams is that unlike anything else that I have seen, including the BMCC, it maintains a wide DR in all light and so that avoids the DR contraction that all other similarly priced cams do, a contraction that ruins the viewer experience.
Click to expand...
You make pretty big claims here, have you already used the camera?
 
philiplipetz said:
Guys, no way that the C100 is going to come in at $4-5k. Zero chance. The advance price in Europe went from $6300 to about $6900. That is probably more accurate, although I hope it is too much. A lot depends n how good the AVCHD image is and how much Canon wants to protect its market share in the FS100-FS700 range, and perhaps how threatening the new Sony full frame video cam body camera at half the price is. THe BMCC is amazing but it's ergonomics,moral,cost of ownership and newness may not make it much of a factor in Canon's calculations. This is a war with Sony, not Blackmagic. Panasonic has retired from this game since it put too many eggs in the 3D basket, and does not have rumored items for Photokina or IBS. This is a war with Sony, not Blackmagic.
Click to expand...
Its gonna look great of course. banding? probably much worst than the 4:2:2 50mbps. and no, we dont think 4-5k is realistic either since this is canon were talking about. id give an introductory price of 6k fairer (but still expensive.)

iif canon only pushed the limit of the c300 they wouldnt worry about canibalizing their products.
 
philiplipetz said:
Panasonic wants to make the GH3 more professional and grab the mid and lower end of the hybrid DSLR market. The C100 is aimed at the upper end of that market. Pannie will wait to see the response and then introduce the AF200. I hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...


never put Panasonic Broadcast & Consumer division together
its a separate entity. they dont care for each other's sales. gh2 goes to consumer, af100 goes to broadcast. any decision made by either division is not related to each other. why af200 was not announced this year is simply because its a 3 year cycle. thats it. consumer division has 1.5 yr cycle for the GH series. panasonic broadcast is still in broadcast and will never abandon that. theyre not in the cinema market... so far.
 
Donald Ong said:
Are you seriously comparing the GH2 to this? I would pay 5k for this..let alone 1k... Heck, even if it was 3k I'd grab it without hesitation and go up to Canon HQ and give the guys there a hug.
This GH2 fanboyism has become quite ridiculous...
Click to expand...

Correction: The "digital camera fanboyism" has become quite ridiculous. The "story is now king". The C100 (like the c300) will not have the market share that canon thinks it will have. The equipment in the field for sub $2-3k is good enough to do its main job which is to tell a story. Besides, most general viewers will not be able to tell the difference between a $8,000 camera and the gh2 -- AND if they do, they don't really care. This whole debates reminds me of the battle between mp3's and the losses format (the "better formats").

Ultimately mp3 won even though it had the worse quality. MP3's were good enough for most consumers.
 
The C100 is probably going to be a fine camera. Maybe not quite up to FS100/700 BMCC level, but still a decent "proper" video camera. I wonder if for this price range, the 1DX wouldn't give off a nicer image with less of a plastic-y feel? But I guess if anyone is looking at this, they're not interested in using a DSLR.
 
eleison said:
Correction: The "digital camera fanboyism" has become quite ridiculous. The "story is now king". The C100 (like the c300) will not have the market share that canon thinks it will have. The equipment in the field for sub $2-3k is good enough to do its main job which is to tell a story. Besides, most general viewers will not be able to tell the difference between a $8,000 camera and the gh2 -- AND if they do, they don't really care. This whole debates reminds me of the battle between mp3's and the losses format (the "better formats").

Ultimately mp3 won even though it had the worse quality. MP3's were good enough for most consumers.
Click to expand...

Consumers and the people who pay for what consumers consume do notice stuff.

I have 'the girlfriend test' that I run on my tests and projects.

Consumers notice..

-Mis synched audio

-Wind noise

-Crackly audio

-Images taken out doors that are white or strobing from high shutter speeds

-dancing rainbows in shirts

-significant mis focus

The C100 is one of the cheapest and safest solutions to bring these elements to your 'story'

Cheaper cam will also bring them, but less safely and at a cost that often negates the saving

S
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
If the C100 outdoes the GH2 it will be on the way to some success. Better or worse, the GH2 for a grand is the new baseline, and if you can't pass it (we'll see about the C100), you're in trouble.
Click to expand...

The GH2 is not in the same class with any camera that has XLR inputs.
 
Gillvane said:
The GH2 is not in the same class with any camera that has XLR inputs.
Click to expand...

This applies to all DSLR cameras that lack professional audio inputs: Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony, etc...

As fond as I am of the GH2 ( fantastic video image for less than $1,000 ), the C100 is in a much higher price/performance category, and should be compared to direct competitors like the Sony FS700.

...I am curious to see what the new GH3 brings to the table ( we should know in less than 3 weeks ), but I don't expect it to compete directly with a C100 or a FS700.
 
I wonder what would motivate someone to purchase the c100 over the FS100 or let alone the FS700? It just looks like an awfully crippled device by comparison. I guess it must just come down to form factor, because why else would you opt to forgo so many standard options? It has a crippled AVCHD Codec, no SDI, no 60p... not even at 720p (just found that out now... ouch). I'm almost at a loss for words at how this could be chosen over the FS700. Maybe there's something brilliant about this camera I'm just not seeing?
 
L1N3ARX said:
I wonder what would motivate someone to purchase the c100 over the FS100 or let alone the FS700? It just looks like an awfully crippled device by comparison. I guess it must just come down to form factor, because why else would you opt to forgo so many standard options? It has a crippled AVCHD Codec, no SDI, no 60p... not even at 720p (just found that out now... ouch). I'm almost at a loss for words at how this could be chosen over the FS700. Maybe there's something brilliant about this camera I'm just not seeing?
Click to expand...

We all have different needs and wants from a camera. If you want to know why I put in a pre-order for the C100 (after months of thinking about the FS700 and a few other cams) then my reasoning is on the link below. Sure, Canon crippled it in some areas - and we all know why - but because of clean HDMI out I can circumvent the 4.2.0. AVCHD codec and basically get C300 performance for FS700 money, all in a small, highly ergonomic and rugged body. FS700 is an amazing cam - but so too are these CX00 Canons, each for different reasons. Horses for courses.

http://www.shootingimage.co.uk/MoreInformation/CanonC100/CanonC100.html
 
Do people remember the times when DJ's at weddings would insist on only playing audio CD's because of the quality? It was around 10-15+ years ago. These same DJ's mocked the "bad quality" of mp3s. Heck a lot of audiophiles made fun of the lowly mp3 and some audio equipment manufacturers said the future were "mini disc". Where are they now??? These companies that said people wanted better bitrates, lossless quality, etc. They all did a 180 and now are backing mp3.. strange, isn't it?

If a 5d2 can be used to film hollywood movies, than we are a point in time where cameras are in general "good enough." There's a price/value ratio. Anything at 8 grand or more isn't going to cut it for the people who are used to shooting dslrs.

For consumers, its all about the story. For the director of photography, its all about the image on the screen. For the producer its about $$$$. When it comes to push and shove w/regards to funding, the director of photography will lose. If he insists on increasing his rate so he can rent the latest and greatest to get the best image on the screen, he will lose out on the gig.

I'm not saying there's no market for $8,000+ camera's. Heck, I heard Philip Bloom uses an expensive c300, but he's in the minority. He use to be part of the "dslr revolution" -- he isn't anymore. The "dslr revolution" and its continuation is where the money is. $8,000 is not part of this revolution. The $3,000 bmc is. The $800 gh2 also is..

morgan_moore said:
Consumers and the people who pay for what consumers consume do notice stuff.

I have 'the girlfriend test' that I run on my tests and projects.

Consumers notice..

-Mis synched audio

-Wind noise

-Crackly audio

-Images taken out doors that are white or strobing from high shutter speeds

-dancing rainbows in shirts

-significant mis focus

The C100 is one of the cheapest and safest solutions to bring these elements to your 'story'

Cheaper cam will also bring them, but less safely and at a cost that often negates the saving

S
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
eleison said:
Do people remember the times when DJ's at weddings would insist on only playing audio CD's because of the quality? It was around 10-15+ years ago.
Click to expand...

I make no claims for the need for image quality to tell stories beyond the need to avoid serious aliasing. Hell - my B camera is an NEX5n - its good enough to shoot pictures that engage.

I am a fan of the Gh2 image but dislike many other elements of the GH2. I consider it to be a near perfect B camera on smaller productions.

The C100 provides the other critical elements to make footage viewable and listenable.

Sure you can buy a DSLR, add a sound recorder, some cabling, some time in post, some expensive filtration

But really why bother? All of that adds up to close to the price of a C100 and shoots a worse picture

If you have a sound person, who is providing free kit, the equation may change to be less for a C100 over a GH2

The C100 is for solo operators who will probably be doing their own sound like 80% of owner operators using cameras as a business tool

S
 
Last edited:
$8000 is what the C300 is worth. Fail again, Canon.

I don't understand how Arri, Sony, Canon (video division) are still getting away with this massive price gouging after the disruptions that HDSLRs and RED have brought to their market...
 
Last edited:
eleison said:
Correction: The "digital camera fanboyism" has become quite ridiculous. The "story is now king". The C100 (like the c300) will not have the market share that canon thinks it will have. The equipment in the field for sub $2-3k is good enough to do its main job which is to tell a story. Besides, most general viewers will not be able to tell the difference between a $8,000 camera and the gh2 -- AND if they do, they don't really care. This whole debates reminds me of the battle between mp3's and the losses format (the "better formats").

Ultimately mp3 won even though it had the worse quality. MP3's were good enough for most consumers.
Click to expand...

Although I agree for the most part, the average audience is getting smarter now and can tell the difference between a 5d2 moire-fest and say, a clean, perfect c300 image. Most are able to notice moire and many notice noise/bad audio/jello. We are no longer living in an era where only a select few had access to a proper camera and anything he shoots with it would be considered the 'gold-standard' for the viewer.

I'm not saying there's no market for $8,000+ camera's. Heck, I heard Philip Bloom uses an expensive c300, but he's in the minority. He use to be part of the "dslr revolution" -- he isn't anymore. The "dslr revolution" and its continuation is where the money is. $8,000 is not part of this revolution. The $3,000 bmc is. The $800 gh2 also is..
Click to expand...

Isn't the DSLR revolution dying down a little..there's less buzz about DSLRs now... not much praise to the 5d3 and almost no one bothered when the 650D was announced. Majority of the attention is now given to affordable S35s like the fs100/fs700/c100/af101...
 
Last edited:
Donald Ong said:
Although I agree for the most part, the average audience is getting smarter now and can tell the difference between a 5d2 moire-fest and say, a clean, perfect c300 image. Most are able to notice moire and many notice noise/bad audio/jello.
Click to expand...

But yet, there are millions of households who are satisfied w/ standard definition tv. Not to mention the last time I checked, DVD still outsells bluray. We are outliers. We are not the standard consumer. We expect more. The general public not so much.

Donald Ong said:
Isn't the DSLR revolution dying down a little..there's less buzz about DSLRs now... not much praise to the 5d3 and almost no one bothered when the 650D was announced. Majority of the attention is now given to affordable S35s like the fs100/fs700/c100/af101...
Click to expand...


Agreed. There is less buzz about DSLRs as defined in "DIgital Single Lense Relex".... but when I mean the "dslr revolution" -- I'm talking "cinema quality" equipment like the BMC. Affordable machines that the general public has access to. $8,000 are cameras that the general public doesn't have access to because they are either unwilling to spend that much or they find other equipment (gh2, 5d, BMC) "good enough" for them given the price. Just look at the number of viewers in the respective forums in these message boards. How many viewers are in the 5d/ gh2 forums compared to the c300 forums? Hundreds vs. few dozen and that's being generous.
 
I think the DSLR revolution has died down a bit because Canon decided to pull back on the reigns with the 5DMKIII. If they had made the video image to the level of expectation it would be all of the rage. Hopefully for the C100 supporters Canon will not decide to cripple the image that most seem to be expecting as well.

But i agree, whatever large sensor camera that gets developed has to at least equal the GH2 for detail level, image quality. It is the value standard whether folks like it or not at $1,000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top