Canon EOS C100

[TheDingo]

$8000 is what the C300 is worth. Fail again, Canon

I wouldn't call the C300 a fail, but it does seem a little overpriced for what it brings to the table.

The C100 seems like a much better deal, as you get most of the features of the C300 at half the cost. ( bolt-on a high bit-rate external recorder and you are good to go )

The Canon Cxxx series should be ideal for low-light run'n'gun video ( 20,000 ISO does make a difference ), with a wide array of Canon lenses you can rent world-wide.

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...

Right now ALL DSLR cameras have significant image and audio compromises that dedicated video cameras don't have. With DSLR cameras you can't get the same dynamic range, you can't shoot at very high ISO ratings, and professional audio recording requires a dual system set-up.

As for RED cameras, they aren't built for quick turn-around shooting, they are digital-cine cameras, and thus built for a different purpose.

I think it would be a lot faster to shoot run'n'gun work with a C100 / C300 than trying to do the same thing with a RED Scarlet, and probably lower cost when you look at the cost of a C100 with lenses and an external recorder.

 

[androbot2084]

The future of digital cinema will be high frame rates which will be mandatory for all of the action sequences and optional for the drama.

 

[TheDingo]

The future of digital cinema will be high frame rates which will be mandatory for all of the action sequences and optional for the drama.

There are already specialized high-speed cameras like the Phantom ( 5,000+ fps at 720p ) and the RED Epic can already do 300 fps HD. ( the Alexa can 120 fps HD )

 

[cowpunk52]

The future of digital cinema will be high frame rates which will be mandatory for all of the action sequences and optional for the drama.

Why? Are you the one making the rules?

 

[yoclay]

A lot of crystal ball gazing here.
Bottom line, how good does it look and how dependable is it?

Also, how is it the GH2 is the test of quality these days?
When I find banding for the upteenth time in the sky or on gradients when a white falls into shadow, or the famous yellow line one third from the bottom of the frame, or experience the occasional lockup which reduces what I just shot to rubble, I feel like heaving it through a window rather than putting it on a pedestal. I don't really care if yet another fanboy says none of this has ever been witnessed by them and that I should be using XYZ hack because obviously I must be doing something wrong. Bottom line: I CANNOT DEPEND ON THE GH2 IN A PROFESSIONAL SITUATION.

Which is why someone might choose a C100 or a C300. End of story.

 

[Donald Ong]

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.

To be honest, i can't see what the fuss is about for the BMCC..really, the ONLY advantages i can see is 2.5k, davinci resolve and raw. It has a 2.3x crop, making it very difficult to get a decent wide, It has a stupid built-in battery which only lasts 90mins (seriously, a built-in battery is probably one of the most ridiculous things a camera manufacturer can do), it has the worst ergonomics i have ever seen, a low-res pixel-fest screen, very little actual camera controls (only 4 steps of ISO), touchscreen (who likes touchscreen) and of course, canon EF mount...at least give us a 4/3 mount...with an EF mount there's no way to get a decent wide unless you get the 8-15, which is stupidly fish-eyed... Am i missing something?

Also, how is it the GH2 is the test of quality these days?
When I find banding for the upteenth time in the sky or on gradients when a white falls into shadow, or the famous yellow line one third from the bottom of the frame, or experience the occasional lockup which reduces what I just shot to rubble, I feel like heaving it through a window rather than putting it on a pedestal. I don't really care if yet another fanboy says none of this has ever been witnessed by them and that I should be using XYZ hack because obviously I must be doing something wrong. Bottom line: I CANNOT DEPEND ON THE GH2 IN A PROFESSIONAL SITUATION.

+1
Don't those GH2 fanboys really tick you off? So what if it resolves more lines than you'll ever need...no one's going to notice it in the final video...what they will notice is horrible DR, noise-fest in low light, banding etc. And there's simply no way I'll be bringing a hacked camera to a shoot. Not ever.

 

[Noel Evans]

$8000 is what the C300 is worth. Fail again, Canon.

Its your prerogative to believe that from your perspective, but it's not what the market is saying in its uptake and wide usage.

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...

Clearly because they're still making money...

I can tell you what producers don't like hearing right this minute - post is going to cost more because of... ever hear cats fighting at night, sounds something akin to that.

I've made the point in this thread already - please let people discuss the C100 freely. If its of no interest to you please move on. You are free to discuss its pros and cons that might relate to you. But theres simply no need to be coming into this thread and stating categorically that this or that camera is better because of X when you arent even interested in the C100.

Since people keep referring to the BMC however, lets look at the associated cost for those that might actually be considering one or the other. And this list does not include extras needed for example a follow focus - we may not want to be without one but we can shoot without one.


C100 price breakdown for a full day shooting.
C100 price - unknown.
2 Extra batteries @ $160 each per BHPhoto - $320
4 x 32GB SDHC Cards - average about $50 each per BHPhoto - $200

Total for full day shoot = Camera cost plus $520.

For best results (assumed):

Atomos ninja - $699
2x500gb Hitachi Travelstars - $160 total

Total for best results: $1360 plus camera cost.

BMCC price breakdown for full day shooting (based on reviews read thus far).

Switronix (cheap option) external power set up with dtap cable, 3 batteries and charger $920 (per BHPhoto and achieved by selecting some bundled items.
External battery must have a rod bracket and therefor requires baseplate and rods to be operational. Many options that vary in price but lets add another $1K
EVF with HD-SDI (included as the reviews I have read are pretty clear the rear screen falls apart in exterior daylight plus the C100 has an EVF) - Again varies but around $1k with mount for cheaper option.
SanDisk - Extreme Solid State Drive (240GB) for (lets not talk doco etc - assume all day narrative as its the kindest approach) - X4 - $860
ND filters (I refuse to quote vari NDs here as they will most likely cause IR contamination) - .3 / .6 / .9 schneider IRND's - Approx. $450 each - $1350
Mattebox for ND filters - lets talk cheap - $1k

SO to pull both cameras out and shoot for the best result.

C100 Canon log to external recorder - additional cost (not including camera cost)= $1360

BMC cam @ RAW - additional cost (not including camera cost) = $6130


The BMC options Ive used are lower to middle, definitely not in the higher quality products like AB Dionic batteries etc (apart from the ND's) and you will note I have not factored ANYTHING for balanced XLR inputs. Basically the BMC Cam is meant to be used as a Cine camera and we'll assume that for doco its a non starter.

Now again in case its a little lost by this point - this is the cost (and its only an approx at best)to be set up to run the camera for a full day narrative shooting. Again, I didnt include items such as follow focus (which I would consider a must have but you can get away with not having if you're very low budget) and it also assumes people have NONE of these things. Of course some will.

Which do I think would be the best option? Who cares - I havent used either cam and the answer would be entirely subjective to your needs.

The point of this post is to merely point out - consider all things.

 

[stefanhuberfilms]

I wouldn't call the C300 a fail, but it does seem a little overpriced for what it brings to the table.

why is the C300 overpriced? is there any other camera on the market which gives you a broadcast ready codec (in camera) and a s35 sensor in that price range?

i think the C100 will bring a huge advantage by delivering a moire and aliasing free (or almost free) picture with a reduced amount of rolling shutter and a nice form factor...

I think it would be a lot faster to shoot run'n'gun work with a C100 / C300 than trying to do the same thing with a RED Scarlet, and probably lower cost when you look at the cost of a C100 with lenses and an external recorder.

seconded!

 

[maarek]

As for the ISOs. ISO is meaningless when shooting RAW.

This is just so wrong. The ISO is meaningless with RED and BMC because it's actually completely locked with those cameras. You can't change it. You can change the "apparent" ISO but that's just adding brightness in post. That's why a lot of shooters will come out very displeased when shooting moderately low light.

This is why the cameras fail at low light (huge loss of dynamic range) more than cameras where the ISO can actually be changed. Compare that to the way still cameras work. They are raw but ISO is actually changed and the sensor is fed with more gain. They are significantly better in low light.

The 13 stops of advantage will go away real soon once you "up" the iso on the bmc.

 

[Noel Evans]

Please, no more postings here purely about the BMC camera virtues and how its "better". As I previously stated if youre not interested in the C100, move along.

Already one thread closed in the discussion of this camera. I will delete posts to prevent another. Again re read the forum guidelines.

 

[Will Turner]

This new c100 is a dream camera. I shoot docu and corporate and this is all of the good bits of DSLR (including the form factor) without all the bad bits. I rarely if ever need a broadcast ready camera but if I did I assume I could rent a ninja/samurai and problem solved (one never has had a broadcast ready in cam codec with dslr anyway).

 

[BobbyMurcerFan]

$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...

Because there is a law of diminishing returns when trying to improve something. That's why professional tools generally cost an order of magnitude or more than consumer ones. E.g. Snap-on vs Husky:

http://www.homedepot.com/Tools-Hard...splay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&storeId=10051

http://buy1.snapon.com/catalog/item...roup_ID=682252&store=snapon-store&dir=catalog


Both will tighten a screw. So if I'm working on my own car, the three dollar Husky is fine. But if I'm working on NASCAR pit crew, I want the very best.

 

[Jay Birch]

Maybe i'm just an optimist, but I find it amazing that with all this choice, some people still fell like they are being ripped off.

We are talking about a proven s35 sensor camera with 12 stops DR, C-log, beautiful image quality*, uncompressed HMDI out, NDs, XLRs, EVF, LCD, amazing low light and much, much more... For under $7k

This is dream stuff people, you can make a feature on this. The image will hold up on a decent cinema screen, the image quality* will be cinematic, with the right people in front and behind the camera.

If you would prefer a pimped out GH2, great... That doesn't mean the C100 is overpriced, it just means there are aspects that you don't consider worth the upgrade. For me, 3 more stops of DR are worth the price alone... But that is just me.

* Assuming c300 IQ quality is possible.

 

[philiplipetz]

C100 price breakdown for a full day shooting.
C100 price - unknown.
2 Extra batteries @ $160 each per BHPhoto - $320
4 x 32GB SDHC Cards - average about $50 each per BHPhoto - $200

Total for full day shoot = Camera cost plus $520.

For best results (assumed):

Atomos ninja - $699
2x500gb Hitachi Travelstars - $160 total

Total for best results: $1360 plus camera cost.

BMCC price breakdown for full day shooting (based on reviews read thus far).

Switronix (cheap option) external power set up with dtap cable, 3 batteries and charger $920 (per BHPhoto and achieved by selecting some bundled items.
External battery must have a rod bracket and therefor requires baseplate and rods to be operational. Many options that vary in price but lets add another $1K
EVF with HD-SDI (included as the reviews I have read are pretty clear the rear screen falls apart in exterior daylight plus the C100 has an EVF) - Again varies but around $1k with mount for cheaper option.
SanDisk - Extreme Solid State Drive (240GB) for (lets not talk doco etc - assume all day narrative as its the kindest approach) - X4 - $860
ND filters (I refuse to quote vari NDs here as they will most likely cause IR contamination) - .3 / .6 / .9 schneider IRND's - Approx. $450 each - $1350
Mattebox for ND filters - lets talk cheap - $1k

SO to pull both cameras out and shoot for the best result.

C100 Canon log to external recorder - additional cost (not including camera cost)= $1360

BMC cam @ RAW - additional cost (not including camera cost) = $6130


The BMC options Ive used are lower to middle, definitely not in the higher quality products like AB Dionic batteries etc (apart from the ND's) and you will note I have not factored ANYTHING for balanced XLR inputs. Basically the BMC Cam is meant to be used as a Cine camera and we'll assume that for doco its a non starter.

Now again in case its a little lost by this point - this is the cost (and its only an approx at best)to be set up to run the camera for a full day narrative shooting. Again, I didnt include items such as follow focus (which I would consider a must have but you can get away with not having if you're very low budget) and it also assumes people have NONE of these things. Of course some will.

Which do I think would be the best option? Who cares - I havent used either cam and the answer would be entirely subjective to your needs.

The point of this post is to merely point out - consider all things.

Now consider the additional computer cost to process RAW files. John Brawley, The DP who works directly with BM, says that such a setup is esential. http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/in-the-raw/

"CinemaDNG’s can be played in real time, but you need a very well thought out setup to do so. You need very fast storage and you need a lot of it.Let’s read that again.
Fast storage (for working with it)….and lots of it…(for archiving)
RAID’s will certainly help speed things along if you want to copy your files quickly.
So although the camera is cheap, by the time you buy some SSD’s and a hefty amount of fast enough to be practical to use storage, you could easily spend double the cost of the camera."

Listen to what he says. The real setup cost of a reliable professional implementation of the Blackmagic camera is the camera ($3k) plus Noel's list for shooting accesories to make the BMCC camera brain work ($6k) plus what BM's spokesperson says you must have to make the RAW system work ($6k in storage plus the cost of a multi GPU system for Resolve (many thousands especially if it has Thundebolt ports for linking to the camera)). So the total cost of a Blackmagic ecosystem is about $18k. You can argue that this is high but look at the cost of the equipment John Brawley uses with the BMCC, it is much more than Noel's estimate.

The Canon C100 system works with your existing computer and requires only $1,300 to deliver a 12 stop log DR signal into ProRes HQ at the same recording quality as the Balckmagic - the same quality format except 8bit and not 10. The Blackmagic delivers about one stop more DR and what the specs say will be better color, except the unique sensor deign of the C100 delivers more and better color information into an 8 bit signal (this is the revoltuon that the Canon C series delivers) so the colors will be very close. However, the BMCC delivers much more cine like signal. But the BMCC has much more rolling shutter, so with faster motion/pans the C100 will deliver a more cine,a like signal. So, it isnot as obvious as it would seem from BMCC samples that do not reflect the action intensity of today's films.

The total cost of a C100 system is about $8k with camera and accesories, and the total cost of the Blackmagic system is about $18k. For this additional cost you get a really really nice cinema like image, but at the cost of being able to shoot only in well lit situations as the BMCC falls apart in low light and is limited to 1600 ISO. So, you need lights for most work. Now the cost is more. BUt it will probably be worth it. Love the BMCC image. However, this is not a low cost a system as people think. If you try to use the BMCC without the needed accessories and storage you make the BMCC into something much less than it is. Is is a cost break through that will change the cinema world? yes, but the cost is more like $20k, not $3k. The camera is only a small part of the total system.

The C100 offers a great image that has fabulous color gradients but slightly lesser quality than the BMCC except if there is the possibility of rolling shutter that is not a factor in the C100.

The C100 in camera sharpening appears to be more video, which is good for some applications and bad for film. Can that be changed? Probably, since Frank Glencairn tamed the much lesser FS100 and made it become unexpectedly cinema like demonstrating that such things are possible, and the color possibility of the unique C series Canon sensor is revolutionary so you are building on a sound base. the C100 sensor deliver 10bit quality by having less color smear I a 8 bit signal. Color smear is what makes things seem artifical. I did to appreciate tha until I did a shoot with Cowpuck52 and grade the film. Cowpuck52 has shot some features with the c300 and his profiles offers the same opportunity to tame the C100 that Frank did with the FS100, a great advantage for those that want to shoot narrative films.

However, there is no way to add DR so it appears that the C100 will be one stop less DR than the BMCC; but that may not be true outside of controlled sets. The C100 is much much more light sensitive, up to 20,000 ISO so you can shoot in less light. Up to about 6400 ISO the C300 is very usable with minimal noise. That once again lowers your cost, and increases your ability to shoot. What does this have to do with DR? Unlike other cameras the C100 maintains the full 12 stop DR range at all ISOs. Other cameras fall to 5-5 stops DR in low light (except the Alexa that does or offer extreme lowlight, and perhaps the new RED Dragon sensor with a base ISO of 2000). So, I would argue that outside of sets with controlled lighting the C series Canons are the DR king.

Cowpunk52 (Brian C. Weed) writes about doing unbelievable quick setups with the C300 that allowed his feature to be filmed in record time, and he also writes about one set where the light was so gone that they were ready to shutdown until Brian pulled out his C300 and got shots that intercut well, rescuing the day. Greater shooting flexibility is part do the cost of ownership. The only way I affor to ale films is faste and with less limitations. C100 will ring everything that the C300 did in this respect.

Then there is the advantage of the C100 being a lighter system that is ready to shoot without accesories and will work with cheaper jibs, stabilizers, cranes, sliders and tripods.

Do not forget that the crop factor on the C100 is slightly over 1.5 compare to 135 format sensors, while it is 2.3x for the smaller sensor Blackmagic, meaning that wide angle shots require lenses that simply are not available faster than f2.8 in EOS mount. On the other hand, telephoto work is easier. I use wide angle more, so that is an added expense and limitation.

So, the Blackmagic is a really great system that will redefine what is possible in low cost cinema, but at a cost of $18k out the door, not $3k. The C100 is a versatile system and less than half the total cost of ownership. The true DR kng is a matter of whether you look only at low ISO or the total range.

For most videographers the choice is clear to go with a lower cost system that is easier to use. For docs or run and gun feature shooting or low cost features the C100 will be easier and deliver better results.

If you have the capacity and equipment to light well the BMCC is great; but look at the the behind the scenes photos on John Brawley's website, he used some pretty nice lighting gear on the Afterglow demo shoot. All that takes money and expertise.

So, now we get to the real diffidence between these systems - expertise. The BMCC really shows off expertise, and the C100 will deliver good results for people with less ability and with less equipment to bend light.

I was talking a major film equipment house that choose not to carry the BMCC and they told me that they thought it was a good camera but they were worried about the rate of returns since people would buy it thinking it was a low cost solution and the grow frustrated that they had to invest time and money to make it work properly.

So, the C100 is not the also ran than many people think it is. Its total cost of a delivery ecosystem is less than half that of a Blackmagic. It is easier to use if quick setups are essential to your workflow. And you could argue that outside of well lit situations the C Canon series is the true DR king.

At the present time the C100 image is less cinematic, but the the full cinema optimation has just been started by Cowpunk52 and the thousands of people will purchase a C100.

There is the additional DR of the Blackmagic in good light. I adore it. If our team has the budget we will use the Blackmagic but we do not see it as the lowest cost ecosystem. We work with less than optimal light when on location. That is when the C100 is DR kng, not the Balckmagic. I repeat mmyself but this has to be repeated to ET through the cloud of confusion that comes from only looking at a limited interpretation of specs.

We see the C100 with external recorder as the esential part of our run and gun shooting that is the emotional crux of our next project. Our money people say that the C100 systems are the first purchase because they are cheaper to own and operate. if the next round of financing comes in then BMCCs will also come in. But we can do the project (combined feature, doc, mini series and web content) with only C100s, and not with only Blackmagic cameras. C100s will give us our film, and Blackmagic will not give us the DR we need when filming on location with minimal or no lights.

We need to shoot with no rig in variable light in countries where permitting is not possible; but even of that were not a consideration the C100 will give us more for less. In certain circumstances the Blackmagic will give more, at a higher cost, but not in all circumstances. The full 12 stop DR over the entire ISO range is the real DR revolution.

Right now the choice is shoot on more locations or add Blackmagics that are better only under some circumstances. A story is more than camera, that is only one part of the magic needed to transport people into new worlds.

 

[philiplipetz]

This is just so wrong. The ISO is meaningless with RED and BMC because it's actually completely locked with those cameras. You can't change it. You can change the "apparent" ISO but that's just adding brightness in post. That's why a lot of shooters will come out very displeased when shooting moderately low light.

This is why the cameras fail at low light (huge loss of dynamic range) more than cameras where the ISO can actually be changed. Compare that to the way still cameras work. They are raw but ISO is actually changed and the sensor is fed with more gain. They are significantly better in low light.

The 13 stops of advantage will go away real soon once you "up" the iso on the bmc.

I totally agree. You need look at DR at all the ISOs you will be shooting at.

Just look at the DR curves at differnent ISOs on the Canon C100 site. It is amazing that the DR does not contract as ISO raises as do other cameras so that at high ISOs when other cameras give you only 5-6 stops DR the the C series Canons delivers 12. I have keep repeating that this is a real DR revolution that is of more value for those who cannot afford the crews and equipment to control light. We are the ones that need cameras with high ISO in less than optimal conditions. Sorry that is the reality of low budget indie filming.

 

[vanvideo]

Back to the C100's features...

Looking at the pics, it appears to have the same side handgrip as the C300 - with a control dial, cool! Can anyone with C300 experience confirm if the angle of the grip is adjustable, like the FS100's?

Edit - never mind, the Canon website says it can rotate 360 deg. Nice! I wonder if it can be adjusted on the fly, like the EX3, or do you have to stop, remove the handgrip, and re-attach it to change the angle, like on the FS100?

 

[andykwilkinson]

I read (I think on the full specs on either the Canon US or EU websites) that the handgrip is infinitely adjustable for position, just like the C300. I believe it and it's mounting are identical (from the pictures I've seen).

 

[Noel Evans]

I wonder if it can be adjusted on the fly, like the EX3, or do you have to stop, remove the handgrip, and re-attach it to change the angle, like on the FS100?

Not on the fly. Pretty much have to unscrew it, switch position and re tighten.

 

[joe 1008]

Puhhh... red through all the postings here. Obviously this camera divides. I personally am inclined towards the positive side considering the quality of the sensor (resolution, dynamic range, color reproduction). For the - maybe - too weak codec there exist available solutions. The only bigger issue for me is the lack of 720 50/60p. But I would use it only in few situations and therefore could consider the workaround of 50/60i to 50/60p. Never did it, though. But I red in various blogs that it can give satisfying results. Is that right?

 

[Noel Evans]

A good place to start would be going to the old XHA1 forum. A few of the guys used to get good results doing it.