C100: Canon.. is november

I just gotta say, it's great to see some reason-ability for once, people not expecting things for free and not asking silly things like 4K for $100 bucks.

keep the dialogue going, even if it's futile, if canon sees a market for post-purchase upgrade sales(seems already evident with the AF upgrade) then might as well see what they're willing to offer.
 
I think/hope this is the beginning of a manufacturer's trend toward us not having to buy a new box every 18 months. I shot for nearly 25 years with an Aaton LTR7 that I had upgraded over the years... X magazines, shutter and 54fps motor, matte box mount on body - I probably paid 10-12,000 bucks for these, but didn't have to spring $30,000 for a new camera to stay state-of-the-art... If Panasonic had offered a sensor upgrade for the AF100 I'd still be using it...
 
From what I'm hearing its a sensor swap & firmware upgrade for $500.

Darren Levine said:
begs the question though.... it gives the impression that this is a sensor level modification, but i cannot imagine them swapping out the sensor for that cost, and if it is a different sensor, what performance variation is there?

something tells me it's more of a tuning than any sort of a addition or modification, even though that's what they imply.
Click to expand...
 
How can Canon produce this http://www.visuals.co.uk/salesProductDetail.php?PRODUCTID=2516529 with 50mbps 422, HD-SDI and variable frame rates for £2500 and yet hold these features back from the C100 which costs nearly twice the price but include them on the C300 at £10000? Its a sort of rhetorical question as I know the form factor of the XF105 is very different, it has a fixed lens, and its not S35 etc - it makes me question the wisdom of the bean counters and marketing of people at Canon. Does adding the word 'Cinema' to the C300 make it £7500 more expensive? Rant over...

Now back to producing amazing images with my C100...
 
Well I believe just like the Pc there is a top of the hill for Cameras like this. ...they spread their features around and hold back features so they can freshen up their new cameras. They can offer 50/60p on this camera but they don't. What is the next big thing to sell cameras...4k...but if they listen to people...they know 4k won't be adopted anytime soon.
 
Hallo
if the sensor on the C100 is identical to the C300 and C500..why Canon does not put this super sensor and C300 & C500 :-) They do not understand that we need especially for AF on C100..we need a better codec, a better LCD and even a 1920x1080 50 p .. plus the rest that comes with the new Frimware.

Thanks Canon :-)
 
Canon have to protect their more expensive cameras though. They could have all those features but then nobody would ever buy the C300 :)
 
Joe Stas said:
Canon have to protect their more expensive cameras though. They could have all those features but then nobody would ever buy the C300 :)
Click to expand...


this is why i think they should have spread out the resolution across the 3 cameras, make the c300 2.7K and the c100 2.3K. that would make signification jumps/differences in acquisition between the cameras and each far more competitive towards other brands.
 
I have the 70D and I like the AF tracking feature but I don't really see the point without a touch-screen LCD display to select focus points. The 70D is cool because the touch screen display works so well that I can quickly adjust my AF point while shooting and keep tracking focus. I'm not sure how you would do that with the C100. And if the solution is that it only AFs in the center of the frame, I'm not sure I'd go for the upgrade.
 
Or how about the C300 has timecode and genlock and a nicer viewfinder, surely that is difference enough. I really don't get why the C100 only has AVCHD.

Its a shame that Canon is crippling the onboard image quality on purpose. What we need is a bit rate hack like the GH2 has.
 
liondor1969 said:
Hallo
if the sensor on the C100 is identical to the C300 and C500..why Canon does not put this super sensor and C300 & C500 :-) They do not understand that we need especially for AF on C100..we need a better codec, a better LCD and even a 1920x1080 50 p .. plus the rest that comes with the new Frimware.

Thanks Canon :-)
Click to expand...
I would think that by volume the C100 is out there is larger numbers than the C500 by a ton. I would also think that its outselling the C300 currently. So getting this to the masses would make sense to me.
 
Darren Levine said:
this is why i think they should have spread out the resolution across the 3 cameras, make the c300 2.7K and the c100 2.3K. that would make signification jumps/differences in acquisition between the cameras and each far more competitive towards other brands.
Click to expand...

I believe having 2.7k or 2.3k would be pointless on one of these cameras as it would make the sensor technology they developed for the cameras counter-intuitive. Plus, those are non-standard formats that are really only beneficial for a bayer sensor that will be downscaled to 2k or 1080p resolution. Since the C-series cameras already resolve at the limit of 1080p resolution b/c of it's sensor design, there is no need to debayer at a 2.xx resolution. It would only make the camera less power efficient and introduce aliasing & possibly moire.

It would be nice, though, if they would use the additional pixels on the sensor and open up 2K recording capabilities on the C300. I know there's no visible difference between 1080p and 2K - but try telling that to a producer who only knows marketing buzzwords ;)
 
sebben said:
What we need is a bit rate hack like the GH2 has.
Click to expand...

Herein lies the rub:

AVCHD is a standard. It's a very strict standard* - so it's easy to shoot rushes and hand off to a client/director/editor. It's actually very good these days - I've done tests comparing it with XDCAM-EX and found no difference.

It's not necessarily the technical quality of AVCHD that's so wrong. It's the little things: No shot duration, timecode oddities, and of course the bloody awful Progressive Segmented Frame blasphemy that Canon purport to be acceptable to the videography market.

FWIW, the 50/60p AVCHD that Sony invented was not taken lightly by the Non-Linear Edit software industry. It took some time to catch up.

If you buy a C100 and want 4:2:2 - get a Ninja. If you want slomo, go get an FS700 - because it was always destined for 4K, it has the buffer to do this.

The C100 is made for videographers. I can live, to a certain extent, with AVCHD and HDMI to Ninja. What I can't believe is that they have neutered timelapse. And yes, even 720p60 slomo would be good.

But please, Canon, for the love of all that's sacred, please add 'Shot Duration' to the display. LOL

* The standard is so strict, it seems to deny 'shot duration' nor does it allow ubiquitous description of 'progressive' - and, tough as it sounds, it may not really allow 'timecode', though some have managed it.
 
Last edited:
Matt, I love reading your posts. Well written and informative. I learn something every time.

Ok. Back to the subject.
 
I have a C100, and I am mostly getting annoyed at the macro blocking of the codec in the dark areas. I don't really understand why Canon Log is included if you can't even Dlog the the footage without introducing a lot of visible macro blocks. Now it cleans up pretty well with neat video but it just adds more to do and increases rendering time.

For me it is turning out to be camera that is good on paper but in practice it has some pretty bad let downs. Perhaps, I just need to get an external recorder, but how do you attach one of those in an elegant way to the camera? The form factor really does not lend itself to hanging things off it. (Does any camera) The extra bulk and batteries also negates the whole concept of the C100, to be a light, quick camera to use.

I think I just need to save up for an Amira. And hope that I can earn enough money in the mean time with the C100 to pay for it. At the end of the day, I feel like the C100 is crippled to protect the C300. And I knew this before I bought it, but I just didn't want to believe it.
 
sebben said:
I have a C100, and I am mostly getting annoyed at the macro blocking of the codec in the dark areas. I don't really understand why Canon Log is included if you can't even Dlog the the footage without introducing a lot of visible macro blocks. Now it cleans up pretty well with neat video but it just adds more to do and increases rendering time.

For me it is turning out to be camera that is good on paper but in practice it has some pretty bad let downs. Perhaps, I just need to get an external recorder, but how do you attach one of those in an elegant way to the camera? The form factor really does not lend itself to hanging things off it. (Does any camera) The extra bulk and batteries also negates the whole concept of the C100, to be a light, quick camera to use.

I think I just need to save up for an Amira. And hope that I can earn enough money in the mean time with the C100 to pay for it. At the end of the day, I feel like the C100 is crippled to protect the C300. And I knew this before I bought it, but I just didn't want to believe it.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree, Canon should/could give us a proper progressive codec. The Ninja 2 is a good alternative and will take away the limitations you have found with AVCHD. Mounting a Ninja is an issue as is any external recorder/monitor on any camera unfortunately. Its one of the reasons I sold mine. For me its advantages didn't out number the drawbacks like mounting it and the extra setup time when out shooting plus extra weight on the camera. I like to work light and efficiently.

All in all I think this C100 is a pleasantly surprising little beast and for me betters the specs given by Canon. I think with some nice firmware updates it will only improve.
 
Me I can live with AVCHD. Would I like 100 mb/s bit rate, 422, 10 bit? Well yes, who wouldn't?
What I don't understand is that there's no timelapse option and slow-mo possibilities (except the 60i to 24/30p workflow).
All in all, I think it's a fantastic cam for the price. We always want more, more, more and pay less.
It's a semi-pro cam aimed to semi-pro videographer with a semi-pro price tag.
 
sebben said:
I am mostly getting annoyed at the macro blocking of the codec in the dark areas (...) Perhaps, I just need to get an external recorder
Click to expand...

A little note of caution here: if you DO go with a Ninja (I think you will), do try ProRes HQ early, compare and contrast with the 'middle ground' ProRes 422, avoid anything below... the macroblocking gets WORSE than with AVCHD (in my experience).

I agree that there are certain setups that seem to hit an unfortunate harmonic. Its as if the C100 uses a sort of 'diffusion dither' approach in its use of 8 bits per channel, and this can choke the compressor - especially in flat areas of tone around 25-35 IRE that needs to be a major part of your chiaroscuro background (sigh).

But having played with S-Log from the Sony F3 - both onboard recordings and to Samurai - C-Log by comparison is rather more 'twig' than 'log'. I'm using it as a highlight preserver in difficult lighting situations, rather than a balls-out S-Log variant, which means I'm probably a little brighter on C-Log than its inventors intended (as I'm mainly going by the Waveform Monitor).

sebben said:
I think I just need to save up for an Amira.
Click to expand...

A plan, and there's Scarlet, BMC, F5... there's a part of me that says I'll not buy another 8 bit camera. But they all have their quirks.
 
There should be a design your own camera competition.....if they put an advert on all of our posts over the past years they wouldn't need their vast reserves of money to build it. They also don't need R&D...we could pick it apart once they build it and send it back to the drawing board with more features we didn't think of. Can you think of an industry quiet like Cameras (stills & movie) that has it's features this much analized? I just got to say the Canon C100 is so close....so very close to being the perfect camera for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top