C100: Coming from a HPX250

Doug_EX

Doug_EX

Well-known member
Hi, I was wondering if a C100 was a big step forward in image quality compared to a Panasonic HPX250. I don't know what is the dynamic range on a HPX250 but is there really a big difference? I love 10bit 422 wich my 250 has. Is the 8 bit 420 of the c100 a deal breaker? What I don't like on my HPX250 is it's almost impossible to get a reasonably shallow dof. For that, I have to be way too far from the subject. Also, the C100 is way more light sensitive than my 250. What I do for a leaving is short documentaries, beauty shots (landscape, bit of wildlife, etc.), interviews. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
The availablity of great EF prime lenses may help as well. No time lapse or overcrank which is a neat feature of the HPX line.
 
I don't want to use prime lens. I need to change the focal lenth often for what I do. I was looking at the 17-55 from Canon, the Tokina 11-16 and of course the kit lens, the 24-105 for interview mainly. Maybe the 70-200 f4 is with a 2x or a 1.4x extender for wildlife.
 
I want to say WOW when I see the footage coming out of my camera. My HPX, though I like it very much (for event, on my jib), doesn't give me that. I also have a gh2 with prime lenses and all I can say is that the image is pretty good...not more than that. Crushed blacks, noise, contrasted colors, not much dynamic range, no xlr, etc. Will the C100 give me that? the WOW factor?
 
Why not rent one and give it a go? Let's just say that 9.5/10 C100 users I read about love the camera. The other .5 just don't understand how to set up the camera (or any of Canons video devices because there is so much control over how you can tune the camera to what you want from it).
 
Yes I know I could rent it before buying. The nearest place that do rent this camera is 700 miles away. I live in a small town in eastern Canada. I could make it delivered I guess. But to really know the limits of a camera takes several days of shooting and experimenting...at least for me. So I don't want to spend 700-1000$ on renting fees. For what I see on the web, the image looks amazing. It looks like a GH2 with more dynamic range and better colors.
 
I don't understand why people want just ONE camera, unless they can't afford to keep two? The 250 will do certain things much better than a C100 depending on the situation, especially run n' gun. What is your bread and butter, best paying work? If it's corporate or very fast moving cinema verite docs the 250 is very, very handy. I have a Panasonic HPX300 and that is very useful for run of the mill shoots or when being very fast, on the shoulder shoots. No slowing down for changing lenses. Some jobs you WANT a deeper DoF. Sports for instance. Or let's say you have to film a live event on sticks and need a smooth electronic zoom to recompose with a professional ease. Or doing animals where tracking the focus with typical C100 lenses would be hard. I've shot episodes of Bad Dogs for Animal Planet and there's no way I can track a fast moving dog with a C100 (or C300, or FS700, etc.)

However, if your work is only "highly stylized" then I could see selling the 250 for the C100. I use my C100 100% for the interviews and perhaps 50% for the b-roll. With the HPX300 I will roll in my ND or do other tricks to decrease my DoF but sometimes having a really deep area helps. Depends on what you're mainly shooting. As for shooting in 4:2:2 that's what a Ninja2 is for. I use my HPX300 for all green screen gigs and will rent an onboard recorder for shoots needing it until I figure out which one if any to purchase. Some of the TV shows I shoot for want 4:2:2. If a lot of your work is interviews the C100 has a much nicer look than a 250 that the clients love. It's a more contemporary look because the viewer and clients want the bg out of focus.

Lastly, when I know I will be in very low light I figure out a way to make the C100 work. So in sum, if you can keep the HPX250 and buy the C100 you will be really well covered unless what you're doing is very stylized, then you can sell the 250. That's my two cents.
 
Thank you for sharing! I must say that I was not really clear. I will keep my HPX250 for exactly what you just wrote. Especially on live events with my jib. I will surely sell my HPX170 and my GH2 though.
 
Doug_EX said:
What I don't like on my HPX250 is it's almost impossible to get a reasonably shallow dof. For that, I have to be way too far from the subject. Also, the C100 is way more light sensitive than my 250. What I do for a leaving is short documentaries, beauty shots (landscape, bit of wildlife, etc.), interviews. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Doug, I have absolutely no problem getting shallow depth of field with my HPX170. I shoot the same stuff you do. I have used a HPX250 twice and it is a pretty good cam if you know its sweet spot. If you are going for ultimate detail I don't think the c100 is going to get you there with its AVCHD codec.
 
Mark Williams said:
Doug, I have absolutely no problem getting shallow depth of field with my HPX170. I shoot the same stuff you do. I have used a HPX250 twice and it is a pretty good cam if you know its sweet spot. If you are going for ultimate detail I don't think the c100 is going to get you there with its AVCHD codec.
Click to expand...
Did you ever shot with the C100? You can get shallow dof with a HPX170??? We surely don't speak the same language. I never got shallow DOF with my HPX170 nor my HPX250. I'm must say that I'm not looking for extremely shallow DOF, just enough to keep the subject seperated from the background. Something that is nearly impossible with a 1/3 inch sensor. With a 2/3'' sensor it would be another story though. If buying a C100, I would almost definetily buy a Atamos ninja2 too.
 
Well, I guess we will just have to disagree. I'll let my HPX170 work provided in my signature for my video channel speak for itself. I have no problem getting decent shallow DOF shooting wide open and up to f 2.8 depending on subject distance and zoom setting. I do agree that a Atamos ninja2 would most likely address the C100 codec weakness.
 
Last edited:
Mark Williams said:
Well, I guess we will just have to disagree. I'll let my HPX170 work provided in my signature for my video channel speak for itself. I have no problem getting decent shallow DOF shooting wide open and up to f 2.8 depending on subject distance and zoom setting. I do agree that a Atamos ninja2 would address the C100 codec weakness.
Click to expand...
While I like your work Mark I have to disagree with what you are saying. The HPX170 is a fine and capable camera just as the 250 is. Yes, you can obtain shallow DOF. Sure, the codecs are nice. But either of the two cameras will NOT obtain the detail that the C100 can. Then let's start talking about low light abilities. Dynamic range. We can all discuss the AVCHD codec of the C100 by the numbers, but I assure you that it's pretty darn good. If it does in fact worry, add an external recorder and your are shooting a codec that out does the HPX170.

Getting shallow DOF on a 1/3 sensor at 2.8 with a long focal length is much different than getting shallow DOF isolation with a 16mm at 2.8 up close to your subject.

Then, all I have to do is refer people to this video I saw even before it was posted here in another thread:
 
Doug_EX said:
If buying a C100, I would almost definetily buy a Atamos ninja2 too.
Click to expand...

When I bought my C100 in May this year, I also bought a Ninja 2, mainly because the specs said I would see a big difference in image quality with prores and the 422 colour space. In reality I didn't. I sold the Ninja last week mainly because for 90% of what I shoot, the internal AVCHD codec is amazing (corporate promotional videos, interviews, etc). I would recommend the Ninja if you want ProRes, you record fast action, and shoot a lot of green screen, but to be honest in my case I'm not sure half my clients would notice the difference. Please don't listen to those who say the internal codec of the C100 is weak - Canon have done an amazing job with it and it out shines the spec sheets by miles. Just my 2 cents/pence.
 
Yes, Paul's work is exceptional. I have been following his videos for years. I never meant to imply that the HPX250 or HPX170 image was superior to the C100, just that you could get shallow dof with them which is what the OP originally had an issue with. He also talked about image quality and nothing about using an outboard recorder for the C100 thus my comment about the weak AVCHD codec which even Paul agrees as he is an avid nature shooter. Blowing tree leaves and moving water is the true torture test for any codec.
 
Last edited:
Mark Williams said:
Yes, Paul's work is exceptional. I have been following his videos for years. I never meant to imply that the HPX250 or HPX170 image was superior to the C100, just that you could get shallow dof with them which is what the OP originally had an issue with. He also talked about image quality and nothing about using an outboard recorder for the C100 thus my comment about the weak AVCHD codec which even Paul agrees as he is an avid nature shooter. Blowing tree leaves and moving water is the true torture test for any codec.
Click to expand...
With a 1/3 chip sensor the shallow dof is harder to get than with a s35 or full frame sensor...it's just a fact not an opinion. If you have a subject 5-6 feet from the background and you want it blurred out (the backgroung that is), the HPX170 wont let you do that.
 
What I really want is: same (or more) amount of detail than a GH2, good low light performance, xlr inputs, good dynamic range, not an oversaturated image (gh2). Also, having a camcorder with a fixed lens is sometimes frustrating. Not being able to get those ultra-wide shot is something that I can't live with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top