Hi all, I had posted this same thread in C300 forum but it's not a deliberate double posting. I needed opinions from both camera lovers so I can make a sound decision. Before I had posted in Sony asking advice on C300 vs. F3, I have made a decision of going C300 but of course now considering FS700. FS700 does amazing slow motion although quality of video in not as good when compared to C300. I can also upgrade to AXR5 recorder for future proofing with 4k Raw. I can then even sell the camera down the line and move to F5. So very well placed for future. C300 is a great camera but think at the moment it's over priced by atleast a 1k. It does produce some amazing video and crushes FS700 in ergonomics. Will the FS700 with it's ER give us 422 Raw 12bit? And then you have C100 giving us 422 with external recorder. Does it give us 8bit 50mbit footage out to external recorder? How does this footage compare to C300? What would you recommend I buy, C300 or FS700 or C100 with ER? Thanks for your help.
FS700 vs. C300 vs. C100 with ER
- Thread starter amarss
- Start date
True North
Well-known member
I don't know that you are going to get DRAMTICALLY 'better' shots out of a C300. Both cameras are capable of some fairly stunning images. There are FS700 performance advantages that you have outlined, like eventually outputting 4K Raw, but most people won't truly 'need' that. Don't forget the higher frame rates on the FS700. The metabones adapter also brings the FS700 into true Full Frame territory. How Canon can charge $14,000 for a camera that wont shoot 1080 60P is absolutely ridiculous to me. You can almost buy two FS700's for the same price and the C300 is nowhere near twice the camera of the FS700.
The C300 really has an internal codec advantage. 50MBS is broadcast standard but an external recorder on the FS700 will get you in the same territory which will set you back an additional $400-$1500 +/-
The C300 is smaller which will have some advantages. The C300 also has time code and gen lock connections which the FS700 does not have at all. From a features perspective, I personally think the Canon is overpriced by about $4000 dollars, I am sure others will differ in opinion.
The C300 really has an internal codec advantage. 50MBS is broadcast standard but an external recorder on the FS700 will get you in the same territory which will set you back an additional $400-$1500 +/-
The C300 is smaller which will have some advantages. The C300 also has time code and gen lock connections which the FS700 does not have at all. From a features perspective, I personally think the Canon is overpriced by about $4000 dollars, I am sure others will differ in opinion.
Last edited:
robmneilson
Veteran
I just prepped a C300 for a shoot I have tomorrow, camera was requested by the producer since they want the broadcast codec .Nice images, but WTF is up with only 60fps slow mo at 720? If I paid $13k I would want at least a 120fps option. Pretty underwhelmed.
Sorry, but NOT true about C300 being better in ergonomics. FS700 with modified shortened loupe is excellent for handheld work and working fast. C300, if you want audio and the LCD you have to attache (it's a separate unit) it to the top of the camera using 2 thick cables. Then the ergonomics sucks at that point. The FS700 works great with the default LCD + Shortened loupe + audio all in one unit without needing to add anything.
C300 ergonomics are myth perpetuated by Canon marketing. C300 is great if you only want to work with the EVF and don't need XLR audio, but both LCD and a good loupe is a must IMO for run and gun shooting and when you have to work fast. I have a Small HD DP6, but I only use it unless I'm working with a director or when it's a set type situation. For field work, it's only the LCD and loupe and it's great.
As for myself, I love the FS700. I think the image is really good. It's different than Canon as Canon has that baked in Canon look that's hard to get away from. The FS700 has a very neutral look that I really like. People always get the FS700 image confused with the FS100, but the FS700 is much nicer because of the Cinegammas.
The 50mbs 4:2:2 is great on the Canon, but the camera costs almost 2X as much. People always seem to forget that.
Also, no slow motion on either Canons. Sorry, but 720p does not count in 2013. For stuff like music videos, sports, dramatic B-Roll, artistic pieces; slow motion is a huge benefit. For me, slow motion is a huge part of my aesthetic and I'm getting jobs because clients like the way I use slow motion in my pieces.
Plus, Speed Booster on FS700 for that amazing Full Frame look. Even if they were the same price, I probably would still take the FS700 over the C300. As for the C100, I would not buy that. It's just not worth it.
C300 ergonomics are myth perpetuated by Canon marketing. C300 is great if you only want to work with the EVF and don't need XLR audio, but both LCD and a good loupe is a must IMO for run and gun shooting and when you have to work fast. I have a Small HD DP6, but I only use it unless I'm working with a director or when it's a set type situation. For field work, it's only the LCD and loupe and it's great.
As for myself, I love the FS700. I think the image is really good. It's different than Canon as Canon has that baked in Canon look that's hard to get away from. The FS700 has a very neutral look that I really like. People always get the FS700 image confused with the FS100, but the FS700 is much nicer because of the Cinegammas.
The 50mbs 4:2:2 is great on the Canon, but the camera costs almost 2X as much. People always seem to forget that.
Also, no slow motion on either Canons. Sorry, but 720p does not count in 2013. For stuff like music videos, sports, dramatic B-Roll, artistic pieces; slow motion is a huge benefit. For me, slow motion is a huge part of my aesthetic and I'm getting jobs because clients like the way I use slow motion in my pieces.
Plus, Speed Booster on FS700 for that amazing Full Frame look. Even if they were the same price, I probably would still take the FS700 over the C300. As for the C100, I would not buy that. It's just not worth it.
Last edited:
Fluoro
Well-known member
I disagree most wholeheartedly. For certain kinds of shooting the C series Canons are a dream ergonomically.
The C100 is a fantastic camera and is not overpriced IMHO.
Maarek, the Canons do have better button placement; and the FS700's button placement isn't that pretty, but it takes about 1 day to get used to it and then it's something you don't even think about. Having to attach the large LCD / XLR / unit + 2 cables to the top of the C300 and having an un-balanced top heavy camera every time I need an LCD or sound is something I would NEVER get used to or be happy with especially if I have to work fast.
The C100's God awful, tiny EVF is also something I would never get used to. Try shooting the C100 in bright daylight? The EVF certainty isn't going to do much. When I was playing with it at the EVS store in LA, the sales guy even remarked: "Well... the EVF is pretty useless. I think Canon just put it there so they can say they have one."
As for rigging the FS700, it rigs perfectly fine, no problems at all as tons of people have done it. For me when I'm doing field work or have to work fast, I often just shoot it barebones with zero rigging and it works great because the EVF (when shortened), LCD and sound are on ONE unit; and they all work well. The FS700 might not look pretty, but it's very practical and self contained unlike the Canons.
The C100's God awful, tiny EVF is also something I would never get used to. Try shooting the C100 in bright daylight? The EVF certainty isn't going to do much. When I was playing with it at the EVS store in LA, the sales guy even remarked: "Well... the EVF is pretty useless. I think Canon just put it there so they can say they have one."
As for rigging the FS700, it rigs perfectly fine, no problems at all as tons of people have done it. For me when I'm doing field work or have to work fast, I often just shoot it barebones with zero rigging and it works great because the EVF (when shortened), LCD and sound are on ONE unit; and they all work well. The FS700 might not look pretty, but it's very practical and self contained unlike the Canons.
Last edited:
from a email to a friend asking a similar question - he shoots drama, mainly MoW's and his budgets are getting crunched;
1) all are ergnomic nightmares (when compared to an Alexa, a 235 or a XTR) - so what the discussion really is about is shades of bad.. they all NEED a rig and support, no real diffrences between them other than the flavor & cost of the rig
2) Can you bill enough 240Fps work to make the 700 a reasonable investment?
3) in the real world the C300 falls apart at 1280ISO, useless sea of noise at 1600, the 700 is still useable up to 2000, the 100 to 2400, do you need the low light, and can you see your self billing enough work at low light to make a return on this investment?
4) I have not seen a frame from a C100 yet, the BMD footage i have worked on was pretty damm good, but was day exterior / overcast, even a F900 could look good in those condtions.. the interwebs say the BMD falls apart reaaaaally fast when the light drops -or- you move the camera quickly
5) The C300/FS700/FS100 can all cut together well, in the real world they all have about the same latuide... C300 fanboy BS is just that, anyone with decent gradeing chops can get them to the same place by difrent routes... C300 is far and away the easist to work with in gradeing, that is a cost saveing to production that should not be overlooked
6) they all NEED an external recorder - full stop, at the minimal cost of BMD (under 400) you would be a fool not to get it
7) C300 when inside it's comfort zone is the pick of the litter... but one setup on a street a night with avb light will kill any love you had for it... bring lights for everything, always ;-)
8) I'd get 2 x C300's for A & B cam, and a FS100 for lowlight/splinter unit, and only look at the 700 if there's a load of action scenes, then add it to the Splinter unit
9) if i could only get one camera it would be the FS700 tho, it covers the most bases, the safest choice for a swiss army knife camera
1) all are ergnomic nightmares (when compared to an Alexa, a 235 or a XTR) - so what the discussion really is about is shades of bad.. they all NEED a rig and support, no real diffrences between them other than the flavor & cost of the rig
2) Can you bill enough 240Fps work to make the 700 a reasonable investment?
3) in the real world the C300 falls apart at 1280ISO, useless sea of noise at 1600, the 700 is still useable up to 2000, the 100 to 2400, do you need the low light, and can you see your self billing enough work at low light to make a return on this investment?
4) I have not seen a frame from a C100 yet, the BMD footage i have worked on was pretty damm good, but was day exterior / overcast, even a F900 could look good in those condtions.. the interwebs say the BMD falls apart reaaaaally fast when the light drops -or- you move the camera quickly
5) The C300/FS700/FS100 can all cut together well, in the real world they all have about the same latuide... C300 fanboy BS is just that, anyone with decent gradeing chops can get them to the same place by difrent routes... C300 is far and away the easist to work with in gradeing, that is a cost saveing to production that should not be overlooked
6) they all NEED an external recorder - full stop, at the minimal cost of BMD (under 400) you would be a fool not to get it
7) C300 when inside it's comfort zone is the pick of the litter... but one setup on a street a night with avb light will kill any love you had for it... bring lights for everything, always ;-)
8) I'd get 2 x C300's for A & B cam, and a FS100 for lowlight/splinter unit, and only look at the 700 if there's a load of action scenes, then add it to the Splinter unit
9) if i could only get one camera it would be the FS700 tho, it covers the most bases, the safest choice for a swiss army knife camera
The only thing I dislike about the FS700 ergonomics is the LCD is place on the top instead of the side. But even that isn't as bad as people make it out to be. You can still see it fine about 6" above your head. Like I said, I just like that the FS700 has everything in one box and it's just so damn versatile.
True North
Well-known member
Hey Dermot
I liked your friends input. Out of curiosity, why would your friend say that they all need an external recorder? I would think one of the benefits of the C300 is that 50MBS 422 internal codec. The only reason to really need an external recorder at that point would be if you need RAW output or if you didn't want to work with that Canon Codec.
I liked your friends input. Out of curiosity, why would your friend say that they all need an external recorder? I would think one of the benefits of the C300 is that 50MBS 422 internal codec. The only reason to really need an external recorder at that point would be if you need RAW output or if you didn't want to work with that Canon Codec.
Temporal & compression artifacts in the Canon codec - makeing gradeing with secondaries more of a compromise than need be, given the minimal expense of an external recorder, the cost of the recorder is more than off-set by increased hours or lost oppertunities in the gradeing suite
One could make an argument that useing any of the internal codecs are more expensive given a 3K/day cost for a finishing/gradeing suite + artists that can turn around a MoW in 5 days with network approvals and a clean QC report every time
A far cry from someone doing web & DVD stuff entirely themselves on FCP/PP tho
d
Chris Lawes
Active member
I am also torn between FS700 and C100+external recorder. I shoot mainly verite style docs, so skintones and shooting in low/available light is important to me. These are the main two reasons I am leaning towards C100 now, I am counting on the C100 having much nicer, usable shots at ISO's 1600-12800 than the FS700. Does anybody have an hands on experience they can share to shed light on that? I've seen this video which is pretty compelling, but it's a single unscientific test I guess:
Thanks for your input!
Thanks for your input!
Sorry if I sound really bias, but I love the FS700 and I truly think it will soon be the best sub $15K camera there is.
Maybe wait a few weeks because as you probably know, the 7Q recorder is coming out for the FS700 very soon. Granted, the FS700 + 7Q is about $12,000, but to me it's still worth it over the C100 + Atomos by a long stretch, because it will be a pretty legit, lower end Cinema Camera. I think pretty everyone is going to buy the 7Q, so you can't mention one without the other.
Advantages of FS700 + 7Q over C100 + Atomos
1) S-Log2 which gives the FS700 close to 14 stops of DR (2 more stops than the C100/C300). Plus, S-Log makes skin tones and highlights look really good, IMO
2) C100 is 4:2:2 8 bit codec to recorder. FS700 + 7Q will have 4:2:2 10 Bit, 4:4:4 12 bit and 2K RAW and 4K 4:2:2. FS700 will be a mini F5
3) Low light on S-Log is insane. Pretty clean at ISO 20,000 + Speed Booster gives it 1 additional stop. Probably better lowlight than the C300
4) More universal mount = Speed Booster which is huge = 1 extra stop of light + Changed focal lengths. Very, very useful kit.
5) High Frame rates on FS700 which makes magic
6) I peeped through the EVF on the C100 and it's almost useless. The EVF on the FS700 is very useful if you shorten the tube.
7) SDI connector vs HDMI output. As I have learned, this is a huge advantage while shooting on set with video feed for director and client monitors.
8) 7Q is a much better monitor than the Atomos
Advantages of C100
1) Nice out the box look. FS700 just gives you a WYSIWYG realistic look. Canon stylizes it for you in the box (very warm colors). For me, I prefer the realistic Sony look because I love to grade.
2) Smaller which is very nice IMO
3) Cheaper by about $5K with recorders.
Some videos to look forward to when the 7Q comes out soon
This looks amazing. 2k 240fps RAW. I would image the 7Q to look pretty much the same. You can't even come close to this on the C100 or C300. Since the C500 doesn't do 240fps, you can't even do it on that camera which costs 3x as much as the FS700 +7Q
S-Log 2 in low light. Very clean for 20,000 ISO. This FS700 + 8-Bit recorder
An internal codec S-Log 2 test. I probably should have graded it a bit more. S_log 2 internal is decent, but you can't grade it too hard because of the 8-bit. But with a recorder that will change. S-Log 2 has this really nice, luminous quality. I love S-Log, but for it to fully work it should have a 10-bit recorder IMO.
Plus the X-Factor of slow motion. You just cannot do this on any Canon. Not even close
Click on my URLs listed below. Lots of FS700 work - both Professional and Personal projects
Maybe wait a few weeks because as you probably know, the 7Q recorder is coming out for the FS700 very soon. Granted, the FS700 + 7Q is about $12,000, but to me it's still worth it over the C100 + Atomos by a long stretch, because it will be a pretty legit, lower end Cinema Camera. I think pretty everyone is going to buy the 7Q, so you can't mention one without the other.
Advantages of FS700 + 7Q over C100 + Atomos
1) S-Log2 which gives the FS700 close to 14 stops of DR (2 more stops than the C100/C300). Plus, S-Log makes skin tones and highlights look really good, IMO
2) C100 is 4:2:2 8 bit codec to recorder. FS700 + 7Q will have 4:2:2 10 Bit, 4:4:4 12 bit and 2K RAW and 4K 4:2:2. FS700 will be a mini F5
3) Low light on S-Log is insane. Pretty clean at ISO 20,000 + Speed Booster gives it 1 additional stop. Probably better lowlight than the C300
4) More universal mount = Speed Booster which is huge = 1 extra stop of light + Changed focal lengths. Very, very useful kit.
5) High Frame rates on FS700 which makes magic
6) I peeped through the EVF on the C100 and it's almost useless. The EVF on the FS700 is very useful if you shorten the tube.
7) SDI connector vs HDMI output. As I have learned, this is a huge advantage while shooting on set with video feed for director and client monitors.
8) 7Q is a much better monitor than the Atomos
Advantages of C100
1) Nice out the box look. FS700 just gives you a WYSIWYG realistic look. Canon stylizes it for you in the box (very warm colors). For me, I prefer the realistic Sony look because I love to grade.
2) Smaller which is very nice IMO
3) Cheaper by about $5K with recorders.
Some videos to look forward to when the 7Q comes out soon
This looks amazing. 2k 240fps RAW. I would image the 7Q to look pretty much the same. You can't even come close to this on the C100 or C300. Since the C500 doesn't do 240fps, you can't even do it on that camera which costs 3x as much as the FS700 +7Q
S-Log 2 in low light. Very clean for 20,000 ISO. This FS700 + 8-Bit recorder
An internal codec S-Log 2 test. I probably should have graded it a bit more. S_log 2 internal is decent, but you can't grade it too hard because of the 8-bit. But with a recorder that will change. S-Log 2 has this really nice, luminous quality. I love S-Log, but for it to fully work it should have a 10-bit recorder IMO.
Plus the X-Factor of slow motion. You just cannot do this on any Canon. Not even close
Click on my URLs listed below. Lots of FS700 work - both Professional and Personal projects
Last edited:
Chris Lawes
Active member
Wow, Filippo's pool video is mind-blowing. Granted, he's shot stuff on a GH2 that looked mindblowing too, somehow he manages to make imagery with identical setups to those I own that look a million times better, funny it's almost as if the operator is a big factor.... 
But yeah, you just convinced me to be more confused. Especially with "TheNewF" coming soon (which I assume will be an updated F3 with 4K and 60p?)
If the lowlight is better than C100's then that kills one of the main pros for me. The other's are the out-of-box skintones/IQ, the MUCH easier handheld-docu-style shooting setup (FS700 sucks without a shoulder rig, and even then the shoulder rig will be bigger/heavier than C100), Cache record and interval record features.
Actually if you have time I'd appreciate you reading my blog post about this very debate and commenting your input:
http://chrislawes.com/posts/2013-super35mm-documentary-camera-rigs-under-10k/
But yeah, you just convinced me to be more confused. Especially with "TheNewF" coming soon (which I assume will be an updated F3 with 4K and 60p?)
If the lowlight is better than C100's then that kills one of the main pros for me. The other's are the out-of-box skintones/IQ, the MUCH easier handheld-docu-style shooting setup (FS700 sucks without a shoulder rig, and even then the shoulder rig will be bigger/heavier than C100), Cache record and interval record features.
Actually if you have time I'd appreciate you reading my blog post about this very debate and commenting your input:
http://chrislawes.com/posts/2013-super35mm-documentary-camera-rigs-under-10k/
Last edited:
Chris Lawes
Active member
Also, your video on the beach is pretty fantastic as well. If you're able to get that with S-Log internally definitely bodes well for recorder.
For me, anything that is handheld that I shoot both professionally and personally, I don't use a rig at all. I use only the camera and the stock Loupe that has been shortened (which is crucial to my style of handheld shooting). I don't even have the FS700 side handle on. The trick to good barebones handheld on the FS700 is to support the bottom of the camera with your right hand and obviously use your left hand to hold the lens. By doing that, you can even hold the camera eye level for a good few minutes. It's kind of nice how the FS700 loupe swivels every way as well as you can quickly move it from cradle to eye level without taking your eye off.
That's another reason why the C100 would be hard for me, because the EVF sucks so bad and is pretty much useless when I played with it at EVS in Glendale. The Z-Finder for the C100 might be OK, but it's huge and doesn't look like it can move around the same way the FS700 Loupe does.
I shoot a ton of handheld as well. In fact, I landed a pretty big DP job for some HGTV (Home Garden Television) lifestyle spots because they really like my handheld vibe.
With that said, I mainly shoot stuff that is generally set up where I have control over the scene, so the shots are not super long. I know if I shot Reality TV or Events, I would probably need a shoulder rig. IMO, the bigger the rig, the more conservative you shoot; that why I avoid using one all together. When I get the 7Q, I'm just going to mount it on the Hot Shoe to keep things small. I've read that there will be a small / camcorder style battery option for the 7Q, so that bodes well for me.
Last edited:
True North
Well-known member
Nice round up of comparison points Gene
When coupled with a 7Q you really have entirely new camera with the FS700 that IMO outperforms a C300 for less money and that to me is really remarkable.
I agree with Gene about the form factor and the out of box look of the Canon which are superior to FS700. The viewfinder on the C100 is downright insulting.
If you are willing to work with the FS700 I think most people can get a comparable image to a Canon. When coupled with a 7Q I can't think of a camera that is equal to the FS700 in terms of functions and features in that price bracket (FS700 + 7Q = $11679 list). I was trying to make a decision between a C100 (too crippled) a C300 (too expensive) and an FS700. I am very happy with my decision and with the addition of the 7Q I will really be getting a whole lot more Camera than I ever thought possible for the price.
Good luck with your decision making process.
When coupled with a 7Q you really have entirely new camera with the FS700 that IMO outperforms a C300 for less money and that to me is really remarkable.
I agree with Gene about the form factor and the out of box look of the Canon which are superior to FS700. The viewfinder on the C100 is downright insulting.
If you are willing to work with the FS700 I think most people can get a comparable image to a Canon. When coupled with a 7Q I can't think of a camera that is equal to the FS700 in terms of functions and features in that price bracket (FS700 + 7Q = $11679 list). I was trying to make a decision between a C100 (too crippled) a C300 (too expensive) and an FS700. I am very happy with my decision and with the addition of the 7Q I will really be getting a whole lot more Camera than I ever thought possible for the price.
Good luck with your decision making process.
Sheldon Charron
Well-known member
I'm sold. It's the FS700 for me. I'll rent or buy the 7Q or 4k Option when it's available. Sorry Canon. The 30 year love affair is over. Time to move on.
Chris Lawes
Active member
Yep.
Although that lovely 7Q won't be available for purchases for another 4-6 months probably from what Abelcine tells me. Rental it is.
Should get a good result with S-LOG2 and any 10bit 4:2:2 recorder still though right? It's just the slowmo, 4K, and raw the Odyssey gives you above say a Atomos Samurai Blade correct?