Interesting comparison. The C100 looks fantastically sharp, really pristine footage coming from that thing. I can't help but think the GH2 could have been sharper. There were some shots where I just know the GH2 could have produced razor sharp footage, almost to a fault. Overall, it's a fantastic camera, but if I was in the market for this kind of image, I'd go with the FS100. It's cheaper, does slow mo and just has a ton of great features for half the price. Heck, you could pretty much get a BMC and an FS100 for nearly the same price as a C100. Still trying to figure out where the market is for this cam... but obviously there is one.
GH2 GH2 compared to the C100
- Thread starter Gary Huff
- Start date
I also agree here. Something is wrong with most GH2 shots in that clip. The GH2 is definitely not as soft as it's shown here, not even close, unless it's not properly focused , a soft filter was used on the lens or in post, a bad lens was used, too much light was allowed to hit the front lens element or the camera is defective. I mean, not even when GH2 footage is compared to RED footage it looks that much softer. Something went wrong here.
B&H Photo currently lists the FS100 on sale at $4,100. The Canon C100 is expected to debut at $6,500, so I wouldn't call it "half the price".
From the few C100 tests I've seen, it looks like the C100 will trump the FS100 when it comes to high ISO low-light shooting while maintaining it's 12 stops of dynamic range. The C100 also looks like it may produce a sharper 4:2:2 image when coupled with an external recorder. I am really curious to see how these two cameras compare in a head to head shootout.
Well it isn't too hard to find a used FS100 for around $3000-3500, just gotta keep your eyes open. I'd still feel comfortable with calling that essentially half price. It may produce a sharper image with the recorder, but that's an expensive add on. I think just the FS100 vs the C100 alone without add ons- one vs the other would make for a pretty close result. I'd be interested to see if the C100 could trump the FS100 in low light... think that may be too early to call, but still interested to see a low light shoot out. Overall, forgetting the price, the FS100 seems like a much more robust camera with better features.
Where the C100 does have a leg up, is in ergonomics, clear winner right there.
Where the C100 does have a leg up, is in ergonomics, clear winner right there.
Which features you speak of? 60p? Because the FS100 doesn't even have ND filters, whereas the C100 does. The FS100 is pretty much a glorified DSLR with an as bad form factor. It makes better images than a DSLR but shooting with it is just as impractical.
Does the C100 do slow mo? Even still $6500 is way overpriced. You can place nd filters in front of your lenses.... $6500 I still say BMCC kills this camera and I have a GH3 in my back pocket.
Like I said, the only thing I can think in terms of features the FS100 has is 60p. Yes, it's slow, but nothing like the FS700, so not that huge of a feature anyway. But this is the only thing. This is why I asked what features make it so superior.
I'm not talking about the FS100, my remarks are the image from the BMCC to my eye are superior compared to the C100.
dustylense
Veteran
Completely different cameras. The C100 can go places the BMC just can't. All the C100 takes is 2 or 3 batteries and a couple cheap SD cards to shoot for 2 full days of heavy shooting and will fit in a shoulder bag with a couple lenses. The C100 is almost the perfect run and gun long form shooting camera there is right now with what seems to be great performance so far.
Give me a C200. One with 1080/60p same codec, and an HD/SDI out even if 8 bit for $9000 and I'd be all over it.
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
C100 may be sharpest 1080 cam I've ever seen. It's freaking razor sharp!
Could be the EOS Standard profile.