I'm thinking about getting a reaL video camera

Michael Thames

Michael Thames

Carbonite Member
I sold my XH-A1 last year and got a 5D3 which I love! The 5D3 has forced me to learn about video and photography in a way I didn't when I had the XH-A1. However, I find myself needing a regular functioning camcorder for certain things, basically ease of use, and a B-roll camera. The problem is I shoot mainly indoors, and need the low light thing. I looked at the new Panny X-1000 4K....... but quickly realized I had become spoiled by the DOF abilities of the 5D3, and don't know if I could ever go back to limitations of a small sensor again. The GH4 intrigued me but the more I looked at the footage the less I liked the image where everything is sharp and in focus...... I don't shoot panoramic landscapes or leaves on trees in the jungle, I do mainly close up music videos.

So far it seems I have set my sights on the Canon C100 and if nothing else catches my eye I will most likely be getting one within the next couple of months. I saw the Panny X-1000 4K and that spurred my interest in perhaps getting a regular camcorder.

Anything else out there that can compete with the C100, for my needs that I have thought about?
 
While not a camcorder, a GH4 with a SpeedBooster will give you the same DOF as the C100 if that is a concern. But the C100 is a great low cost low light camera.
 
I think the C100 is a great fit, but I would not call it a video camera. It is not different in terms of usage than the 5DMKIII outside of having proper audio and viewfinder. You will probably have to wait until NAB2015 to get anything new from the big three.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I think the C100 is a great fit, but I would not call it a video camera. It is not different in terms of usage than the 5DMKIII outside of having proper audio and viewfinder. You will probably have to wait until NAB2015 to get anything new from the big three.
Click to expand...

How is it not a video camera? No built in zoom lens? It's not an on the shoulder ENG design? It doesn't use tape? I don't get it. Enlighten me as to why the C100 is not a video camera.
 
TheDingo said:
I was surprised by that comment too. I'm guessing he's separating ENG cameras from Digital-Cine cameras.
Click to expand...
You can get snobby and distinguish an iPhone from being a "real" video camera, you can bemoan the workarounds and ergonomics of DSLRs as video cameras, but calling out the C100 does not make sense unless you've never picked one up and shot with it.
 
C100 is a video camera. All functions are on buttons (no menu bullshit) and it has built-in ND's. If that isn't a video camera, I don't know what is. I'm with the OP. I've been shooting with the Mark III since it was released but I think I need to upgrade to a proper video camera.
 
By the time you add on the speed booster and the XLR input thing which cost $2000, it's the same cost as the C100. I prefer the image and low light performance of the C100. The GH4 is not an option. Plus, I have great Canon glass.
 
Wow, calm down everybody... Snobbish? Yes, I am referring to the C100 as a digital cinema camera. A video camera to me is an XF300 or a 2/3" shoulder mount Varicam. Yes the lines are blurred so erase the comment. Problem solved.
 
If you already have all the Canon glass, then sure, a C100 makes sense if you have the cash as you're already locked into that ecosystem. There's some distinction to be made between 'large sensor' and 'small sensor' video cameras, somewhere between 4/3" and 1" being the splitting point... the C100 is swell and all, but will never give you a fast 20x zoom or an easily shoulder-mounted form or compact integrated XLR without that flimsy 'wobbly goblin' of a handle. There are plenty of applications for a fast-working, wide range all-in-one small sensor video camera, but if you want focus control and low light more than zoom range and operating ease, then sure - large sensor is definitely where you're looking.

An FS700 offers more functionality in a more cumbersome yet sturdier package for roughly equal money, and could use your Canon lenses via the Metabones adapter.

The reason most of the footage samples that exist for GH4 are all super-sharp, super-deep focus exteriors is because that's where the camera shows off its 4Kability... with fast lenses and a Beachtek adapter, it will do everything as well as C100 (from 1600iso down, at least). However, it's not a classic 'video camera,' and you clearly don't want one, so no need to belabor that.

Very intrigued by the new Sony offering... but don't know a thing about it, so we'll see.

AF100's are available dirt cheap used, and (again, with a EF-m43 SpeedBooster) will do almost everything the C100 can (from iso3200 down)... but won't do the autofocus that a C100 will and won't be as sharp or have the dynamic range.

Moving up in the used market, Sony F3's absolutely kick ass and can be had for equal money with the C100... but they're very large and won't work as well with the Canon glass (again, buying into that proprietary system locks you into Canon products to make full use of them)

So yeah... there's some thinking on that.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
8000$ probably. If you can stretch that far it seems this new Sony FS7 is a great investment, something to live for years. 4K 10 bit internal, 180fps with C300-like ergonomics.
Click to expand...

Well that's a bit over my budget! I guess 4K would be nice, but I don't really see the need for that right now, maybe I'm naive! I never do slow-mo so the 180 fps is not interesting at this point, but who knows what I'll be thinking 2 or 3 years down the road.... I do recognize an alarming tendency in me to be a gearslut. So far though, it seems there is nothing out there to compete with the C100.
 
mcbob said:
If you already have all the Canon glass, then sure, a C100 makes sense if you have the cash as you're already locked into that ecosystem. There's some distinction to be made between 'large sensor' and 'small sensor' video cameras, somewhere between 4/3" and 1" being the splitting point... the C100 is swell and all, but will never give you a fast 20x zoom or an easily shoulder-mounted form or compact integrated XLR without that flimsy 'wobbly goblin' of a handle. There are plenty of applications for a fast-working, wide range all-in-one small sensor video camera, but if you want focus control and low light more than zoom range and operating ease, then sure - large sensor is definitely where you're looking.

An FS700 offers more functionality in a more cumbersome yet sturdier package for roughly equal money, and could use your Canon lenses via the Metabones adapter.

The reason most of the footage samples that exist for GH4 are all super-sharp, super-deep focus exteriors is because that's where the camera shows off its 4Kability... with fast lenses and a Beachtek adapter, it will do everything as well as C100 (from 1600iso down, at least). However, it's not a classic 'video camera,' and you clearly don't want one, so no need to belabor that.

Very intrigued by the new Sony offering... but don't know a thing about it, so we'll see.

AF100's are available dirt cheap used, and (again, with a EF-m43 SpeedBooster) will do almost everything the C100 can (from iso3200 down)... but won't do the autofocus that a C100 will and won't be as sharp or have the dynamic range.

Moving up in the used market, Sony F3's absolutely kick ass and can be had for equal money with the C100... but they're very large and won't work as well with the Canon glass (again, buying into that proprietary system locks you into Canon products to make full use of them)

So yeah... there's some thinking on that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post mcbob...... but as I said, I shoot 90% of my stuff indoors in my shop or in a theatre setting. The 20 times zoom makes my head spin after a year of developing an appreciation of DOF and not zooming around inside my living room like an idiot! As far as the XLR's are concerned, I probably will never use them, as I record music on a Metric Halo external device or a Lavalier mic..... I can't think of an occasion which I would use the XLR's.

I almost bought a used FS700 off ebay but then decided to go with the 5D3 instead..... and I'm glad I did!

Concerning the GH4.... a few days ago I saw 3 of them for sale on this forum. I didn't jump on the GH4 bandwagon, because I never liked the quality of footage it offered. I in some ways see the GH4 as a knee jerk reaction to the 5D and peoples frustration with Canon..... understandably. The GH4 offer low quality 4K...... if I wanted 4K I would pay the price for it, and not compromise quality for cost. The GH4 has a cheap digital image that I just can't wrap my little head around....... believe me I have tried and have in moments told myself I'm nuts for not jumping on the GH4 bandwagon and convincing myself it's the best camera ever made by the hands of man, but every time without fail when I look at the GH4 footage I want to head down to my local organic grocers and drink a cup of carrot juice with wheat grass just to cleanse my palette of the GMO, fast food, footage I see with the GH4. I hope I wasn't too harsh in my critique of the GH4..... if I was then please accept my heartfelt apologies.

I wouldn't call the C100's "dirt cheap" they are going for about what they really are worth..... ha ha! The funny thing is they are going for more on Ebay than at Abe's of Maine, and B&H...... go figure!

I guess there is really nothing out there for my needs other than the C100. I have all the lenes I need and don't lust for more lens, which is a good thing. It's a compromise, I do miss my XH-A1 but can't quite go back to that again, and in the last few years see nothing that has taken it place. The C100 it is! just thought I'd ask the question in case there was something I didn't see.
 
Michael Thames said:
The GH4 offer low quality 4K...... if I wanted 4K I would pay the price for it, and not compromise quality for cost. The GH4 has a cheap digital image that I just can't wrap my little head around...
Click to expand...
That's one way to look at it... OR, one could look at it as an inexpensive camera offering outstanding 1080p - true 1080 resolution with no hint of aliasing or moire. The 4K image might not stack up vs. other 4Kapable cameras, but downrezzing its 4K/UHD is as good as just about anything on the market. The camera definitely has its issues (high ISO performance being the first), but in the short time I've owned one it seems flexible enough and hits my list of key features.

All that said, yeah, I like the look of the Sony A7S and BM cams better, but they're lacking other vital features I need.

I hope I wasn't too harsh in my critique of the GH4..... if I was then please accept my heartfelt apologies.
Click to expand...
No need if you'll forgive my own personal camera biases ;D

I wouldn't call the C100's "dirt cheap" they are going for about what they really are worth...
Click to expand...
Two comments there:
1. I meant the AF100... as in Panasonic AF100, that first large-sensor videocamera from somewhere in the Precambrian days of 2010 that everybody maligned as having a soft image with low dynamic range, and then went back to praising their 5D3's with soft images and middling dynamic range and hacked GH2's with sharp images but very low dynamic range. They (AF100's) run $1500-2000 used nowadays, and frankly if you know how to use one they can still kick ass (especially with the oft-ballyhooed SpeedBooster), but they're a little finicky and nobody's favorite these days for a variety of reasons. Doesn't sound like you need most of the features is offers over the C100 and it won't autofocus well with your Canon glass, but hey, if you've only got $1500-2000, you could definitely do worse... or better - I'm finding that aside from XLR's and ND's, my GH4 is better in just about every sense - naggingly it's those few videocam-esque ease of use features.
(FWIW: music videos shot on AF100)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8xKZMCGfVc
https://vimeo.com/18956665
https://vimeo.com/22958276

2. Canon C cams selling for what they're worth, considering their relative paucity of features? Arguable (that's the one bias you need to forgive me ;)

...But Canon C's do work very well for making good real-time 1080 video, and if you work freelance, they're still darlings of most producers. It's what I usually have to rent if I have to rent anything. It's a very good choice.
 
mcbob said:
That's one way to look at it... OR, one could look at it as an inexpensive camera offering outstanding 1080p - true 1080 resolution with no hint of aliasing or moire. The 4K image might not stack up vs. other 4Kapable cameras, but downrezzing its 4K/UHD is as good as just about anything on the market. The camera definitely has its issues (high ISO performance being the first), but in the short time I've owned one it seems flexible enough and hits my list of key features.
Click to expand...
The thing is, that the C100 has a 4k sensor that it down samples for 1080. That's part of why the image looks so damned good. The large sensor size also gives it really good performance at the high ISOs, so unless you need to deliver 4k I think the C100 wins that argument too.

mcbob said:
2. Canon C cams selling for what they're worth, considering their relative paucity of features?
Click to expand...
What features are missing? 60p for slowmo? The 60i trick works surprisingly well, so I don't really feel handicapped by that. What else? Built in ND filters, XLR inputs, unlimited recording time, it's all there. So what's missing that you really need? Raw? I guess that's not there.

Obviously the C100 isn't a perfect camera, and no camera is, but for what it costs and what we need in real world situations, it's damned good.
 
That's one way to look at it... OR, one could look at it as an inexpensive camera offering outstanding 1080p - true 1080 resolution with no hint of aliasing or moire. The 4K image might not stack up vs. other 4Kapable cameras, but downrezzing its 4K/UHD is as good as just about anything on the market. The camera definitely has its issues (high ISO performance being the first), but in the short time I've owned one it seems flexible enough and hits my list of key features.

All that said, yeah, I like the look of the Sony A7S and BM cams better, but they're lacking other vital features I need.
Click to expand...

Well for me I guess it comes down to the look, despite the 4K, and detail, the look just looks too digital for me. I have to go with my gut instincts here. Believe me I gave it my best, i've looked at hours with of GH4 footage trying to justify getting one, but in the end it just leaves me cold.

Two comments there:
1. I meant the AF100... as in Panasonic AF100, that first large-sensor videocamera from somewhere in the Precambrian days of 2010 that everybody maligned as having a soft image with low dynamic range, and then went back to praising their 5D3's with soft images and middling dynamic range and hacked GH2's with sharp images but very low dynamic range. They (AF100's) run $1500-2000 used nowadays, and frankly if you know how to use one they can still kick ass (especially with the oft-ballyhooed SpeedBooster), but they're a little finicky and nobody's favorite these days for a variety of reasons. Doesn't sound like you need most of the features is offers over the C100 and it won't autofocus well with your Canon glass, but hey, if you've only got $1500-2000, you could definitely do worse... or better - I'm finding that aside from XLR's and ND's, my GH4 is better in just about every sense - naggingly it's those few videocam-esque ease of use features.
(FWIW: music videos shot on AF100)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8xKZMCGfVc
https://vimeo.com/18956665
https://vimeo.com/22958276
Click to expand...

I have to say congratulations those are some outstanding images! The AF100 is as good as it gets it seems. I looked into one, but as you say it's a dinosaur..... like the XH-A1 I bought in 2008. Even though the price is good, looks like from Phillp Bloom's review, Canon lenses don't work on it..... at least that's what I got skimming through the review, maybe I missed something though. I real am attached to my Canon Lenses and can't quite give them up. So still it looks like the C100 is the way to go for me.

2. Canon C cams selling for what they're worth, considering their relative paucity of features? Arguable (that's the one bias you need to forgive me ;)

...But Canon C's do work very well for making good real-time 1080 video, and if you work freelance, they're still darlings of most producers. It's what I usually have to rent if I have to rent anything. It's a very good choice.
Click to expand...

I'm by no means on your level of film making..... I use my video skills or lack there of, to promote my day job, not to say I don't aspire to improve, I do, and yearn for more time to do some projects I have in mind...... but it's really hard to film myself alone. I'm working on a documentary now and we'll see what happens. I feel the cameras I have are fully capable, 99% of people won't notice if it was shot on a 5D3 or a GH4. I feel my developing skills would be better served in lighting, content, and post editing. A 5D3 and a C100 are more than enough for my purposes!

I do think the Canon C series is grossly over priced except for the C100..... at $4300 it's not too bad.

Here's what I do......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XSIXxfFdEc&list=UUG7NugrUNvx0mc9m9mZtatA

84 minutes of footage to get 3 minutes of video..... with one camera, so you can see the need I have for two or even 3 cameras....... live music is a be-atch. I didn't do the post editing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HINkwopAZgw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top