I'm thinking about getting a reaL video camera

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.
Click to expand...

Andrius, I remember reading something on the ML forum about the sensors being the same on the C100 and the C500. Andrew Reid "the English camera salesman" put out some bad info saying the hardware was also the same, which it's not.... the C500 turns out to have a different heat dispersal hardware thingy in it. This encouraged some to speculate if the Magic Lantern team could work their collective magic on the C100. As I recall last time I heard the answer was a definite no.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I've spent the better part of the evening watching Youtube shoot outs between the Sony A7s, the Gh4, 5D3, and the C100. So I shall give you my concise report. The Sony is a low light monster, with lots of dynamic range, but a very digitalized look, but who really needs that amount of low light see, in the dark night vision type of thing? Maybe for very specialized situations....... The GH4 doesn't perform over 1600 ISO, blows out the highlights, and has an overly digitalized look. The 5D3 has a smooth cinema look without the detail. The C100 is of course the winner with detail combined with a very cinematographic look. Why else do you consider a DLSR? For clarity, or a cinematographic look?

This leeds me to present the differences in terms of phycological analysis. I do believe GH4 fanatics and to a much less degree the Sony A7s new comers suffer from a love/hate relationship with Canon. The abuse which started early on has resulted in a complete rejection of FF sensors, cinematographic images, for a detail in which the observer can clearly see the subject as well as read a newspaper 20 feet on the wall behind him. As they the song goes "only fools rush in".
 
Hopefully you don't think I shot any of those AF100 music videos... all were from shooters much better than I, you mentioned your main subject was music videos so they seemed appropriate. I still think the C100 is a better choice unless your budget is tight, but Blooms review that you reference is very old... Metabones now makes SpeedBooster adapters for MFT-to-EF that enable everything but fast autofocus.

They do show how much more important composition, lighting, and art design are than the camera... Hence why I've focused on practicing more than working to pay for better camera bodies.

Have to to say I reject the notion on GH4 and A7 devotees having some sort of anti-Canon bent, because basically nothing you said there is true. The A7 has a full frame sensor, so clearly it's not designed for deep focus. Tons of very very cinematic examples exist from both A7 and (if not GH4 specifically) GH cameras. The plethora of MFT and E mount lenses with f0.95 apertures ain't made for deep focus. I'd argue their (ok, at least my) preference stems more from Canon's apparent unwillingness to combine the capability for high resolution, good variable frame rate (not just bodging interlaced or uprezzing 720p), useable flexibility like variable crop modes, and healthy internal codecs for less than ~$10K. I'll use the crap out any Canon body if asked, but I'd rather not buy one.
 
Oh sorry I thought you shot those!

Have to to say I reject the notion on GH4 and A7 devotees having some sort of anti-Canon bent, because basically nothing you said there is true.
Click to expand...

I must disagree, I've been on many forums as well as reading comments on Youtube. GH4 owners have let their frustration be known. Many of them were 5D users who once they got the GH4 seemed to go ballistic in their defense of the GH4 and intense Canon bashing...... It is at least for me a real turn off when I read this stuff. However, no GH4 owners it seems are willing to address the elephant in the room which is the digitalized "look" of the GH4.

The A7 has a full frame sensor, so clearly it's not designed for deep focus. Tons of very very cinematic examples exist from both A7 and (if not GH4 specifically) GH cameras.
Click to expand...

I must admit the A7s haven't been on my radar screen as much as the GH4. I've seen far more footage of the GH4, and I've yet to see a non digitalized, non compressed, cinematographic look to the GH4..... if I did, then I would eat crow, and buy one tomorrow! I have no problems at all incorporating a GH4 into my arsenal..... none! Frankly as I said, I've been looking at every comparison out there with the GH4 in the hopes of being convinced, because the price is very affordable, and it would be the perfect answer in many ways. Perhaps if you have time post some of the best examples of GH4 footage, I'd love to see something that blows me away!

I'll use the crap out any Canon body if asked, but I'd rather not buy one.
Click to expand...

As regards to the subject of this post I think at least for me there is no better option on the market than the C100. At $4300 (Abe's of Maine) you have to admit it's not a bad deal, considering the alternatives we've been discussing here.

Here is an interesting comparison of the cameras we've been discussing. Clearly the C100 is the winner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE2yIE4RcG0
 
Michael Thames said:
GH4 owners have let their frustration be known. Many of them were 5D users who once they got the GH4 seemed to go ballistic in their defense of the GH4 and intense Canon bashing...... It is at least for me a real turn off when I read this stuff. However, no GH4 owners it seems are willing to address the elephant in the room which is the digitalized "look" of the GH4.
Click to expand...

Guess I am a weirdo because I came from the 5D MKII/MKIII and renting the C100/300 for the past couple of years and before that I was complete Panasonic fanboy (DVX100A, HVX200, HPX170, HPX300/370) and I am of the complete opposite opinion. I am not very happy with the GH4, I agree that the colors seem to be a bit plasticky, only one of our clients even wants us to shoot 4k, all of the others request 1080 footage because of storage and downres time. I have had comments from editors complaining about the noise of the GH4 picture, especially when shooting green screen when a clean signal is much appreciated. I was considering buying the Shogun if and when it works with the GH4 but I think I am instead going to sell the GH4 and my M43 lenses and either go back to owning a 5D MKIII or buying a Nikon D750 instead with a Ninja. I am putting together my latest reel and it is largely Canon footage with a few shoots lately from the GH4 and overall, I love the Canon footage a LOT better, other than the moire and aliasing, the Canon footage looks much better than what I can wring out of the GH4. Guess I prefer the image being a little soft, I shoot a lot of documentaries and interviews with older talent and having everything razor sharp in 4k even downrezzed to 1080 is not doing me any favors. If I made travelogues, perhaps I would feel differently but my bread and butter is photographing actors and interviews.

I would rather have a Nikon FF camera as I have been a Nikon stills shooter for about 30 years, have six Nikon flashes, Nikon lenses and love the look of the stills, if I could get that same look in video with little aliasing, moire and jello, I would be all over the D750 over the 5D MKIII or the A7, but I am not too optimistic, I have yet to see a Nikon DSLR shoot jaw dropping video, most have bad aliasing so it may be back top a Canon for me. I do not like the look of the A7 at all, it seems sterile and lifeless to my eye. I've shot Sony cameras for years as well, my clients had EX1s/EX3s, I rent the F55/F65 for projects once in a while and I shot a commercial last Spring using the FS700 and while it shoots very pretty images, once again, very video-ish, sterile and boring to me, but that is just personal preference I guess, lots of beautiful images shot with the Sonys out there, but I prefer the Canon look, I think. This is all beyond specs, sharpness, 4k, latitude, it is just the LOOK and FEEL of the images that the camera produces. We all need to find what works for our needs.
 
Michael, happened across an intercut C100/300/GH4 piece tonight. I know, you don't spend much time trekking in the wilderness, but they're really not so far removed tools as some less able reviewers have concluded, IMO

https://vimeo.com/100642275

And yes, of course you should absolutely get the C100 and feel confident, as it's a real videocamera and the GH4, close as it might be, isn't... plus that whole Canon lens thing.
 
mcbob said:
Michael, happened across an intercut C100/300/GH4 piece tonight. I know, you don't spend much time trekking in the wilderness, but they're really not so far removed tools as some less able reviewers have concluded, IMO

https://vimeo.com/100642275

And yes, of course you should absolutely get the C100 and feel confident, as it's a real videocamera and the GH4, close as it might be, isn't... plus that whole Canon lens thing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the video. Yes, it's hard to tell the difference. Probably, a good test would be a blind fold test! Just post footage of different cameras and have the pros tells us which one was which.

I'm into the audio side of things as well. They do this all the time on the "Gearsluts" forum. Once they posted 10 different pre-amps in a blind fold test the pros couldn't identify the expensive ones from the cheap ones..... ha ha!

It still looks like it's the C100 because of the glass I have, but the GH4 is still nipping at my heels now and then. I won't make this purchase for a couple more months so there is plenty of time to think about it. It also comes down to price...... despite the claims of 4K for $1700 you still need some investment in good glass a good zoom and some primes. In order for it to be on the same playing field of the C100 you need the XLR adopter, then for good DOP you need the speed booster! In addition there is the issue of ergonomics which of course the Canon has built in, and the GH4 needs some expensive accessories.

Then of course we can debate all day long on 4K verse, the C100's incredible low light capabilities...... the GH4's digital looks verse the C100 cinema look!

One thing that video showed was despite the claims of how earth shattering the GH4's 4K footage is, one really has a hard time discerning any real difference, and once you add up the cost of making the GH4 a functional camera the cost is actually HIGHER than the C100.

Anyway a lot to think about. and thanks for the help mcbob.
 
Michael Thames said:
I've spent the better part of the evening watching Youtube shoot outs between the Sony A7s, the Gh4, 5D3, and the C100. So I shall give you my concise report. The Sony is a low light monster, with lots of dynamic range, but a very digitalized look, but who really needs that amount of low light see, in the dark night vision type of thing? Maybe for very specialized situations....... The GH4 doesn't perform over 1600 ISO, blows out the highlights, and has an overly digitalized look. The 5D3 has a smooth cinema look without the detail. The C100 is of course the winner with detail combined with a very cinematographic look. Why else do you consider a DLSR? For clarity, or a cinematographic look?

This leeds me to present the differences in terms of phycological analysis. I do believe GH4 fanatics and to a much less degree the Sony A7s new comers suffer from a love/hate relationship with Canon. The abuse which started early on has resulted in a complete rejection of FF sensors, cinematographic images, for a detail in which the observer can clearly see the subject as well as read a newspaper 20 feet on the wall behind him. As they the song goes "only fools rush in".
Click to expand...

i haven't shot with any of these cameras…but I am in a school in LA where we see everything and work on the sets of movies..commercials…t.v. series….so from that perspective…. Kodak film is the ultimate image so if you can shoot on that…otherwise something that will get you an idea of framing and so on …is the 5d cameras...
 
As we debate what is & isn't a "video camera"...

As much as I hate shooting "events", I do it for my good clients.

For "pretty", narrative, controlled stuff, it's "cinema style" for me - DLSR, BMD, etc... cameras that suck for run & gun but deliver great image and control.

For events, or if I shot weddings... I generally want the following:

XLRs with phantom and manual control;
Power zoom;
Manual focus & iris;
For-real, legit viewfinder, not an HDMI add-on or loupe;
Zebras and solid focus assist;
Built-in ND (!!!!!!);
Focus, iris and trigger that can be controlled from a shoulder mount or crane if needed;
Built-in decent mic for wild sound;
2 channels with good routing (one XLR + internal mic, 2 XLR, one XLR to 2 channels. etc) and accessible switching and levels;
Metering: audio, battery remaining and footage remaining;
A zoom with a WIDE range that can work manually or powered;
A VERY FAST way to go from tripod to shoulder;
Accessible gain switch and white balance controls;
Great OIS;
HDMI out;
Robust batteries that will last 2 hours or more and are "part of the camera" vs. a power solution...

Basically all of that stuff in one piece of gear. For a fast moving event that goes from speeches to presentations to entertainment to interviews, if I have the above I won't miss a single shot.

If someone says the AF100 or C100 aren't "video cameras", I suppose I get that since they lack things like power zoom, etc... there's plenty of stuff in the hybrid zone nowadays. But my list is essentially a broadcast camera (I use an AC130, but you get the drift). I really wouldn't want to shoot an event without the above. I really wouldn't want to with a GH4 or D7100, either.
 
Michael Carter said:
As we debate what is & isn't a "video camera"...

As much as I hate shooting "events", I do it for my good clients.

For "pretty", narrative, controlled stuff, it's "cinema style" for me - DLSR, BMD, etc... cameras that suck for run & gun but deliver great image and control.

For events, or if I shot weddings... I generally want the following:

XLRs with phantom and manual control;
Power zoom;
Manual focus & iris;
For-real, legit viewfinder, not an HDMI add-on or loupe;
Zebras and solid focus assist;
Built-in ND (!!!!!!);
Focus, iris and trigger that can be controlled from a shoulder mount or crane if needed;
Built-in decent mic for wild sound;
2 channels with good routing (one XLR + internal mic, 2 XLR, one XLR to 2 channels. etc) and accessible switching and levels;
Metering: audio, battery remaining and footage remaining;
A zoom with a WIDE range that can work manually or powered;
A VERY FAST way to go from tripod to shoulder;
Accessible gain switch and white balance controls;
Great OIS;
HDMI out;
Robust batteries that will last 2 hours or more and are "part of the camera" vs. a power solution...

Basically all of that stuff in one piece of gear. For a fast moving event that goes from speeches to presentations to entertainment to interviews, if I have the above I won't miss a single shot.

If someone says the AF100 or C100 aren't "video cameras", I suppose I get that since they lack things like power zoom, etc... there's plenty of stuff in the hybrid zone nowadays. But my list is essentially a broadcast camera (I use an AC130, but you get the drift). I really wouldn't want to shoot an event without the above. I really wouldn't want to with a GH4 or D7100, either.
Click to expand...

+1
 
But..... video cameras are so damn boring. You have a zoom on the C100 it's called a follow focus or fingers..... Besides Zoomimg is so amateurish!
 
Michael Thames said:
But..... video cameras are so damn boring. You have a zoom on the C100 it's called a follow focus or fingers..... Besides Zoomimg is so amateurish!
Click to expand...

Every time I shoot an event with my Panasonic, I walk away thinking "damn, I always forget what a great camera this is". No, it's not as gorgeous as a super-35 sensor with a Nikkor 85mm 1.8. But it gets every shot.

When you're shooting events, news, fast moving things, you need to reframe constantly - there's no time to move to a new spot. That doesn't mean the zoom ends up in the edit. It does mean you get every shot you need.

Your post seems amateurish... my day rate hovers around $2k plus assistants/etc & I've been shooting stills and video for 2 decades+ now. If that's amateur, that's fine with me.
 
Michael Carter said:
Every time I shoot an event with my Panasonic, I walk away thinking "damn, I always forget what a great camera this is". No, it's not as gorgeous as a super-35 sensor with a Nikkor 85mm 1.8. But it gets every shot.

When you're shooting events, news, fast moving things, you need to reframe constantly - there's no time to move to a new spot. That doesn't mean the zoom ends up in the edit. It does mean you get every shot you need.

Your post seems amateurish... my day rate hovers around $2k plus assistants/etc & I've been shooting stills and video for 2 decades+ now. If that's amateur, that's fine with me.
Click to expand...

Well I'm happy you didn't find my thread amateurish just my post. Speaking of threads if you bothered to read you would have understood my needs...... Which doesn't entail events or run and gun shootin from the hip type of stuff. I think that was clear.

So with the context of my thread I can only assume you boys are talkin about using the zoom features on you video cameras to zoom in and on the subject..... Which I and many others find amateurish..... I would never consider buying a video cameras for just this purpose. If on the other hand we are talking about reframing a shot with a good zoom lens on my 5d3 and without changing lens I can do his just fine using my fingers rather than the rocking lever as on my xh-a1.

I think it's rather poor taste to justify personal insults by posting how much money you make people who do that seem rather insecure with what they do. This begs the question though do you make $2000 everyday or just once every couple of months? I hope the former.
 
Like most threads 'round here, this one grew in scope beyond the original OP's comments and morphed into "what is a video camera" and "Zooms are for amateurs". My comments on what constitutes a "video" cam - for me - encompass a lot of though & experience over the last decade... and again and again, I see really young guys starting production companies or stringing for small-market news trying to get the job done with a DSLR and a Rode Videomic. But my def. of a "video" camera is "something to shoot events or news with", YMMV.

The first paragraph of the thread stated "I find myself needing a regular functioning camcorder for certain things, basically ease of use," and camcorder, to me, sounds like an all-in-one unit as I described above. And as far as I know, they generally have those "amateur" zooms, which add to their "ease of use".

Is a C100 or AF100 a "video" camera? Is a 5D? I dunno. Will they work as a b-cam in a 5D setting? Probably better than my definition of a "video" camera or a camcorder. But if you're not in a run & gun, "from the hip" scenario, there's not much ease of use gains in a camcorder vs. the (subjective) image quality (aesthetic quality, not technical) hit. You may even find a micro-4/3 sensor too small, I know for my tastes it's much harder to get them as gorgeous as a FF or APS-C. But a "camcorder" with a good feature set can open you up to more kinds of gigs, and until people really clamor for 4K, they're very long-lived & profitable purchases.
 
You think perhaps a C100 isn't a true video camera because it doesn't have a power zoom? So a power zoom is the defining attribute of a video camera..... fascinating.

The reason for this thread to begin with was to see if there was something revolutionary I've missed in the realm of video cameras since I got my 5D3 and sold my XH-A1. I have read everything out there on DSLR's, but haven't kept up with the camcorder side of things, with the speed at which video is moving I thought perhaps I have missed something...... but I see I haven't missed anything, other than being informed i'm an amateur for not keeping one finger on the power zoom lever at all times.

I still have a Canon HV-40 which has a power Zoom, in many ways I preferred it to my XH-A1...... but I digress.

BTW, if yer gonna quote me or paraphrase me at least get it right. I didn't say "zooms are for amateurs", I said, "zooming is amateurish" a big difference......and again that was said in the context of my needs. Now if yer shooting from the hip, zoom all you want, zoom all day long, that's a different thing all together than the subject of this thread. Haas, I don't take kindly to people putting words in my mouth two posts in a row.
 
The reason there are so many camera models is precisely because different people value different features.

I do interviews and stage events.

For stage events unless you have two cams running, you cannot entertain a lens change (the actors get really upset if you miss out a particular entrance they feel is key to the event).

I can't see myself doing without a power zoom either because you are one moment full stage, then you have to go to two people talking in one corner of the stage.

Sound is a huge problem, 10 opera singers bordering on red lining one moment and then 2 people almost whispering the next.

Lighting? No control over this at all.

For interviews, 90% of our time is spent getting interviewees to look a certain way or say something a particular way. Some interviewees don't like re-takes. We usually insist that they meet with us once, then we go away and write up the interview, work out the positioning etc and then we take and re-take until it looks good and sounds good.

We recently did a 45 second ad for national TV and it took 21 takes to get one sentence right. Curiously, the interviewee did not fidget or roll his eyes. When we were done he said "Let's do just one more,please'".

I have the impression I would like to have a cam that can go from hand held to tripod to shoulder mount. The Gliders Grey in my picture is horrible. You have to be very careful when you move around or you could easily bowl over a few passersby. I once came very close to knocking over an 18th century floor vase in a museum.
 
To the OP, I have both the 5Dmkiii and the C100. They intercut fine, when white balanced. You'll love the C100. It is a real video camera, with all the controls you'll ever need. I can't do a zoom crawl, but I find for my work I rarely need it anymore. The poster above brings up very good points for ENG based cameras, so your needs drive the choice. The upside of C100 is DLSR like DOF when needed. If you don't, then maybe check out the new XF200. Long zoom and might be a stripped down 300. But not great in low light. The low light ability of the C100 is, well impressive. The idea of getting a used AF100 is interesting if you are on a budget. They are cheap right now. But you might go back through Philip Bloom's review of it. I believe he complained of macroblocking on it, and I know he now shoots commercial jobs with his C300, he claims.
 
8string said:
To the OP, I have both the 5Dmkiii and the C100. They intercut fine, when white balanced. You'll love the C100. It is a real video camera, with all the controls you'll ever need. I can't do a zoom crawl, but I find for my work I rarely need it anymore. The poster above brings up very good points for ENG based cameras, so your needs drive the choice. The upside of C100 is DLSR like DOF when needed. If you don't, then maybe check out the new XF200. Long zoom and might be a stripped down 300. But not great in low light. The low light ability of the C100 is, well impressive. The idea of getting a used AF100 is interesting if you are on a budget. They are cheap right now. But you might go back through Philip Bloom's review of it. I believe he complained of macroblocking on it, and I know he now shoots commercial jobs with his C300, he claims.
Click to expand...

Hi 8string, Looks like I will get the C100 next week. I wish I had it today because I have to film a classical guitar concert tonight and all I have is my 5D3, and a HV-40. The C100 would make it effortless. I shot a video yesterday and having installed ML see the temperature on the display. Shooting a two hour concert on the 5D3 is quite challenging to say the least, as fares over heating goes. Once I get the C100 the 5D3 will be my B-roll camera. Yes DOP, and low light are the two major requirements for my needs...... the reason the GH4 was never a real option for me, also the ergonomics of the C100 are fantastic!

Good to know they match up well when white balanced! I been comparing footage of both and while the C100 looks noticeably sharper and more detailed, I think the 5D3 will sharpen up nicely in post.

I've been dreaming of this new camera for quite a while now, the gearlust bug bit me pretty bad. There is clearly no other choice for me than this camera!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top