C100: Is a C100 MKii still relevant?

J

jrm27

Active member
Hello all,

Im dipping my toes back in the camera market after being a way for a year or so. I was working in an environment where I had access to a stable of nice bodies and lenses… and I grew to love shooting on the c200. Now the I’m out on my own and trying to build some new personal video projects (basic documentary storytelling and interviews) I’m trying to find some good options that fit my budget.

As much as I’d love to grab a c200 and a stable of lenses, I just can’t justify the financial outlay at the moment. So, even though it is long in the tooth, I’m wondering if the C100 mk ii is with the investment. Most of my stuff is likely fine in 1080 at the point.. 4k is nice, but I usually end up exporting all my video in 1080. I don’t need super slow motion, etc.. The Dual Pixel AF on the c200 was a game changer for me in my run and gun setups, so I’d love to keep access to that.

I’m a One Man Band, run and gun kinda shooter. I’ll set the camera up on a tripod for an interview and then take it off and immediately start shooting B-Roll. I like to travel, so a compact and versatile kit is a necessity.

It’s still a good chunk of change for someone who (at this point)_ probably classifies as a hobbyist again. But I’d love to hear from those with more experience than I in the current camera environment. Thanks!
 
I'm similar to you in that I'm a solo run n' gun shooter. I own a c100 mki and I love it -- the form factor is great (except the placement of the lcd) and the image is lovely and sharp (thanks to 4K sensor)... But I think if I were going to spend some $ today on a new camera I might opt for a FS5. They can be had for $3499 (with rebate until June 1) and as low as $2500 used. As good or better form factor as C100 but 4:2:2 10bit in HD and 4K (albeit 8 bit 4:2:0). The things I like about the C100 over FS5 are color and low light. Plus the c100 is a pleasure to grade (unlike the fs5 which takes a bit more time)...

Anyway, sorry to digress but the C100 is just about a perfect camera IMO except for the thin codec and lcd placement and 4K (which is a non-issue if you don't need it)...
 
Another option is to pick up two C100 mkIs, with the DPAF upgrade on at least one. Having two compact, ergonomic, matched cinema cameras with good color and built-in NDs is nice for documentary work.

Regarding the FS5, I have never used one myself. But I recently shot a documentary piece with my C100 alongside someone who was using an FS5. Looking at the footage, the C100 shots drew me in but the FS5's colors looked so unnatural that it pulled me right out of the story. Maybe it was user settings, or the fact that the editor didn't try to match the cameras.
 
Last edited:
QuickHitRecord said:
Regarding the FS5, I have never used one myself. But I recently shot a documentary piece with my C100 alongside someone who was using an FS5. Looking at the footage, the C100 shots drew me in but the FS5's colors looked so unnatural that it pulled me right out of the story. Maybe it was user settings, or the fact that the editor didn't try to match the cameras.
Click to expand...
I consider myself a decent colorist and I've found the fs5 footage I've graded to be challenging. Especially skin tones. They just POP on the C-series and they're so warm and pleasing. But the fs5 has better DR than the c100, which is not a big issue if you expose correctly...
 
My buddy just bought a c100 m2 and I feel like he could have easily justified a more expensive purchase based on what I know of how much he charges and how busy he is, so I’d say yes.
 
Awesome. Thanks all. This is really helpful and solid info. The c100 does seem to be a lot of camera for what the market is right now... well, at least the mkii. Having trouble finding mki versions out there for pricing. I like the idea of having two though.. Would make color matching way easier, and then my DSLR can just be used as a C cam.
 
I have access to basically every C-series camera (except the C700), and I definitely use the C100 mkII the most. I'm a little biased because the insane amount of muscle memory I have with it after all these years, but it is still a joy to use. If only it had face tracking DPAF on all lenses, I might never use another camera.
 
C100 is/was a great camera. I miss mine, which I sold to get the C200. I honestly think the 1080 from the C100 looks better than the 1080 from the C200, although the 4K obviously looks better from the C200. I've seen good, clean used C100 MKIs for as low as $1,500.00. MKIIs seems to be more in the $2k to $2,500.00 range?
 
puredrifting said:
C100 is/was a great camera. I miss mine, which I sold to get the C200. I honestly think the 1080 from the C100 looks better than the 1080 from the C200, although the 4K obviously looks better from the C200. I've seen good, clean used C100 MKIs for as low as $1,500.00. MKIIs seems to be more in the $2k to $2,500.00 range?
Click to expand...

Do you mean the 4K raw, Dan? I've seen some side-by-sides done with the the c100 and c200 MP4 4K and sharpness-wise it was pretty close. Raw is a different story. Beating a dead horse here, but it still annoys me that Canon handicapped the c200 with that 4:2:0 8 bit codec...
 
scorsesefan said:
Do you mean the 4K raw, Dan? I've seen some side-by-sides done with the the c100 and c200 MP4 4K and sharpness-wise it was pretty close. Raw is a different story. Beating a dead horse here, but it still annoys me that Canon handicapped the c200 with that 4:2:0 8 bit codec...
Click to expand...

Well, yes, RAW, that was really the main reason I bought the camera.
 
Do yourself a favor and hit mute before you watch:

MP4... well, I can think of better ways to spend $7500.

Raw from the C200 does look better.
 
Yup, that was the test I was referring to... Dan, how are you handling quick turnaround projects? (ENG, broadcast, etc.) Are you shooting MP4? Those raw files must be huge and a PITA to turn around quickly...
 
scorsesefan said:
Yup, that was the test I was referring to... Dan, how are you handling quick turnaround projects? (ENG, broadcast, etc.) Are you shooting MP4? Those raw files must be huge and a PITA to turn around quickly...
Click to expand...

Funny enough, still using our Ninja Blade for a lot of client work. Clients love getting 1080 Prores HQ 4:2:2 10-bit files, did exactly that for Hallmark Channel a couple of months ago. The RAW is mainly for our own Docu Series, although I shot a series of long interviews for a Netflix pilot two weeks ago on RAW for clients. We shot 1.5TB of interviews in one day, they were the wrap around segments for a Netflix Pilot (not commissioned work, obviously) I just tell clients up front, we should shoot RAW and it's going to take up a lot of drive space. But you'll thank me when you get to post and are doing grading. And I sometimes show them the difference with some clips where I shot RAW side by side with XF-AVC.

BTW, nobody should be shooting .MP4s anymore, the C200's XF-AVC includes all of the same metadata as the RAW, why shoot .MP4s with zero metadata? Most of the clients who have dealt with C300/300 MKII know what XF-AVC is and can deal with it. As far as shooting RAW for clients, I am beginning to see some change. I'm shooting another thing for Netflix for Handmaids Tale in a few weeks, this client usually wants the smaller XF-AVC files, I'll see of they want RAW for this upcoming shoot. Another shoot at E3 in a week and a half, I seriously doubt that client will want RAW or even 4K, they'll probably want XF-AVC or Prores, but also might be shooting that on a friend's F5.

For those contemplating which camera to get, I've seen some clean C300s out there. If you don't want to deal with, or your clients don't want to deal with 4K, still a GREAT camera that is cheap, looks great and uses cheap, antique CF cards. This year has just reinforced how stupid 6K and 8K are for at least low and medium end work. For high end, sure, at least 4K is a requirement but in the real world, the majority of clients don't want to or simply won't deal with 4K. Even here in 2019. Resolution wars were and are a scam to sell gear, not something that real clients in the real world necessarily want. I'm still amazed by the number of clients whose eyes get big when you suggest shooting 4K. Especially if you are giving them footage and they are editing it.
 
Yeah, totally agree about the 4K stuff. Recently, shooting stuff for broadcast (ABC-TV) with my c100 and they couldn't care less about codec/bit rate/color space (let alone 4K) as long as it looks good and you DELIVER to their specs (which are very modest). As far as clients I've had one who specifically asked for 4K and we rented a c300 mkii. My main desire for 4K is that I shoot a lot of solo stuff and it allows me to reframe for HD delivery... I've been looking at used c300s actually - they have much better form factors than c100 mki...
 
New DSLR/DSLM style cameras all seem to have the HEVC/H265 codec at 72 Mbps, which is ~ 32 GB/h.

And one can have 4K/6K res and decent DR.

And Panasonic S1 is $2,700 (with the log upgrade that is coming in July).

And Canon is likely to push its R-mount now, with its lenses in tow. Which is another reason to leave C-100 behind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top