C100: Is C100 still worth the purchase?

G

giangwow

Member
Hi everyone,
I am coming from Canon DSLR filmmaking. I had a T2i and a 6D and really like working with them. I got a chance to play around with the FS700 and BMMCC and never satisfied. I don't like the color science of the Sony FS700, and the Blackmagic Micro is difficult to operate (had to change every setting in the menu).
Feature wise the C100 is far from the cinema camera its price. However, i have heard great praise for it being a superb all around camera for almost every situation.
I do various type of videos include shorts, music videos, commercials and wedding. Therefore need a camera that is reliable.
I have the C100, BM Ursa Mini 4k, A7SII, GH4 in the budget.
Please give me some advice. Thank you so much.
 
Is there an actual reason you would need to acquire or deliver 4K content? If not, I'd say the C100 is an amazing workhorse that is reliable and capable of delivering beautiful cinematic imagery.
 
It is not a must have right now but surely is a future-proof feature. But i am more interested in slow-mo capabilities than 4K capturing.
 
Still a great cam, and will continue to be for many years to come. It's got everything you need, especially for run and gun. Love the form factor, the built-in neutral density filters, the XLR audio, the menus, and the button layout. I don't use 4k and have no clients that require 4k, so I don't consider it an issue. And the C100's sensor downrezzes a 4k image to 1k internally, which is what I'd be doing in post on all my projects anyway.
 
No real slow-mo capabilities with the C100 mk I, but prices are dropping on the mk II which shoots 60p.
 
I went from a BMCC to a C100 and haven't looked back. The C100 is a great verite camera that you can one man band. I would give the 2.5K a slight nod image-wise but the C100 is very close...
 
C100 MK II recently had a price drop (now only $3995). Seems like a good choice for what you need!
 
I love my C100 MKI and the C100MKII is just that much better. That said, if slow motion shooting is important to you, neither are the best choice. They are workhorse cameras though and mine shoots programming you have probably seen for the studios. With good lighting and glass, the C100s really sing. I am in the same boat, none of my clients want or need 4k yet. When they do, I will probably buy a used C300 MKII. I couldn't agree more with you, the Sony color science is atrocious and BMD cameras are mostly for hobbyists in the sense of they have great pictures, nice features, good price points. But generally, the long term, day-in, day-out reliability is not yet there like it will be on a Sony, Canon or Panasonic camera. I owned a GH4, never liked it. Going from FF and S35 imagers to M43 is too painful, hated the FOV and the image noise, the color science was almost as bad as the Sonys, the GH4 has this orange/cyan tint to everything that I hate and my clients at the studios hated so I sold it. Weird because I owned the HVX200, HPX170 and HPX300 and I loved the color science on all of them, great colors, but they were pro cameras and the GH4 is consumer so the color science did not make the transition from the broadcast engineers to the consumer side. Even the newer Panasonic cameras like the HPX270 and DVX200 have great colors but small sensor isn't for everyone, more for event shooting, which I don't generally do much.

Pretty much the ideal camera of the moment would combine the feature set of the FS7 into an FS5 sized body but with Canon lens mount and Canon color science, all at $8k to $10k. Call it the EOS C200, it would instantly own the market. But Canon's marketing strategy won't allow for this and Sony looks as if they will never get the colors right. My old Sony Betacam and all of the Sony prosumer DV cameras had decent colors but once we got past the EX1, all of the new Sonys with the exception of the F55, to me, have terrible colors. I was camera op on a big multi camera shoot last year and used the PMW-300/320 for a week and yikes did I hate the colors, even after really tweaking them in camera, Sonys just make people look terrible, very unflattering skin tones, weird motion signature in 24p. I wish Sony would get the colors and motion signature right because they are nailing the feature set and price points better than anyone.
 
Thank you guys very much. I think I would probably go for a C100mI for now. Does anyone use C100 + Ninja 2 for greenscreen? Is there any considerable difference? I know it should be better than 4:2:0 AVCHD but is it worth it? Thank you very much.
 
@puredrifting. I have not tried the FS5 yet but I agree that the footage from the internet seems quite nice, regarding the color science and image detail. Therefore I am wondering why would you go for the C300 mkII rather than the FS5 which is about half the price.
 
puredrifting said:
Pretty much the ideal camera of the moment would combine the feature set of the FS7 into an FS5 sized body but with Canon lens mount and Canon color science, all at $8k to $10k. Call it the EOS C200, it would instantly own the market. But Canon's marketing strategy won't allow for this and Sony looks as if they will never get the colors right. My old Sony Betacam and all of the Sony prosumer DV cameras had decent colors but once we got past the EX1, all of the new Sonys with the exception of the F55, to me, have terrible colors. I was camera op on a big multi camera shoot last year and used the PMW-300/320 for a week and yikes did I hate the colors, even after really tweaking them in camera, Sonys just make people look terrible, very unflattering skin tones, weird motion signature in 24p. I wish Sony would get the colors and motion signature right because they are nailing the feature set and price points better than anyone.
Click to expand...
Sony F35 and F65 have great colors. I think the Sony F3 looks great too. Seems Sony just got on a bad color wagon with their current batch of cameras over the past few years, so maybe they'll come out with something good again, eventually.
 
giangwow said:
@puredrifting. I have not tried the FS5 yet but I agree that the footage from the internet seems quite nice, regarding the color science and image detail. Therefore I am wondering why would you go for the C300 mkII rather than the FS5 which is about half the price.
Click to expand...

Simple, I hate the colors on the FS5 and FS7. I have been tempted because the value equation and feature sets are so good but I can't bring myself to pull the trigger on a Sony I can afford. I agree with Eric, the only Sonys that I can pull decent colors out of, I can't afford (F35, F55 and F65), although I never shot with the F3. I did a shoot for D.C. Warner Bros yesterday, shot it with my little C100 MKI and a cheap 50mm 1.8 STM lens and it looks REALLY great. Shot in a a recording studio where I was able to start with a dark room and light everything from scratch and the image, skin tones, sharpness, it all looked superb, client was very happy with the look straight out of camera, they may just do a little minor color correction and it will go out into the world to sell a TV series (it was an EPK shoot at a VO session). I would not have been able to do the same thing with an FS5 or FS7 so that's the simple reason why I wouldn't touch a Sony. A large percentage of my work is EPK where there is little time for post tweaking beyond a simple CC pass in Premiere or FCPX and then it goes out to the web and all of the Entertainment Tonight type shows. The C300 MKII will just be the 4K version of what I already have, which has proven itself to me, my clients and the studios. Everyone loves the look of the Canons, while many hate the look of the Sonys. I agree that the Canons are overpriced and lack some features that the Sonys have but what good is that if the clients hate the look of the Sonys?
 
puredrifting said:
Simple, I hate the colors on the FS5 and FS7. I have been tempted because the value equation and feature sets are so good but I can't bring myself to pull the trigger on a Sony I can afford. I agree with Eric, the only Sonys that I can pull decent colors out of, I can't afford (F35, F55 and F65), although I never shot with the F3. I did a shoot for D.C. Warner Bros yesterday, shot it with my little C100 MKI and a cheap 50mm 1.8 STM lens and it looks REALLY great. Shot in a a recording studio where I was able to start with a dark room and light everything from scratch and the image, skin tones, sharpness, it all looked superb, client was very happy with the look straight out of camera, they may just do a little minor color correction and it will go out into the world to sell a TV series (it was an EPK shoot at a VO session). I would not have been able to do the same thing with an FS5 or FS7 so that's the simple reason why I wouldn't touch a Sony. A large percentage of my work is EPK where there is little time for post tweaking beyond a simple CC pass in Premiere or FCPX and then it goes out to the web and all of the Entertainment Tonight type shows. The C300 MKII will just be the 4K version of what I already have, which has proven itself to me, my clients and the studios. Everyone loves the look of the Canons, while many hate the look of the Sonys. I agree that the Canons are overpriced and lack some features that the Sonys have but what good is that if the clients hate the look of the Sonys?
Click to expand...
Just curious if you shot to an Atomos or something similar or straight to the camera?
 
puredrifting said:
Simple, I hate the colors on the FS5 and FS7. I have been tempted because the value equation and feature sets are so good but I can't bring myself to pull the trigger on a Sony
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat. But I don't really have "clients" to worry about (which is nice). The feature set of the FS-5 is so far above the C100 that it may eventually win out. I'm not considering the C300 MKII because it is too heavy for the form factor and doesn't have a low-bit rate 4K option. I shoot on a C300 Mk I and I believe that is a good pound or so overweight for it's form factor. I shoot mostly handheld and I don't believe in rigging.

Advantages of the FS5 that may make me overlook the color. Better ergonomics. Integrated Wireless microphone (bye bye batteries and receiver getting knocked off). 100Mbps 4K (good enough for me and saves me a few thousand dollars a year in hard disk purchases). Variable ND for smooth exposure shifts. Remote control app for those times I'm shooting two cameras/one person. Clear Image Zoom opens up lens selection decisions massively. And now RAW recording for times I need high-end color control. Can match with a SLR B-cam since Sony actually makes decent ones for video (unlike Canon). These are not small advantages for me and my style of production.

S-Log2 with Color Finale and X-Rite ColorChecker can alleviate some of the color issues. But it's an extra step that I will often not have time for.

Just in wait mode now. I still hope against all odds that Canon releases a C100 update within 9 months. If not, I don't know how I'm going to come down.
 
well, I mean I think you can accomplish just about anything grading well-shot material. I was talking more about in-cam/picture profile/scene setting tweaks.
 
I think using the camera for what it was made for is the winner - if you rig up a DSLR to be like a C100 then you might as well buy a C100. If you rig up a C100 to be like a C300 then you might as well buy a C300. But you can get great footage out of all of them, if you can live with the compromises required at each level.

Personally I've fallen in love with my C100 MKII again by going really stripped back: put on a 24mm (or 40mm) pancake lens, Rode VideoMic Pro or AVX wireless receiver, x2 64GB cards and I've got 6 hours of shooting handheld at about 1.7kg (3.75 pounds). (spare battery in pocket, or chuck on a BP975 for an additional 100gm). The quick quiet autofocus of the STM lens is great. Just tap it on/off as required, it's a split second to focus.

Except for the codec I'd say the C100 MKII is just as good as a C300 MKI for handheld work (that's the compromise required at this level - same as the FS5 vs FS7). The C100 MKI is way behind though (LCD positioning, crap viewfinder).

brettsherman said:
The feature set of the FS-5 is so far above the C100 that it may eventually win out.
Click to expand...

Remember the FS5 is a brand new camera, and the C100 is 4 years old now.

The C100 MKII refresh being the camera that Canon should have delivered in the first place, and is not a "new" camera by any means. But even the MKII is 2 years old now.

Maybe the C100 MKIII will be as big a step up as the C300 MKII was over the C300 MKI. Maybe.


brettsherman said:
Just in wait mode now. I still hope against all odds that Canon releases a C100 update within 9 months. If not, I don't know how I'm going to come down.
Click to expand...

Considering the above dates, that's exactly what I'm waiting for too. The C100 MKII came as a surprise announcement 2 years after the MKI release so maybe Canon realises the lower end can be refreshed faster than the big boys and we might get a 2 year cycle.

Like an iPhone 6 then an incremental 6S refresh then an iPhone 7.

Meaning a MKIII will be announced by the end of the year (after 5dIV announcement?).

DLD said:
This was Doug Jensen's clips - Raw graded.
Click to expand...


That's F55 footage, not FS5...
 
Last edited:
Big, big difference between the F55 and the FS5 and FS7. I would love to own the F55 but it's too big and intimidating for a lot of my work, it's rather heavy compared to my C100, takes bigger, heavier lenses, batteries, requires a bigger, heavier tripod, etc. I travel to Africa and all over Europe and every ounce counts much of the time. Closer to home I can use a bigger, higher grade camera but for international traveling, often with a three person crew (me as DP, a sound mixer and a producer), a camera like the F55 is too much. Shooting BTS on TV sets and film sets, a small, discrete camera like the C100 is best, it makes me stand out too much if I am lugging an Amira or F55 around and for my audience, those cameras are usually overkill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top