C100: Is the c100 still relevant? Or is the lack of 4k a dealbreaker?

[scorsesefan]

It has been quite a while. It feels like they need a $4,500.00 4K EOS Cinema camera in their lineup but who knows? Canon's cinema camera strategy is always a mystery and they usually do something that none of us were expecting.

Definitely. Canon needs to put a 4K cinema camera into the $3000-$4000 price range the way Sony has bridged the gap with the FS5 and Blackmagic with the Ursa mini 4K. I don't even care if it's a highly compressed codec if they can make it look as good as the C100 does...

 

[puredrifting]

Definitely. Canon needs to put a 4K cinema camera into the $3000-$4000 price range the way Sony has bridged the gap with the FS5 and Blackmagic with the Ursa mini 4K. I don't even care if it's a highly compressed codec if they can make it look as good as the C100 does...

Really, all they need is a C200 with only the XF-AVC, no Cinema RAW Light for $4,500.00. I am shooting a corporate project now, shot several motion control setups last night, all to the UHD 150Mbps XF-AVC and it looks great. We are shooting far too much content to deal with RAW. I am not convinced that a camera is useless if it's not shooting 10-bit 4:2:2. Sure, I'd rather the C200 had it but it doesn't and if you know how to light and expose correctly, the supposedly "terrible, useless and outdated" 8-bit looks just fine. Clients like it, I am fine with it. One of our biggest clients owns three C300 MKIs and that camera still looks great too for 1080 stuff. A lot of camera people think specs are more important than how a camera actually looks and buy into the hype of having the ultimate specs. WIth good lighting, I can still make a C100 MKI or even a crappy looking camera like the 5D MKIII look amazing. Camera specs are blown way out of proportion. They are important under certain circumstances but in the majority of shoots, they aren't that important.

 

[03recon]

A lot of camera people think specs are more important than how a camera actually looks and buy into the hype of having the ultimate specs. WIth good lighting, I can still make a C100 MKI or even a crappy looking camera like the 5D MKIII look amazing. Camera specs are blown way out of proportion.

Exactly. It's all about the person behind the camera. Early this year, I did a low budget spec commercial with a 5D MKII without the magic lantern hack. At first, I was leary about it due to its well known issues, thought that's what he had. To mitigate these issues, we scouted the locations he wanted to shoot, so I had an idea on what to do regarding lighting and placing the talent during the shoot. Used Phillp Bloom's 'Log' like settings. My director was more than shocked with the footage I was able to capture.

 

[puredrifting]

Exactly. It's all about the person behind the camera. Early this year, I did a low budget spec commercial with a 5D MKII without the magic lantern hack. At first, I was leary about it due to its well known issues, thought that's what he had. To mitigate these issues, we scouted the locations he wanted to shoot, so I had an idea on what to do regarding lighting and placing the talent during the shoot. Used Phillp Bloom's 'Log' like settings. My director was more than shocked with the footage I was able to capture.

Skill and lighting far trump specs, agreed. Unless clients are willing to pay more for shooting on a higher end/higher spec camera, or with Cinema glass, why give them stuff they aren't willing to pay for? In my experience, very few clients can tell the difference between the camera used in almost all cases, a lot of it is image in the clients mind. If they want an Alexa, if that's important to them, then they have to pay for it. There is that business person angle as well. Any of us can rent a RED, Arri or Panavision Millenium but we only should do so if the clients are willing to pay for it. If they're not, they get what they can afford and we can still make it look good if we know what we are doing.

 

[03recon]

Skill and lighting far trump specs, agreed. Unless clients are willing to pay more for shooting on a higher end/higher spec camera, or with Cinema glass, why give them stuff they aeren't willing to pay for? In my experience, very few clients can tell the difference between the camera used in almost all cases, a lot of it is image in the clients mind. If they want an Alexa, if that's important to them, then they have to pay for it. There is that business person angle as well. Any of us can rent a RED, Arri or Panavision Millenium but we only should do so if the clients are willing to pay for it. If they're not, they get what they can afford and we can still make it look good if we know what we are doing.

Exactly. That's the reason why I roll my eyes when I see people pushing X brand of cameras or laud the glories of 4K, and what you're able to do in post (i.e crop in, dolly in etc). I think, just plan it out, and shoot it. Save the trouble to the editors. With the final images, most people don't notice the differences besides some pixel peepers. For me that's why I'm still willing to get a new or second hand C100 over trying to sell a lung to get a RED, Sony 4K, or Blackmagic URSA Mini Cameras. Like you, if the client ask for it, fork the cash and we'll rent it. If not, we'll make do with what we have and just light it and shoot :smile:.

 

[puredrifting]

Exactly. That's the reason why I roll my eyes when I see people pushing X brand of cameras or laud the glories of 4K, and what you're able to do in post (i.e crop in, dolly in etc). I think, just plan it out, and shoot it. Save the trouble to the editors. With the final images, most people don't notice the differences besides some pixel peepers. For me that's why I'm still willing to get a new or second hand C100 over trying to sell a lung to get a RED, Sony 4K, or Blackmagic URSA Mini Cameras. Like you, if the client ask for it, fork the cash and we'll rent it. If not, we'll make do with what we have and just light it and shoot :smile:.

You see my signature? I work in the LA market and I have yet to talk to any DP or camera op who is making money BECAUSE they are shooting an 8K camera. Sure, a lot of people are shooting them but the big secret in our business is most people in it are Lemmings. A few years ago, wow, 3D, gotta have it or I'm not cool. VR is the future, gotta learn how to shoot VR. Ohh, HDR, my movie will be soooo much better with HDR. 4k, 8k, that instantly makes me one of "the club". The longer I am in this business and get hands on with all of the trendy gimmicks, the more I realize that it's mostly all bullshit. THat's why running around Cine Gear this year, writing a story about it was painful because it was the year of Full Frame. Everybody needs a new camera and ALL new lenses! S35 is dead, you're a nobody if you're not shooting FF. Such a crock.

 

[03recon]

I work in the LA market and I have yet to talk to any DP or camera op who is making money BECAUSE they are shooting an 8K camera. Sure, a lot of people are shooting them but the big secret in our business is most people in it are Lemmings. A few years ago, wow, 3D, gotta have it or I'm not cool. VR is the future, gotta learn how to shoot VR. Ohh, HDR, my movie will be soooo much better with HDR. 4k, 8k, that instantly makes me one of "the club". The longer I am in this business and get hands on with all of the trendy gimmicks, the more I realize that it's mostly all bulls*%t. THat's why running around Cine Gear this year, writing a story about it was painful because it was the year of Full Frame. Everybody needs a new camera and ALL new lenses! S35 is dead, you're a nobody if you're not shooting FF. Such a crock.

My eyes just did a 360 since that's being my experience these past months. Everything must be on FF, oh if it has crop its not good. Oh that Sigma 18-35mm Cine Zoom, trash it. I think to myself, are you being serious? I feel like FF in most cases is there to help someone crop in post since they busted a take on set or were too lazy to set up a shot. For example, Canon EOS R that just came out, people are crying bloody murder that it doesn't do 4k with its full frame sensor. I'm like so what? Check the other features, check the footage, see if its good. Someone in vimeo posted some footage from it, inter-spliced with gopro footage. While people bicker and moan, they don't realize is that Canon basically shrank the C100MKI to DSLR form. Since I downloaded some footage from the R, and compared it to footage I have from the C100 MKI and they're virtually identical. Just get that EF to RF adapter with Variable ND, and it becomes a baby Cinema Camera. Though, I guess this little gem will pass over most people's heads because its not Full Frame.

 

[puredrifting]

My eyes just did a 360 since that's being my experience these past months. Everything must be on FF, oh if it has crop its not good. Oh that Sigma 18-35mm Cine Zoom, trash it. I think to myself, are you being serious? I feel like FF in most cases is there to help someone crop in post since they busted a take on set or were too lazy to set up a shot. For example, Canon EOS R that just came out, people are crying bloody murder that it doesn't do 4k with its full frame sensor. I'm like so what? Check the other features, check the footage, see if its good. Someone in vimeo posted some footage from it, inter-spliced with gopro footage. While people bicker and moan, they don't realize is that Canon basically shrank the C100MKI to DSLR form. Since I downloaded some footage from the R, and compared it to footage I have from the C100 MKI and they're virtually identical. Just get that EF to RF adapter with Variable ND, and it becomes a baby Cinema Camera. Though, I guess this little gem will pass over most people's heads because its not Full Frame.

I watched the Cinema 5D video Johnnie Behiri posted this morning of the Indian Wedding doc he shot on the R and I thought it looked great. He's a decent storyteller too. The only thing that is really bad that turns me off from the R is the rolling shutter is inexplicably bad. Like 5D MKII bad if you ever had one of those? Like you can barrely move the camera without major Jello Other than that, it's a nice looking camera. Fujifilm X-T3 is a better camera for less money though but then I have to buy some new Fuji lenses although I think my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II with a good adaptor would handle the long lens stuff and I am going to get the kit lens and the 10-24 for gimbal.

 

[Josh Bass]

I mean, doesn't it just come down to what the clients want? If they have no required specs, go nuts with 1080/C100. Hell, I'm sure there's people who'd still take SD. But if someone wants/demands 4K, well, now you need 4K, even if their reasons are stupid/wrong, unless you're really good at arguing or are willing to lose business for a principle. If you don't need it that often and the budget affords it you rent, otherwise, buy.

 

[03recon]

I watched the Cinema 5D video Johnnie Behiri posted this morning of the Indian Wedding doc he shot on the R and I thought it looked great. He's a decent storyteller too. The only thing that is really bad that turns me off from the R is the rolling shutter is inexplicably bad. Like 5D MKII bad if you ever had one of those? Like you can barrely move the camera without major Jello Other than that, it's a nice looking camera. Fujifilm X-T3 is a better camera for less money though but then I have to buy some new Fuji lenses although I think my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II with a good adaptor would handle the long lens stuff and I am going to get the kit lens and the 10-24 for gimbal.

That's the only thing that turns me off it, since having shot with the 5DMK II I had to put it on sticks or be careful doing handheld work.

I watched the Cinema 5D mini doc, and it seems they went a bit far with the color grade with some of the interior shots while the exteriors such as the city looked lovely. Though, that's me. Here's the minidoc that I compared the C100 MK I footage with. https://vimeo.com/303207378 https://vimeo.com/302816416 At first I thought, it was shot on the C100 until I saw it was shot with R that surprised me. I chatted with the chap who shot it, and mentioned it was intermix of 4K and 1080p footage. By the third day, he shot 1080p since the 4k ate up his cards.

 

[NorBro]

One thing I've learned (and mastered) over the years is research.

And from experience, my personal opinion is the EOS R destroys the C100 in resolution and the difference is various obvious under certain circumstances.

When browsing videos, you have to account for the playback resolutions, camera settings, and post-production.

If you compared the EOS R shooting in a 'neutral' profile (for example) vs. a C100 I/II in any profile, and you exported high-quality files (the least compression you can afford), you - and anyone I imagine (unless you're having vision difficulties) - would be able to see the difference.

However, if you choose to use C-Log on the EOS R and don't add much contrast or any sharpening in post, the difference is less visible. Especially when you have continuous motion.

When you're (anyone) looking for camera samples (which I do on a weekly basis and probably watch over 400 videos a week), it's best to view/find a wide variety of content from many different people in different places to really educate yourself.

 

[puredrifting]

All true. But that Jello Bro...

 

[cpreston]

I'm using the EOS R as supplement to the C300 II for single handed gimbal work. I used to use an XC15 and the R is generally better. Its primary cons are the lack of waveforms, zebras, and internal stabilization. And the jello. But I didn't intend to use it handheld and jello isn't noticeable on the gimbal. Oh, and the lack of 60p in crop.

A couple of things about the camera that aren't immediately apparent and make it better than other Canon DSLR's.
-It has full frame DPAF and the manual focus guides. I just wished the manual focus guides could be turned on when the lens is in AF mode.
-The crop frame 1080p appears to be using the downsampled 4K readout. In other words the 1080p on the R has the same resolves the same amount of detail and looks very similar to the image on a C100.
-The CLog has a number of different settings including a choice of color matrix. I managed to get the R to match my C300 II in Clog using the Neutral color matrix on both cameras with an added +6 to magenta.
-If shooting video on the EOS R, I really suggest using the crop frame STM lenses. The 18-135 STM lens has amazing IS and AF for this camera. Also, the crop frame mode in 1080p looks better than the full frame mode. The only problem is being forced to switch to a full frame lens for 60p.
-I picked up a 24-105 RF lens, but it has the same problems as the EF lens. The IS on the lens is designed to lock on so it doesn't allow smooth panning during video. Also, it loses light transmission while zooming at anything less than wide open. The RF lenses do have one somewhat revolutionary feature and that is the third control wheel and a choice to have incremental stops in the aperture. In effect, you have continuously variable control of the aperture on the lens. You can now ride your aperture while shooting.

 

[jthabel]

You see my signature? I work in the LA market and I have yet to talk to any DP or camera op who is making money BECAUSE they are shooting an 8K camera. Sure, a lot of people are shooting them but the big secret in our business is most people in it are Lemmings. A few years ago, wow, 3D, gotta have it or I'm not cool. VR is the future, gotta learn how to shoot VR. Ohh, HDR, my movie will be soooo much better with HDR. 4k, 8k, that instantly makes me one of "the club". The longer I am in this business and get hands on with all of the trendy gimmicks, the more I realize that it's mostly all bullshit. THat's why running around Cine Gear this year, writing a story about it was painful because it was the year of Full Frame. Everybody needs a new camera and ALL new lenses! S35 is dead, you're a nobody if you're not shooting FF. Such a crock.

Well stated. Many cameras that have come out over the past 4 or 5 years -- and the C100 in particular -- will continue to have years of useful life, particularly for online content or short films. I for one can't tell a huge difference in image qualilty between HD or 4k when viewing on a computer monitor. The C100 is is also ideal for corp video, documentaries, or student projects. If I ran a film school I'd buy a couple dozen used C100s on the cheap and hand them out to my production classes.

 

[scorsesefan]

Well stated. Many cameras that have come out over the past 4 or 5 years -- and the C100 in particular -- will continue to have years of useful life, particularly for online content or short films. I for one can't tell a huge difference in image qualilty between HD or 4k when viewing on a computer monitor. The C100 is is also ideal for corp video, documentaries, or student projects. If I ran a film school I'd buy a couple dozen used C100s on the cheap and hand them out to my production classes.

Or even for broadcast. IME delivery requirements for most broadcast work is still 720p or 1080i.

 

[03recon]

Well stated. Many cameras that have come out over the past 4 or 5 years -- and the C100 in particular -- will continue to have years of useful life, particularly for online content or short films. I for one can't tell a huge difference in image qualilty between HD or 4k when viewing on a computer monitor. The C100 is is also ideal for corp video, documentaries, or student projects. If I ran a film school I'd buy a couple dozen used C100s on the cheap and hand them out to my production classes.

Or even for broadcast. IME delivery requirements for most broadcast work is still 720p or 1080i.

I would also add the Sony F3. Just go online and find good use ones for $1200. Still delivers great images like the C100.

I think when the broadcasters go ahead and change formats and resolutions, then it would be the time to change. Though, for now those 4K downsampling cameras to 1080p to 2k are more than enough.

 

[Jon Roemer]

I'm using the EOS R as supplement to the C300 II for single handed gimbal work....

I'm doing the same, just mentioned it in the C300M2/gimbal thread. I have found the 1080p full-frame and the 4K to both be very good on the EOS R with some sharpening added in post. The C-log matches up to the C300 Mark II very easily. The high ISO on the R is great.

I haven't had a jello issue yet with the R on the Ronin-S.

I have used a 16-35 L f/4 IS EF lens on the R a lot and that works very well. The IS in that lens is very video friendly.

 

[cpreston]

I'm doing the same, just mentioned it in the C300M2/gimbal thread. I have found the 1080p full-frame and the 4K to both be very good on the EOS R with some sharpening added in post. The C-log matches up to the C300 Mark II very easily. The high ISO on the R is great.

I haven't had a jello issue yet with the R on the Ronin-S.

I have used a 16-35 L f/4 IS EF lens on the R a lot and that works very well. The IS in that lens is very video friendly.

Don't forget the fullframe DPAF. Until an update to the XC15 comes out, I think the EOSR is the best single handed gimbal compliment to the cinema cameras. As long as you don't need high frame rates.

 

[QuickHitRecord]

With NAB approaching, I’ve been thinking about replacing my aging C100s that have served me so well over the past six years. I realized that I couldn’t find the last latitude/recovery test that I did, so I created a new one. Maybe someone else will find this useful. I did some tests to see what I could recover from over and underexposed footage from the C100 I using C-Log, Wide DR, and Cinema EX profiles:

You can read the Vimeo description for the methodology, as well as some conclusions.

I think the biggest surprise for me the four stops of latitude in C-Log. That's only one stop less than the C200 shooting in raw lite.

 

[QuickHitRecord]

I have some additional insight since last commenting on this thread, having now upgraded to a C200. I still have both of my C100s but will be selling at least one of them soon. I'm torn between the two cameras. I actually prefer the size and weight of the C100, and the simplicity of it. For a lot of what I shoot, the C200 feels like overkill. But it covers those requests for 4K delivery (I didn't have any for years and then suddenly I had three in two weeks), high quality 60P, and raw. Also, the DPAF is pretty remarkable and I'm hoping to have a higher "keep" rate during documentary shoots.

I tested the new C200 against my trusty C100 MkI. With the C100, I rarely used C-Log because I never felt like the codec was robust enough. WideDr and CinemaEX were my go-to profiles, so this one shows the WideDR on both cameras:

I think I might actually prefer the look of the C100, but it's much noisier than the C200. I'd shoot in ISO 1600 on the C200, but never went past ISO 800 (or rather, 850) on the C100.