C100: Mark I or Mark II

J

jmlau

Well-known member
Been out of the videography game for ~2 years and looking to get back into it.
Previous cameras: Panasonic HMC150, Canon 60D, and Canon 7D

The C100 looks like a good camera to start up with again. Is the Mark I with an AF upgrade worth it, or does it make more sense to go up to the Mark II? Take into account this is a side hobby and not a full-time job, so seeing this as a business investment doesn't quite mean the same thing to me...
 
Honestly, I think your going to be perfectly happy with a C100 Mark I. The image quality is almost pretty much the exact same. The mark II has a slightly better data rate....60P....ect....but in actuality, you can come 95% close with a Mark I. The 60i conversion works fine.

My advice is, buy the cheap C100 Mark II without dual pixel AF. Save the money. Your footage will look just as good. Take the remaining money and invest into other production elements. You could save a few thousand. Wouldn't you like to use that for some lighting equipment, computer, or stabilizers?

Over the last year, I decided to invest 10s of 1000s into all types of lighting tools rather than on a new shiny camera. Best decision ever.
 
If you're a hobbyist then it really depends on how much money you want to spend. As a business investment it depends on if you think you can make the difference in money off of the Mark II. I got a Mark II and love the improvements.

ReelWorksMedia said:
Over the last year, I decided to invest 10s of 1000s into all types of lighting tools rather than on a new shiny camera. Best decision ever.
Click to expand...
Only to find that A) the LED lights you bought are later outdated, or B) the non-LED lights you bought are later outdated by LED, Plasma, Remote Phosphor, etc. lighting. Lighting technology may not improve as quickly as camera technology, but it is improving at a quicker rate than say, stabilization gear and audio gear.
 
The C100 now under $3k is a pretty good bargain, considering it was $8000 when it first came out a little over 2 years ago.
 
If you are not earning money, then better to buy the C100 Mark I rather than the Mark II. Better to get upto speed with it and do some projects. And if you later feel the need, then move up or hire if the number of times you need extra features in a shoot is less.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
If you're a hobbyist then it really depends on how much money you want to spend. As a business investment it depends on if you think you can make the difference in money off of the Mark II. I got a Mark II and love the improvements.


Only to find that A) the LED lights you bought are later outdated, or B) the non-LED lights you bought are later outdated by LED, Plasma, Remote Phosphor, etc. lighting. Lighting technology may not improve as quickly as camera technology, but it is improving at a quicker rate than say, stabilization gear and audio gear.
Click to expand...

This brings up another topic that would be best suited for another thread. The hierarchy of equipment that most impacts your final result. For me, more than any camera, is having every shot lit perfectly. Having a massive arsenal of lighting tools, and the ability to use them, impacts the end result much more than any single camera. Great lighting an DP skills significantly outweigh the camera.

A bit off topic but an interesting convo. Sorry to the OP for straying. For me, the lighting tools I invest in will have amazing value for years and years to come. I usually purchase a new camera every 2 years or so.
 
C100 mark II has better LCD, much better EVF - this very helps with handled shooting, better and cleaner signal with less noise (wdr gamma), better buttons (you can move in menu more quickly), push autofocus included.

I can say that new version of this camera is really better than the old version, but the C100 (mark I) has nice price now .-) .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top