Absolutely. You can see the tiniest bit of extra detail pop in which switching back and forth between the two clips, but that's it.
Quick C100 Test
- Thread starter Sfernald
- Start date
Absolutely. You can see the tiniest bit of extra detail pop in which switching back and forth between the two clips, but that's it.
I know $3000 can be a lot to some people, but seriously, the C100 is worth it over the 5D Mark III, Full Frame sensor be damned.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
+1,000
To my eye, the images out of the C100 are the best for any camera at or around it's price point.
I'd go even farther: the C100 at $6500 is a better deal than the C300 at $15,000.
Erik Naso
Veteran
This camera is looking really good. I need to get my hands on one. Maybe try to rent it for a shoot next week.
Matt Turner
Well-known member
I think the C100s AVCHD is great, It just seems to be 50mbs+ for broadcast. I've never had anything broadcast so I could be talking rubbish, but I'll record to the Ninja anyway for my documentaries (at least anything that is not run-n-gun).
Matt Turner
Well-known member
BTW it's good to see some C100 love after it was widely panned at it's announcement. It has it's faults (every camera does), but getting C300 image quality for half the price... awesome!
Are you having issues with the AVCHD codec not being able to resolve the image in a way that 50Mbps would fix?
Last edited:
alex1
Well-known member
Ive seen some great documentaries on the 5D and the codec is even worse than the C100's.
Matt Turner
Well-known member
Yeah, I have too, in fact I've seen a lot of stuff on the TV that is far worse than the C100 AVCHD lol.
What I'm trying to get across: C300 is "broadcast approved" using XF 50mbs. Since the C100 uses AVCHD 24mbs the chances of if being the same are very slim.
I'm not saying the C100 AVCHD codec isn't really good, I'm saying that out of the box it probably doesn't match up to places like the BBCs broadcast requirements.
Though there are plenty of things being shot on 5Ds and 7Ds (or worse) etc...
I'd like to know more about this as I want to give my documentaries a better chance of being screened, they will primarily be shown on the web but I if they can be broadcast then wahoo!
What I'm trying to get across: C300 is "broadcast approved" using XF 50mbs. Since the C100 uses AVCHD 24mbs the chances of if being the same are very slim.
I'm not saying the C100 AVCHD codec isn't really good, I'm saying that out of the box it probably doesn't match up to places like the BBCs broadcast requirements.
Though there are plenty of things being shot on 5Ds and 7Ds (or worse) etc...
I'd like to know more about this as I want to give my documentaries a better chance of being screened, they will primarily be shown on the web but I if they can be broadcast then wahoo!
Matt Turner
Well-known member
Hours! I used the BP-955 and shot my Currumbin Beach video for several hours on Sunday morning, plus an hour shooting last night, and still have more than an hour left. Those were not continuous shoots so the camera was on standby or off a lot of the time. I also turned off the EVF for some of the time as I wasn't using it (worst thing about the camera!). I think it will be comparable to the C300:
BP-955 190 minutes
BP-975 280 minutes
The BP-975 is heavier and sticks out from the body more. I bought one but think I'll run with the BP-955 mostly. Probably better to get x2 BP-955s than a BP-975.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
My "kit" of C100 lenses includes…
17-40 f4L
70-200 f4L IS
24mm f1.4L II
85mm f1.2L II
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
I hadn't planned on it, but once I saw the size, and the images, I jumped on it.
Matt Turner
Well-known member
I have the 24-105 L and most of the shots from the Currumbin Beach video (https://vimeo.com/54214611) were shot with that. I also have a 35mm L and used my friends 100mm macro.
I think my next one will be a 70-200 though I'm a bit torn... the f2.8 or the f4 with IS... ?
The IS on the 24-105 worked really well and the difference between f2.8 and f4 on the C100 might not be a big problem considering it's awesome low light capabilities.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
After doing some testing, I went with the f4 zooms (17-40mm and 70-200mm IS). Given how sensitive the C100 is, I'd rather save some money, save some weight, and have lenses that are, by all accounts, some of the sharpest in their classes.
Matt Turner
Well-known member
Yeah! Sorry, the 70-200 f2.8L and f4.0L both have IS, however the f4.0L is half the price and half the weight of the f2.8L, so will probably suit the C100 more. You can always bump the ISO up a notch or two which the C100 will handle cleanly.
Also good that you have something very wide, the widest I can go is 24mm. How is the 17-40mm on the C100?
Also good that you have something very wide, the widest I can go is 24mm. How is the 17-40mm on the C100?
Last edited:
Erik Naso
Veteran
Dang it! I knew I shouldn't have sold the 17-40 early this year.
I have the old non IS 70-200 f4L and its very sharp and weaaay lighter than the f2.8. You can get a nice shallow look with the tele.
The 85mm f1.2 II would be good for a med. talking head shot?
I forgot I have a Nikon/EF adapter so I can use my 85mm f1.4 Zeiss ZF. At least I didnt sell the Zeiss!
Last edited: