C100: Should I Sell my C100 and get the C100 MII?

JoeJITSU

JoeJITSU

Veteran
Been seeing a lot of opinions on this and I am planning to sell off my C100 and get the Mark II C100. Also getting the Sony FS7.

Now, The big differences I have been hearing to NOT go for the Mark II is the new C100 looks like video compared to the Old C100. The Old C100 looks more like Film?


Can someone please explain?

Thank you
 
JoeJITSU said:
Now, The big differences I have been hearing to NOT go for the Mark II is the new C100 looks like video compared to the Old C100. The Old C100 looks more like Film?
Click to expand...

Please…

If this is what you believe, no one can help you, but you. My advice: among all the opinions you're seeing, filter everything out (including mine) until you are left with your own. Then stick to it.

If you need the two camera setup, a C100 mkII and a FS7 seem to offer a lot between them. Personally, I would have tried to stick to the C100 until you see what Canon wants to offer with the C300 mkII.

If the team behind Peter Jackson can make the set of The Hobbit look like video after optimizing it and the lighting for HFR and 3D, I'm sure the C100 mkII can be made to look like video too.
 
As a C100 owner and also one to follow current camera releases closely...I am personally only interested in 1 camera. The C300 mark II. Though the fixes the C100 offers are nice, I am more interested in what the next line of the c300 has to offer.
 
Do you need 60p??? Otherwise, I wouldn't go for it. If I didn't have a C100 already I would definetely buy a C100 II because of all the upgrades.
I agree with Andre...any camera can look videoish. The camera is just a tool in the toolbox.
 
A specification of the c100 mark II is known, so if you need 60p or better EVF or better positioned LCD then you can wait for some footages from this new camera (because this camera has new signal processing at 4K resolution and new processor).

But both cameras C100 mark I and mark II have the same CMOS sensor, so I believe that we will not see big differences between them.
 
I plan on getting one, it's the newer updated version of what I have and love with a few annoyance's fixed.

Not selling my mk1 though as resale prices aren't to my liking. Will work as a nice A/B setup

The whole video look thing is just personal opinions which I take with a pinch of salt. C300 mk2 is going to be out of my price range so not even going to bother looking at it.
 
I'll stick with the C100 for another while. Maybe have a look at the C300MII.
But right now, I don't see the reason to spend a lot more money on a maybe 10% increase in IQ.
4K might become a reality in about a year for my jobs, right now 4k won't earn me any money.
I'm sure an improved C100MII would return my investment in a year, but just a break-even.
So I rather let the C100 OG earn me a nice cushion of cash for a new investment, when I really need it.
Just my 2c;)
 
Camera development and releases are moving really fast these days and Canon doesn't seem to follow the same time frame as Sony. If you like Canon then I would make sure the camera you choose has what you need for the next 2 years. With Canon if the camera is hot they will wait even longer to update. I do wish they wouldn't hold back features that I feel are a must but thats the way they are.

If 4K wasn't the new resolution the C100 MKII would be a no brainer move for me but I like 4K. I like shooting it and delivering in HD. I did the same thing when we lived in a SD world. No different now just it's 4K. Again it really depends on what you shoot or how you make money with a camera. An investment of $6K on a C100 MKII is pretty low and your profit will be higher. If you lease it or borrow the loan can be payed off faster too. The C300 MKII will probably be more expensive than the FS7. Not by much. At least you will be able to get a rough idea if you can justify it. Remember the FS7 uses expensive media and the extras are also going to add up. Hit B&H and start filling up your cart with what you need to kit the FS7 and see just how much it costs.

I also really dislike AVCHD. Yes we get good results with it but after working with the GH4 and A7s it sure makes post work much easier. Just having unique clip names helps out. Dragging clips right out of the folder into a RAID is so much easier. Checking clips without having to import them is awesome. AVCHD has to go away from any pro camera.

This whole "it looks like video" thing is bull. It's more about lighting and frame rate that creates the film look.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don't get the C100.2 as being a significant enough advance. It's like they finally reached feature parity with the precambrian AF100 (60p! Useable LCD and EVF! WOW!). For someone with a C100.1, a DP4/Zacuto EVF/Blade plus an HFR-capable DSLR/M body seem like more sensible expenditures unless there's another of the fine tunings in the .2 that saves them scads of time and money.

So yeah... AndreeOnline said it right to begin with, the rest of us are just flapping gums (or fingertips, etc).
 
I did what you're asking about. I sold one of my original C100s for a Mk2 version. However, I didn't make the decision because of the promised image quality enhancements, but instead for the new usability features. The 60p will be useful for me at times. The built-in scratch-track microphone and joystick on the LCD panel will help tremendously when it is mounted sans-grip and handle on our Ronin gimbal. The updated OLED LCD and larger viewfinder will be a welcome update when shooting outdoors. I'm looking forward to the wi-fi capability and also the autofocus which I never had on the Mk1. Additionally, the MP4 option will eliminate the annoying AVCHD workflow as Erik was describing. On top of that, there's the better low-light and "4k" down-sampling. Can't hurt I guess.

I thought long and hard about whether it was worth it, but for the amount I shooting I do, the usability features are worth the price. In the end, it's only about $2k spent after selling the Mk1, plus I got an absolutely killer deal on it from my local camera shop. After using the C100 for about two years now, I'm extremely comfortable with it and am confident I can create the looks I want with it. I'm not sure if it would be worth it to jump ship to something completely different at this point in the game - the consistency I'm able to achieve trumps the resolution or frame rates of the FS7, etc. I love everything about the Cinema EOS line, and I can say they are my favorite cameras of all time, both in look of the image and the handling. I'm not sure if I'm quite ready to give that up. There's at least another year if not two years in my C100s. So yeah, worthy upgrade I think.
 
Last edited:
Erik Naso said:
The C300 MKII will probably be more expensive than the FS7. Not by much. At least you will be able to get a rough idea if you can justify it. Remember the FS7 uses expensive media and the extras are also going to add up. Hit B&H and start filling up your cart with what you need to kit the FS7 and see just how much it costs.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the C300II will come in at the same price the C300I launched at. $14-16K. I don't imagine Sony getting the C300II sub $10K market at all especially with the mk1 model selling well at $12-14K. I also don't believe if C300II has internal 4K that it will be using CF cards. I could def see them going with Cfast and then the media cost issue is a wash. All these higher end 4K cameras will need expensive media. I am a huge fan of pro media after having some bad experiences with CF cards in C300.


Erik Naso said:
I also really dislike AVCHD. Yes we get good results with it but after working with the GH4 and A7s it sure makes post work much easier. Just having unique clip names helps out. Dragging clips right out of the folder into a RAID is so much easier. Checking clips without having to import them is awesome. AVCHD has to go away from any pro camera.

This whole "it looks like video" thing is bull. It's more about lighting and frame rate that creates the film look.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more!
 
Nate Haustein said:
I didn't make the decision because of the promised image quality enhancements, but instead for the new usability features. The 60p will be useful for me at times. The built-in scratch-track microphone and joystick on the LCD panel will help tremendously when it is mounted sans-grip and handle on our Ronin gimbal. The updated OLED LCD and larger viewfinder will be a welcome update when shooting outdoors. I'm looking forward to the wi-fi capability and also the autofocus which I never had on the Mk1. Additionally, the MP4 option will eliminate the annoying AVCHD workflow as Erik was describing. On top of that, there's the better low-light and "4k" down-sampling. Can't hurt I guess.
Click to expand...

Those upgrades that you list are so substantial, that if I were to shoot C100, I would upgrade instantly and never look back.

Ironically, that's the stuff that really makes a difference in a camera, but it seems very few think they are sexy. Good decision on your part!
 
It's easy to forget the improvement list and narrow it to just 60p and EVF, So:

-60p Slowmotion (with the same 30p quality
-New Processor, faster operation/start-up time, allows MP4+AVCHD recording, allows better downscale with supposedly better lowlight performance, sharpness, reduced artefacts
-Dual Pixel AF, with Face detection, work perfectly
-Tiltable, usable C500 EVF with large eyecup
-Better, fully articulating LCD
-Can be used without grip, joystick/menu on the LCD
-Wifi control with smartphones, tablets,
-Extra Microphone for audio recording without top-handle

These are not insignificant improvements for many of us. If you have no use for them, then they aren't worth upgrading for, but it doesn't mean it's not a siginifcant upgrade for many.
 
JoeJITSU said:
Been seeing a lot of opinions on this and I am planning to sell off my C100 and get the Mark II C100. Also getting the Sony FS7.

Now, The big differences I have been hearing to NOT go for the Mark II is the new C100 looks like video compared to the Old C100. The Old C100 looks more like Film?


Can someone please explain?

Thank you
Click to expand...

If your getting the FS7 why bother getting a C100 II?

Re the C100 MK ii and if you drop sharpness to -10 then add a tiny bit go gaussian blur filter in post you can eliminate the videoish look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top