So how much better is the C100 over the FS100?

C

corycross

Well-known member
I just recently changed the picture profile around on the FS100, and I kinda fell back in love with the camera. How much better is the image quality on the C100 over the FS100? Which picture profile do you think you will be using? Cinema or HDR?

I guess I would like to know what people like most about the camera, and if you are going to purchase it, what camera did you have before? I saw it compared to the fs700 in low light and its impressive. I do want it, just want to hear what you folks are thinking.
 
Our team had a FS100, and the C100 is much much better, even when the FS100 had Frank's great custom profiles. MMuch more resolution and better color,
 
I have a FS700 and I think resolution vise the C100 and FS700 are very similar. I have not shot charts yet but this is my general impression. The FS700 is not exactly the same as the FS100 but it is close.

I will be shooting side by side tests soon. My initial feeling is that the C100 is less noisy and has better low light capability.

What I would say is that the C100 has a better looking picture right out of the camera, using the built in presets. The FS700 can produce fantastic images as well (as can the similar FS100), but you have to spend quite a bit of time figuring them out.

Right now if I had to buy either the FS or the C, I would go for the C. I really like the FS700 slomo and I must say that the 700 with its awkward loop is better for judging focus on sticks out in the bright sun, I am working on the best solution for this, it is probably a loop or an external EVF for the C100.

These are all great cams and all are capable of great pic quality. But I love the compact design of the C100 and because I own a lot of Canon glass it is a great choice. The FS cams rely on a Metabones adapter to use these lenses and it introduces another possible weak link in the mounting of lenses the proven rugged Canon mount inspires confidence. I also find the control of EOS lenses on the C100 is superior, much smoother iris adjustments and more intuitive if you are used to Canon DSLRs.
 
Last edited:
+1

I own Sony FS700 too but I love Canon C100 than FS700 for what I'm doing now.

Cuong Dinh

olof said:
I have a FS700 and I think resolution vise the C100 and FS700 are very similar. I have not shot charts yet but this is my general impression. The FS700 is not exactly the same as the FS100 but it is close.

I will be shooting side by side tests soon. My initial feeling is that the C100 is less noisy and has better low light capability.

What I would say is that the C100 has a better looking picture right out of the camera, using the built in presets. The FS700 can produce fantastic images as well (as can the similar FS100), but you have to spend quite a bit of time figuring them out.

Right now if I had to buy either the FS or the C, I would go for the C. I really like the FS700 slomo and I must say that the 700 with its awkward loop is better for judging focus on sticks out in the bright sun, I am working on the best solution for this, it is probably a loop or an external EVF for the C100.

These are all great cams and all are capable of great pic quality. But I love the compact design of the C100 and because I own a lot of Canon glass it is a great choice. The FS cams rely on a Metabones adapter to use these lenses and it introduces another possible weak link in the mounting of lenses the proven rugged Canon mount inspires confidence. I also find the control of EOS lenses on the C100 is superior, much smoother iris adjustments and more intuitive if you are used to Canon DSLRs.
Click to expand...
 
I'm really interested in more perspectives on this question as well. I was looking at the FS100 as a replacement for my GH2 for doc/news work, but then held off when heard about the upcoming C100. Now that it's here I'd love to hear more about how people like it compared to the Sony.

I don't have an investment in either Sony or Canon lenses, so that's not an issue.

But dynamic range, resolution, low light, ease of use, ergonomics, hand-holdability, and auto functions like AF are important for me.

Thanks!
 
Here's my take, from someone who has owned and used the FS-100, the C300 and now the C100…

If you're doing doc work, forget about the FS-100. Not that it isn't a capable camera, but the ergonomics of the C100 plus the addition of built-in ND filters makes it a much better choice. The C100 feels comfortable in the hand in a way the FS-100 never did for me. I'm also not one for fully-built shoulder rigs, which suit the FS-100's form factor a bit better. I like to keep the camera in the bag, grab it, shoot, and stow it away again. The C100 is made for this.

I can't directly compare DR or resolution, but my sense is that the C100 handily beats the FS-100 in both categories. Both cameras are solid in low light, but again, the C100 likely has an edge here.

The last point I'll hit on is the point I think Canon has been banking on with ALL of their cameras…the glass. There's such a huge range of EF and EF-S glass that will work on the C100, that it's mind-boggling to think about it. Now, some will argue that the FS-100 has a larger "menu" of potential lenses, since almost any mount/lens can be adapted to it. This is true, but for doc work, it's awfully nice to be able to hit the "Auto Iris" button on the C100 to get your exposure in the ballpark, before fine-tuning to the shot at hand. It's also great to be able to hit the one-touch auto-focus button on the front of the camera when you quickly need to lock in focus on a shot. You can do this with pretty much ANY EF or EF-S lens on the C100, whereas on the Sony, your options are significantly more limited.

Of course if you want slow-motion/variable frame rates, all of the above points are moot. The FS has them…the C100 does not, and I consider that a design FAIL on Canon's part.

I'm heading to Las Vegas for a few days, and I'm taking the C100, the 35L prime, and the 17-40mm and 70-200mm f4 zooms. This is going to be a pretty run-and-gun test of how the camera performs in the "wild."


SM
 
Agree with Stephen, also do not get the ugly ugly highlight problems that the FS100 has. next week running some real tests, but now it is raining much too hard to get outside. I am forming purely preliminary opinions about proper exposure with different profiles, and it is possible some may benefit with tweaking beyond auto iris. Wide DR seems to expose just below highlight clipping, so if you want to feature darker sections you have correct, but I have not run real tests on this just an opinion.

BTW Jim Martin at Filmtools moved mountains to get our team a camera that we could take on this remote shoot. So, naturally it is raining and we can only sit inside and play with indoor tests.
 
Last edited:
Thank you guys so much, awesome feedback and exactly what I was looking for :)

I have filmed with the FS100 all year and I absolutely love the camera, I love its low light. I purchased so many FD lenses this year that I literally have about every one there is to own. I also have the metabones adapter which works great with the L lenses, but not to well when I first got it and tested it out on the Sigma 30 1.4. So knowing that the Canon L glass I own now will work fine automatically on the C100 is a big relief to me!

The built in ND is awesome, though I always have a variable ND on the camera because when filming on the run I realized that I have no control over the sunlight so having that is great. Having built in ND is absolutly amazing though.

The sensor shows to actaully be better than the fs100 in low light. I am absolutely amazed by this as well. When I first saw last years X-mas shoot out by Philip Bloom and saw how good the fs100, I thought GREAT. i can film a wedding in pitch darkness and still get a much better shot than the dslrs. Now I see that DSLRs are a backup camera for me (which the 5d3 and 6d should have much better low light now). But I am just happy about that.

Thanks everyone for the positive feedback. C100 it is!
 
corycross said:
The built in ND is awesome, though I always have a variable ND on the camera because when filming on the run I realized that I have no control over the sunlight so having that is great. Having built in ND is absolutly amazing though.
Click to expand...

Isn't it funny how important the low tech stuff is? Why on earth didn't they have ND filters on the FS100.
 
They had to create a new type of glass to have it that close to the sensor. Which they managed to create for the FS700. Before that it wasn't technically possible.
 
Stephen Mick said:
I'm heading to Las Vegas for a few days, and I'm taking the C100, the 35L prime, and the 17-40mm and 70-200mm f4 zooms. This is going to be a pretty run-and-gun test of how the camera performs in the "wild."


SM
Click to expand...

Would be interested in hearing about your experiences with the camera in Vegas.
 
We own a C300 and C100, Sony FS700, Canon 7D, Panny GH2 and Panny AF100 (along with a Panny 250). The C300 is by far the best of them, with the C100 a close second.

One of the reasons we bought the C100 was to get a color match to the C300 for a second cam. I spent the morning in studio with the C300 and FS700 to try to get a match. We started with an AbelCine preset for a Canon look on the FS700 and tweaked via scopes for a good while. We are able to get it close, but not exact. The C300 had better resolution and a better "look." The same results happened with a side by side with the C100 and the FS700. We got it close, but it still was enough different to notice.

The FS700 is a very good camera. The over crank to 240 fps in full HD is worth the price of admission alone. But it is the worst cam I've ever held without a rig. It's like shooting with a brick with a LCD propped on top. Almost unusable off sticks out of the box.

But the C300- and by extension C100- is my cam of choice when I'm heading out. Both are gorgeous. And the form factor is much more to my liking. I can strip either down for a compact run and gun solution. Paired with good glass, you have one of the best cameras ever released- in my opinion.

The last time I felt this way about a cam is when I got my Panny SDX900- my favorite SD unit of all time. That camera changed the way I thought about shooting. The Canon line has evoked that same reaction from me.

If you can live without the 1080 overcranking and lack of HDSDI out, the C100 is a slam dunk. The AVCHD codec isn't bad, but can be easily remedied by an out board recorder. It's a killer unit out of the box.

Just my 2 cents. YMMV.
 
xocomil said:
Would be interested in hearing about your experiences with the camera in Vegas.
Click to expand...


Here's a quick write-up…

The C100 is awesome.

(Now a bit more detail…)

The "shoot" was for the Las Vegas Half-Marathon, where my brother was running to raise money for Crohn's Disease research. I wasn't hired to shoot, and I had no special access or credentials. I was simply trying to grab some shots that might be edited into something at a later date.

The marathon started around 3PM, still solid daylight in Vegas. I had the C100 and all three lenses in my Incase Ari Sling bag. I was able to quickly change lenses, though I mostly leaned on the 70-200 f4 because I couldn't get as close as I would have liked. In daylight, the manual ND wheel was priceless, and with the waveform on the LCD, I was quickly able to nail exposure. Focus was just as easy, and generally I'd hit the quick AF button on the front of the C100, then Magnify and tweak via manual focus if needed. Peaking on the LCD and EVF is also one of those features I can't believe I ever lived without.

Even with the aperture mostly set at f4, I was able to get nicely-shallow DOF, and never really felt like I needed more than f4 was giving me.

I shot entirely in Wide DR gamma, which I've come to love for the balance of DR, contrast and saturation.

The sun sets early in Vegas in December, so by 4:45 I had boosted the ISO to about 3200. I was still leaning on the 70-200 f4 zoom, even in twilight and the darkening shade of the tall buildings on the strip. By 5:30, I had bumped the ISO to 10,000 and couldn't really see any negative effects in the footage. (I haven't pixel-peeped it yet, so keep that in mind.) As the race wound down and my brother made his way across the finish, I had stuck my Rode VideoMic on the hotshoe (I wasn't using the Canon handle), and plugged into the Mic jack. I only really wanted reference audio, and what I was able to grab was perfectly acceptable.

All in all, I was on my feet, camera in hand and sling around back for about seven full hours. The size of the C100 is perfect for this kind of work, especially when you see the images it delivers. I don't think anyone who saw me shooting had any idea that what I was holding was a video camera. The f4 zooms performed very, very well even in the lowest-light shots I faced.

My only complaint (and one I've made before) is that the camera can't shoot any form of in-camera slow motion, not even at 720p. I would have loved to have had that option on this shoot, and that alone almost made this camera a non-starter for me. I can't speak for Canon's motives for not providing it, when the AF100 does. But even without it, the C100 is, to my eye, the absolute best balance of image quality/ergonomics/price out there.
 
Thanks for the write-up Stephen. Do we get to see the outcome?

Were you handheld the whole time? How did you find using the LCD and EVF?
There has been plenty of praise for the ergonomics of the camera but it's not clear to me how you would actually hand hold it in a comfortable and stable way and see what you are doing given the position of the LCD and reportedly less than optimal EVF.
 
Thanks S. Mick! Just sounds like the perfect run and go camera with top notch HD capture. All the cameras aids like push focus, peaking and waveform performed like a charm. It's what the camera was made for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top