C100: Thinking about moving to a GH4

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jb.

Veteran
I have a C100 and a pretty decent kit of Canon glass. I'm thinking about selling it all and moving to a GH4 kit (I'd actually make money on this deal). Big reasons are smaller and less obtrusive body (I like to do "fly on the wall" stuff and the C100 definitely attracts attention) and obviously the 4K. My big hangups with the GH4 are the loss of DOF control and the low-light capability (spoiled here with the C100).

I can't justify a $10k camera (FS7) and it doesn't solve the "HEY LOOK AT ME AND MY CAMERA" problem anyway.

Thoughts?
 
I sold my C100 and purchased a Panasonic GH4. After a few projects with the GH4, I sold it and purchased another C100. To be quite honest, I didn't have any major issues with the GH4, I shot everything in 4K and down rezzed to 1080p. Good images with a lot of tweeking on the GH4. However, most of my projects are mini documentaries and corporate videos. The C100 just made everything so easy (ND's, ergo, etc.) For what I need right now, the C100 just works fine. I'll get another 4K camera in the near future as needed.

So you want to go incognito? Why not remove the top handle, replace with a rode stereo mic. It will give you more of a DSLR look.........
 
Last edited:
I'm shooting with the GH4 nearly every day now, our C100 is getting a bit dusty... not because it's a much lesser cam for me, but because I so much more enjoy shooting with the GH4. C100 for interviews with external mics, GH4 for nearly everything else.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
I'm shooting with the GH4 nearly every day now, our C100 is getting a bit dusty... not because it's a much lesser cam for me, but because I so much more enjoy shooting with the GH4. C100 for interviews with external mics, GH4 for nearly everything else.
Click to expand...

Same for me exactly. My C100 is a £4000 sound recorder at the moment!!

I have my GH4 rigged so it can be easily swapped from tripod to jib to Glidecam and back. I'm a one man band shooting corporate and commercial promo films and find the GH4 a lot nicer to use. Slomo is a must for me. The built in time-lapse feature is excellent. 4k is nice and sharp.

I'm very tempted to sell my C100 and buy a second GH4 as its just not getting a look in these days. I just can't get past the £1200 GH4 v the £4000 C100 in terms of features.
 
Are you able to use your canon glass on the GH4 via some sort of metabones adapter? I'd consider adding a gh4 to my gear but my investment in Canon EOS glass holds me back. I don't want to have to buy redundant lenses for a new mount if possible.
 
ntouched said:
(ND's, ergo, Wide DR, etc.)
Click to expand...

I spent much longer than I should have trying to figure out how built-in ND's begat Wide DR. D'oh.

Anyway, if you want to go to a gh4, do it. Don't let us (or expect us) to try and talk you out of it. Different tools for different projects. I love my c100 and don't want to go back to a dslr for several reasons-- one, I like having a more professional video camera instead of something I need to rig up to work like one. Two, it looks more like a real camera, which is something I struggled with using dslr's-- it's a lot harder to gain clients' (and actors, and PA's, and... well, everyone's) trust when it looks like you're shooting on something just a small step above a phone. Also, the c100 has a lot more recognition for a lot of projects I want (which, sadly, gets me the job more often) than dslr's, even the gh4.

I like that I can just pull my c100 out and start shooting with it without having to spend time or money adding things to it. 4k is a non-issue for me, as most people who want 4k don't know why they want it, so they basically just ask for "the red camera" anyway. Which aren't people I want to work for regardless. I don't find the lack of 4k to be particularly hindering, but you might.

Different tools for different projects.
 
Funny, I am selling my GH4 and bought a C100 package today.

1. GH4 is noisy, even at ISO 200 and unusable past ISO 800, at least for our clients. We shoot a lot of green screen these days and the noise, even with perfectly lit footage, is being complaind about by our client's editors and motion graphic people.

2. Our one client has a 5D MKIII that we have shot with for a couple of years. Client and studios prefer the Canon skin tones over the GH4.

3. C100/300 have superior ergonomics to the GH4, we have a Tascam 60DR to record audio with the GH4 and have been using a Small HD DP6. Rig it with the shoulder mount setup and you have a messy, un-ergonomic setup with cables sticking out everywhere. The C100 with the Ninja Blade hanging off of the back is much smaller, neater and ergonomic overall.

4. 4K is a bust for our clients. They deliver 1080 and their perception is that 4K takes longer to render out to 1080 and more disk space to store/archive. They won't even let us shoot 4k for them even though it looks better when downrezzed to 1080, than shooting native 1080.

5. Metabones Speedbooster works great with the GH4, but is it another "thing" we have to hang off of the camera, be concerned with during lens changes, etc.

6. Not having built in NDs on the GH4 sucks.

7. GH4 footage has a much more "video-like" look to it than the C100.

The GH4 is not a bad camera, it is pretty great for the money but for us and our clients needs, the C100 is going to fit much better. Other than the 4k (which very few people actually need or want) and the VFRs, the C100 is a much better camera for shooting pro work than the GH4 IMHO.
 
Last edited:
If you shoot in low light environments than the C100 may be a better fit. There are many many things I could list to support using a C100 over the GH4. One big thing is the environments you intend to shoot in. The C100 is a fairly nice low light camera so that does factor in.

Aesthetically, I am much more partial to the C100 personally. I'm completely biased though because I shoot every week with the C100 and do not own a GH4.
 
i love my C100 and will use it till 1080p is seriously over.

still, i just ordered the Panasonic LX100 $800 (baby GH4). it will serve multiple purposes. 4k should be as good as the GH4 and will allow me to test the waters. it has "IS" & the lens is very sharp with a fast 1.7 wide open and @75mm/f2.8. looks to be very competent. the EVF (although pretty small) has more resolution than the GH4's EVF. the GH4 with the panny 12-35mm 2.8 would cost you you $2,700.

i figure the LX100 will allow me to test the waters of m4/3rd's IQ & entry into 4k. I'm not expecting to be impressed with the upper ISO's since i know they are weak but for $800 i don't need to be. my son will take it camping along with his gopro's. I'm going to try it on my DJI Ronin & quadcopters. i also plan to use it on live band shoot as the center wide locked down camera @ 4k so i can zoom in and key frame moves when editing in a 1080p timeline.

the C100 with its underwhelming on paper specs is really the perfect camera overall and gets the job done with ease not to mention that the hi ISO's are pretty amazing which i already know that GH4/LX100 won't come close.

so ill test the waters as far as IQ with the cheap LX100. if i don't like it return it within the return period. I'm thinking it will do most everything i would need the GH4 to do (except look professional of course) except its a fixed 24-75mm lens but at least a fast and sharp one.

david
 
OK, Sonofaresiii and puredrifting kinda' deciphered what I'm trying to say! puredrifting, I too hated the extra stuff on my GH4 (had the metabones speedbooster, cage, variable nd's, etc).
 
Last edited:
I can't believe adults are even having a serious conversation between the GH4 and the C100. 4K is seriously over rated, and those that say sharpness, or as the GH4 guys prefer to say "detail" trumps skin tones and a film look..... have tunnel vision. I see these GH4 guys whip out their little cameras, and wave them around as if they were as big as the C100's. Clearly a case of a Napoleon complex!

I'm about to buy a C100 in the next 10 days, to those of you who are ditching the C100 for the GH4 send me a private email and I'll take it off your hands, if it's a good deal.
 
Michael Thames said:
I can't believe adults are even having a serious conversation between the GH4 and the C100.
Click to expand...

Oh come on now. I love my c100 but I'd never tell someone who went with a gh4 they made the "wrong" choice. It's all about what you're going to be using it for, and what's important to you. Or your clients. Because, for example, my c100 could make the most beautiful images in the world, but if tomorrow every single producer and client decides 4k is THE thing to have, I'm sol. And in some areas, that's already happened.
 
Michael Thames said:
I can't believe adults are even having a serious conversation between the GH4 and the C100. 4K is seriously over rated, and those that say sharpness, or as the GH4 guys prefer to say "detail" trumps skin tones and a film look..... have tunnel vision. I see these GH4 guys whip out their little cameras, and wave them around as if they were as big as the C100's. Clearly a case of a Napoleon complex!

I'm about to buy a C100 in the next 10 days, to those of you who are ditching the C100 for the GH4 send me a private email and I'll take it off your hands, if it's a good deal.
Click to expand...

I use "little cameras". I have a GH4, A7s, and Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. I find them all superior to the Cinema EOS (bar the C500) cameras. And my "littlest" - the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera - puts both my GH4 and A7s to shame - and the C100 and C300 I used to rent. Colours and skin-tones? Cinema EOS looks like crayon compared to BMPCC. Call it "Napoleon complex" if you want - I call it superior dynamic-range and colour-science.
 
sonofaresiii said:
Oh come on now. I love my c100 but I'd never tell someone who went with a gh4 they made the "wrong" choice. It's all about what you're going to be using it for, and what's important to you. Or your clients. Because, for example, my c100 could make the most beautiful images in the world, but if tomorrow every single producer and client decides 4k is THE thing to have, I'm sol. And in some areas, that's already happened.
Click to expand...

Here is an interesting video..... a cinematographers Megapanel. They all say they prefer HDR over 4K. I've considered the GH4 myself, but just can't quite fall in love with the image. I also really like the ergonomics of the C100. I know the GH4 is not a bad camera, but on the other hand I don't think it's all it's hyped up to be either. As far as clients asking for the GH4, I wouldn't know about that I'm my own boss, I'm not a professional. I'm just poking some fun towards the GH4 guys.
https://vimeo.com/106153701
 
Michael Thames said:
Here is an interesting video..... a cinematographers Megapanel. They all say they prefer HDR over 4K. I've considered the GH4 myself, but just can't quite fall in love with the image. I also really like the ergonomics of the C100. I know the GH4 is not a bad camera, but on the other hand I don't think it's all it's hyped up to be either. As far as clients asking for the GH4, I wouldn't know about that I'm my own boss, I'm not a professional. I'm just poking some fun towards the GH4 guys.
https://vimeo.com/106153701
Click to expand...

For single OP situations 4K can be amazing. Being able to crop 1 angle into 2 shots can be really helpful. There have also been times where I have been in the field and under lensed and being able to punch in further on the image saved the entire shot. HDR looks hokey and fake. If you are talking Dynamic Range not HDR then yes that is important to an image although the GH4 isn't far off the C100 for DR. Especially if you shoot the regular profiles not Log.

I'm going complete opposite. I'm going from having the GH4 as my main basic camera package to the FS7 and using GH4 for b angles and timelapse duty (which it will excel in).
 
Simon Shasha said:
I use "little cameras". I have a GH4, A7s, and Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. I find them all superior to the Cinema EOS (bar the C500) cameras. And my "littlest" - the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera - puts both my GH4 and A7s to shame - and the C100 and C300 I used to rent. Colours and skin-tones? Cinema EOS looks like crayon compared to BMPCC. Call it "Napoleon complex" if you want - I call it superior dynamic-range and colour-science.
Click to expand...

No mention about low light..... ha ha! That to me that is the most important thing. You find those little things ergonomically comfortable and functional too? BTW, I also like the BMPCC, I all most bought one when they were on sale, but then there is that low light issue. I find the DR to be better on the C100 than the GH4. The GH4 is pretty noisy in the blacks.
 
We also have C100 and GH4. Had C300. Alongside BMCC, BMPCC and Mark III. Rented Red and Alexa for bigger projects. So just some hands on production notes...

C100 (and before C300) we used exclusively for TV work. GH4 we bought for new TV project where we need multiple cameras and we didnt want to invest too much in cameras (especially in todays world) by buying multiple C100s. So, after initial shootings I can say C100 image is much better then GH4: better colours, dynamic range, low light not to mention (really important to us), it brings your work on higher level imagewise then GH4. I have some problems with C100 like not so good viewfiender also internal ND is a bit weak for all situations (so we use Schneider True Match Vari-ND on lenses sometimes) and its not cheap for what you get today.

GH4 gives you really videoish look, OK every camera you can make bit more filmic in post, but base is very video-like which is OK for TV but wouldn't like to shoot anything more ambitious with it (4K is not the most important for the look). Pros are great price, very good ergonomics for its small size which make you very much invisible when shooting a documentary. Good EVF for price.

We had one TV project that we shoot with BMCC (it was all shoot from tripod so that was good for the concept) and that is our best shoot TV to date in my opinion. Colours, dynamic range, feel.... Its so shame that their cameras are such pain to equip and use so bulky and equiped especially for run n gun... But for smaller scale commercials its great. Mark III RAW similar - fantastic image (we mix it with Alexa with no problem), great colours, but pain to work with...
 
Its like in the days when people reluctanly change from SD to HD,since i have gone 4K[Not GH4]my assortment of 1920x1080P cams and cameras have had a nice rest.Of course a good 4K TV helps.
 
TBH I think talking about any other camera on a Cinema EOS forum is a waste of time, so take everyones opinions with a pinch of salt.

For those saying the GH4 looks video and skin tones aren't great - out of the box you are right. But with a bit of tinkering with settings I've managed to match both cameras very well. However, I realise this is a purely subjective area.

I'm not sure the point made about having a Metabones Speedbooster hanging off the GH4 being another item to worry about is a valid one. I'm using this setup daily and haven't had an issue during lens changes.

Don't get me wrong, the C100 is a great camera and always gets oohs and aahhs from clients, where the GH4 simply garners questions like whether I'm taking photos or what! However, for me it works with my workflow and shooting style, so everyones milage will differ.
 
Michael Thames said:
No mention about low light..... ha ha! That to me that is the most important thing. You find those little things ergonomically comfortable and functional too? BTW, I also like the BMPCC, I all most bought one when they were on sale, but then there is that low light issue. I find the DR to be better on the C100 than the GH4. The GH4 is pretty noisy in the blacks.
Click to expand...

My A7s takes care of the low-light. Regardless, I have a rule; if more than 1600ISO is required, you probably shouldn't be shooting in that situation to begin with.

I've never been fond of shoulder-rigs, dolly-sliders, mammoth/overly expensive tripods, or all the other cliched gear the bloggers and "Vimeo heroes" tell the masses to invest in. I enjoy run 'n' gun shooting (my portfolio linked at the bottom of my posts will attest to that) - so the small SLR form-factor suits me fine.

Also - my BMPCC with the BMPCC specific Metabones Speed Booster is killer in low-light (especially with my Sigma 18-35mm F1.8). If low-light is the only thing important to you, that's cool, I much prefer dynamic-range and colour-science over low-light performance. But then again, perhaps I'm from an older school of thought than you - I learnt how to shoot using a Canon Scoopic and 16mm film - 800ASA film-stock was pretty noisy (especially if pushed one-stop) - you really didn't want to go beyond 800ASA - and given that, we were much more sensible in regards to filming in locations with decent light (and that's when we weren't lighting our scenes).

I think this whole "low light" obsession is rather odd to be honest. I'm not too fond of my A7s personally - the only reason I bought it is for its ability to shoot 60FPS in a film-log profile - which allows me to do slow-motion shots to cut in with my BMPCC footage. I don't really care that it's a monster in low-light - that's more of a gimmick to me. If the BMPCC had 48/50/60FPS, I would have never bought the GH4 or A7s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top