C300: Used C300 vs. New C100 vs. New 1DC

Late to the party here but it's really important to point out the 50 mb/s capability of the c300. That's a big deal for broadcast standards.. And even if you don't shoot for broadcast, it still sets the bar for market saturation, resale value, etc. There's a reason that the ex1 and ex3's have had a 2nd (and third) life in the industry, while many of their newer peers have come and gone. I did a shoot for Nat Geo recently and we had all sorts of toys, HDX900's, F700, etc. and the EX3 still was the most used cam.
 
All I know is... The C100 is the gateway drug to C300 ownership.

Within two weeks of buying the C100, I was up for selling off enough gear to pay for a C300.

If I found a C300 S/H for the right price, I'd buy it.

But I'd never give up my C100 - it's too cute and cuddly and powerful. Just the raw body and a Rode VideoMic on top for atmos or for dual system sound (yes, still doing that), my corporate interviewees love it and respect it as a 'grown up DSLR' (bless...). It fits into my SDHC ecosystem, and AVCHD isn't that bad for Corporate, and ProRes is great for anything that AVCHD doesn't work well for.

But I still want a C300.

I can't make a business case for it, my clients wouldn't notice the difference between a C100 and a C300, I certainly wouldn't sell my EX1s to fund it as they do a job that neither the C100 or the C300 can do. I continue to invest in good mics and good lamps... But...

I still want a C300.
 
I was in the same boat as you Sam. I was coming from loving the form factor of the DSLR's and wanting to get the 1DC. I also thought that the C100 + the ninja could work. But in the end I decided that because I don't know always know what the next job will require from a camera. And that I should invest in the one that offer's the most in one form factor, that was the C300. Even though I rarely use the SDI or any of the other industry standard features it allows me to bid on jobs that may require those features.
 
I have just leased the C100 but can tell you from my experience with the MXF 4:2:2 on the xf300 that I would much rather have bought the C300. The price is just way too expensive though. I also have a Mkiii and an xf305. I assume you have been sharpening the Mkiii in post and still feel it's too 'soft'? Personally I like the slightly sharpened 5D look. It has it's place. Compared to a C100 though the image quaiity is likely to be a bit softer than you'd like. I do agree that given what you've said the C300 is overkill.
I'm not a fan of 4:2:0 AVCHD usually, having been with Panny for a few rounds, but this is not like my Panny images. The color quality seems pretty accurate, and the profiles allow a lot of flexibility.
I just today expanded some early footage to 300% and yes, the macro blocking is there at 850 ISO but it really is not affecting it at normal sized footage, at least my clients would never see it. The first thoughts were that the footage was very clean, and the colors very good. A little post helps though, as opposed to much of my xf305 footage. And I've yet tuned the CPs.

My initial reactions to the C100 are that it's really got outstanding ergonomics. It also has a 3.5mm mic jack to go along with the xlrs. I've been exploring using wired lavs for close up interviews on my Mkiii, and the 3.5mm is great for that. (I do it because of the damn interference from cell phones in most office environments!).

The quality of the image out of the C100 is pretty damn good. Not C300 or even xf305 quality, but for what you say you shoot I don't know if you will notice for a lot of shoots. The mxf 4:2:2 image quality and the LCD on the "broadcast" cameras are excellent, as others pointed out. Some folks seem to be adding the Ninja or other smallish 4:2:2 HDMI output device for those jobs that require it. That's what I intend to do. And I haven't yet decided to ditch my xf305 (like some say about their EX1s).

I agree with Sean that I would never go back to shooting with a DSLR for video if I can help it. Even though my 5D is great, and I'll use it in a pinch, or in a shoot that's more stills than vid, but the C100 (and C300) are really designed for someone like us. Doing a lot of monopod and other lightweight stuff. Small, but got all the right design features. Someone once said it reminded them of using a Hasselblad back in the day, and as an ex-Hasseiblad owner I would have to agree. The cameras just feel right.

For $10k you still are almost $4k more than the C100 right now. Your price on the C100 is not accurate, if you already have lenses. It's about $5500. That's a couple of really good quality lenses. And you can lease it for 0 cost to you. To me, that means the $5.5k you'd put out for any camera is working for you and not Canon. You only have to come up with less than $300 a month to own one. Worth asking your accountant.

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top