C100: Would you buy a C100 Mark II new, now?

Finnegan

Finnegan

Well-known member
I'm in the market for a new camera. My budget is $10K and is flexible. I generally shoot indie films, music videos, commercials, online video slash corporate video, and documentary slash editorial entertainment. What I'm currently looking at is Sony's FS5 and FS7 and Canon's C100 Mark II and C300 Mark II. I've always liked Canon's look and color better than Sony's, and I can't stand Sony's lenses, so in those regards I'm leaning toward Canon. But it's difficult to justify the $12K price tag on the C300 Mark II when on paper the FS7 does everything the C300 Mark II does and more (minus the more cinematic look and low light capability). Sony's menus on the FS7 also suck, and overall the user friendliness of the C300 Mark II is something I really appreciate. But on the FS7 I really like the 4K at 60 fps and 1080p @ 120 FPS with the full use of the sensor (it's cropped on the C300 Mark II significantly). And the FS5 is great on price and form factor, but the sub-par 4K recording and not so robust 8-bit 4:2:0 signal do not enthrall me for higher end work.

In short, I'm not 100% sold on either the FS7 or the C300 Mark II being the exact right camera for me. Is it stupid to buy a C100 Mark II, and put the extra dollars toward a new editing desktop + software and hold off on a bigger investment until the next round of announcements from Canon and Sony arrive? Word on the street is a C500 Mark II is incoming, or a C200 like camera to sit between the lower end C100 Mark II and the C300 Mark II, or even a C100 Mark III with low end 4K recording like Sony's FS5.

Is a C100 Mark II a worthwhile investment late into its life cycle at $4,500?
 
Last edited:
You can find a used C100 mkI for around $2000. You might consider picking up one of those and trying it on a shoot or two. If you like it, it's cheap enough (according to your budget) to become a B cam to a C100 mkII at $4000. If you don't like it, you can probably resell it for the same price you bought if for. The mkI will give you the same picture quality as the mkII, it just won't have 60p, MP4 format or the better EVF/LCD screens.
 
As nice as the C100 MKII is, definitely wait for IBC announcements. I have had a C100 MKI since late 2014 and while I paid $5,500.00 back then, I have costed it out to clients to the tune of about $13k so it was a good investment. Unfortunately we are quickly reaching the time where clients are beginning to ask/expect 4k deliveries so most of us are going to need a 4k or better camera. If your work definitely will go another 2 years without requiring 4k delivery, the C100 MKII may be a good investment for you but for me, it will undoubtedly be a C300 MKII, probably a used one once they drop down to sub $10k which should be next year. As much as I love the features available on the Sony FS5 and FS7, I despise the color science so much that I cannot bring myself to buy a Sony camera, they just look awful for how I want my images to look. The Canon color science is so much better it's not even a fair comparison. The Sonys have much better features and value but jeez, what does that matter if the people in your shots look like zombies and the colors are all whacked out?

Perhaps Canon will introduce a C200 or a C100 MKIII sometime soon to get us under $10k for a S35 4k camera but I wouldn't hold your breath. Canon are slugs at giving us upgraded features at a reasonable cost but it seems to work well for them, they sell us a ton of cameras and the cameras are more expensive. Complete opposite of the Sony approach.
 
Based on what you say you sound like Canon is the way to go. I shoot both. At work a C300 MKI, but my personal camera is an FS7. I love it. Color isn't an issue for me. Long list of features and design that I prefer over the C300. As for the color science? I grade my footage and in the end I think it looks great. As for lenses you can always use an adapter. Canon has DPAF that Sony just doesn't have. AF isn't very good on the FS7. Love the HFR options on the FS7. No it doesn't do 120 in 4K but the 2K option is very good. Anyway....

With IBC just weeks away it's best to wait and see what happens but if Canon announces a new C200 or C100 MKIII with UHD it will probably have a lesser codec than the C300 MKII and be crippled in the usual ways Canon likes to do.

Your $10K budget falls short for the C300 MKII since you also need CFast and batteries.

A new C100 MKIII will probably be around $5500 to $6500 base plus a couple batteries.

With that your best bet is to wait it out and see what gets released or pick up a used C100 MKII or C300 MKII. I don't know if you could get a used C300 MKII for under $10K.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't believe the 4K hype right now, unless you're specifically working in a segment where you know your customer will need to deliver their content in 4K. In my experience, ops who work in that type of setting really aren't shopping for budget-conscious cams anyway. This isn't to say that 4k won't eventually become mainstream. It will. But for the average op, 1080p is more than adequate, and if you land some project where a customer is insistent on 4k, that's when you rent. I'd buy the C100 and spend the leftover 5 or 8 grand on quality glass or other extras that you can transfer straight over to whatever 4k camera you end up buying five years from now, when every new cam has 4k and the tech has become cheaper and more mainstream.
 
jthabel said:
I wouldn't believe the 4K hype right now, unless you're specifically working in a segment where you know your customer will need to deliver their content in 4K.
Click to expand...

- yes, this is a key how to make that decision.

If you work with log, you need good lenses and true 10bit 422 recording. If you work quickly with less work at post, you may need HD 422 10bit and good ergonomy. If you need 4K or UHD for TV, than you need Ultra HD at 24p/25p (cinema) or at 50p for TV. Don't buy worse cameras (like C100 with log at 8bit, or C300 mark II with UHD at 25p, if you need 50p). Colors can be adjusted, but basic feature not.
 
jthabel said:
I wouldn't believe the 4K hype right now, unless you're specifically working in a segment where you know your customer will need to deliver their content in 4K.
Click to expand...

I don't plan on delivering 4K for the next few years (or ever maybe). But I want a 4K camera for a variety of reasons. Green screen keys are much cleaner. Sharper image when down sampled. Ability to reframe interviews for cuts. Stabilization for handheld work without losing resolution. Frame grabs that rival still photos so we can stop hiring photographers. Reframe for expanded zoom range on limited zoom lenses.

Think of 4K as a tool in your tool box. Do you really want a camera that doesn't have that option?
 
brettsherman said:
I don't plan on delivering 4K for the next few years (or ever maybe). But I want a 4K camera for a variety of reasons. Green screen keys are much cleaner. Sharper image when down sampled. Ability to reframe interviews for cuts. Stabilization for handheld work without losing resolution. Frame grabs that rival still photos so we can stop hiring photographers. Reframe for expanded zoom range on limited zoom lenses.

Think of 4K as a tool in your tool box. Do you really want a camera that doesn't have that option?
Click to expand...

Green screen cleaner as a rule in 4k? I'll take your word.

Sharper when downsampled? Yes, and the C100s and C300 MK 1 do that internally. Besides sharpness isn't everything. Ask any high profile DP.

Reframe interviews? Yes that's helpful, but interviews actually shot with more production value and with lenses at their actual focal lengths will look better still.

Stabilization without losing resolution? Yes, that's a good one, assuming you're taking into account the change in your compositions.

Pulling photos? No way. RED has been trying to sell that chestnut for years. Try pulling a good photo at a 180 degree shutter. No thanks.

Reframe for expanded zoom? Ok, yes that is helpful. But isn't just using a better lens for the job preferable if possible?

All of those are helpful possibilities. Like you say, another tool in the tool box. But I don't think I'd ever specifically buy a 4K for any of those reasons. There are way more ways I can work to improve my craft that will be more beneficial.

Lately I've been experimenting with an Osmo and a Phantom 3 drone to "pepper in" some aerial shots and steadicam-like shots into my work. I haven't done much testing yet, but assuming there are no drawbacks to the 4K modes (more noise, less DR or whatever), I'll happily shoot in 4K mode because it's there. But 4K isn't on the list of reasons I'd use those tools.
 
I'd just get a C100 MKI or II, preferably an MK I..... it's a lot cheaper. Then instead of paying thousands more for 4K, just get the Magic Bullet "Instant 4K" plug in for $27.00 ...... and problem solved!
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
Unless its a BM product.
Click to expand...

Guessing when a BM camera will actually deliver is a joke. Based on the last round, a lot of pissd off people who were expecting global shutter they were promised on the Ursa Mini. That's why, to me, no matter how good their cameras are, BM, for the foreseeable future, are cameras for hobbyists, not working professionals. Too many broken promises, their support and reliability is inconsistent. Panasonic, Canon, Sony and Arri may not always be on the cutting edge, but they all make reliable, rock solid products and have a decent support infrastructure. That's more important than features to many of us. Knowing that our camera will always boot up and work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top