Im still saying the accessories you guys are talking about wouldnt matter if you had an m2 anyway...flipout screen still no good in bright sun so still need hood/zfinder, already have external monitor cause they make life so much easier in many situations and i would think youd need one with any cam unless want to light and make judgments on complex shots (busy background etc) on a tiny flipout screen.
C100: Would you buy a C100 Mark II new, now?
- Thread starter Finnegan
- Start date
control4userguy
Well-known member
Right, money aside, no difference at all. If you rig either, you spend on relocating the EVF and/or external monitor. Either of those two will take down the better part of a G. If the later, nothing short of 1000NIT will do outdoors and now your up to $1.5k. Of course if you are like the OP, with a $10k budget, why debate?
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
But the Mark II has a usable viewfinder. I think that makes the Z-finder rather pointless for it. Why would you want a clunky Z-finder to put your eye up against when you can simply put your eye up against the usable viewfinder in a very similar location?
With the C300 the Z-finder has a point, because the monitor can be moved to the front of the camera for shoulder mount work and then you can use the monitor with the z-finder up front, while the C300's viewfinder is still stuck on the back of the camera making it unusable for shoulder mount work. The C100, on the other hand, the monitor and viewfinder are both stuck at the back of the camera, so if you have a C100 Mark II, since the location of the viewfinder or Z-finder are in pretty much the same spot, there's no real advantage to the Z-finder, and it's actually disadvantageous because it's more weight, bulk, and point of failure to have to deal with.
Sure, I can still see a need for an external monitor for some types of shoots (commercial, narrative), but the point is, there is less need for it, particularly for run n gun work where most people don't use external monitors. So, I was talking specifically about people who buy these acessories specifically to help counter the Mark I's deficiencies, and do types of shoots that wouldn't require these items if they had gotten the Mark II as the Mark II's feature set in these regards is good enough for their kind of shooting.
control4userguy
Well-known member
Without knowing how you or the OP (remember him?) shoot or type of work you do, others discussing your equipment needs is not very effective. Let me back up. Since I shoot handheld 100% of the time, I know about how well the MK2 EVF works. It does. But even in a handheld rig, the EVF could be positioned too far for use. In that case, I have used a Sidefinder with success ($1,500). Zacuto (COUGH) has not one, not two, but three Graticals in their line. People buy these because people rig C100s. It's not a complete given that since the C100/2 EVF was "improved" that one needs nothing else.
To say that $10k is not enough for a C300 therefore a C100 is my pick doesn't make sense. If the feature set of a C300 matches the requirements best then find one that fits the budget. To say that a C100/2 is better than a C100/1 therefore I should be looking at the latter is short-sighted. We know the C100/2 is not long for this world. Curlyhairedjew said it best. If you have to buy a camera that has longevity, good luck with that. Buying (or even renting) to fill an specific business need makes more sense.
Not sure about blind-posting for equipment suggestions. It's a forum but still... Rather, do a search for a specific need or product attribute that will make your job easier. People post their experiences with equipment every day. Rent the experience first and/or study your particular market for *who* is looking for *what*. My budget was $10k (camera plus accessories) because I felt I could pay that down within a particular timeframe. That's my situation, may not be yours.
I was reminded of one huge aspect of of the C100 mk1 vs. mk2 debate last night whilst shooting: on the mk1, I wasn't able to show the DPAF box on screen at the same time as the waveform monitor.
Is that still the case? Was that ever corrected in a firmware update? It used to be an annoyance I lived with when all we had was the mk1, but now that I'm used to the mk2, I'm finding this to be an issue. When I'm running and gunning, I always keep the waveform up, and I'm always toggling the AF. I picked up a mk1 here and there last night, and I was actively screwing up shots by forgetting if the AF was active or not.
Is that still the case? Was that ever corrected in a firmware update? It used to be an annoyance I lived with when all we had was the mk1, but now that I'm used to the mk2, I'm finding this to be an issue. When I'm running and gunning, I always keep the waveform up, and I'm always toggling the AF. I picked up a mk1 here and there last night, and I was actively screwing up shots by forgetting if the AF was active or not.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Having a flip out LCD panel isn't a solution or replacement for a monitor, you are going to need one for both the mkI and mkII or not. The only real advantage to the mkII is the viewfinder, and a few other little bells and whistles. For the money the mkI is hard to beat. I find the image of the mkI to be more pleasing than that of the mkII based on video comparisons I've seen on the web.
The mkii has a bluefish color cast to the image, which leaves it less appealing to me. I need another mkI to go with my existing mkI because I'm tired of trying to match the color of different cameras in post. I know some of you guys think this is easy but it's not. I usually end up sacrificing the C100 image in order to match it with the 5D3.
Finally anyone one out there in video land want to part with a C100 at a good price let me know.
tobyhoffman
Active member
Indeed. Although in saying that I also spent roughly $10k on building my C100 kit and I'm still in film school.. I have landed my fair few jobs from it though, but it's very hard to justify..
I was considering the 5dmkiv for the photo/video features but honestly I think I'd be crazy buying such an expensive camera which honestly has been superseded by what Sony has been bringing out for the past few years.
Not sure who canon are trying to target on this one - It can't be us pros, we can see right through the codecs, it can't be amateurs, they don't have that kind of money so that leaves the photogs.
Before I got mk2 I was full of doubts . At now I can not imagine live without mk2 . Blue color cast is easy fix , just keep your WB higher , let say instead 5500K , change to 5900K . MK2 you finally get 60p,50p . And at now the 2nd important thing . In wd range you can go very hight with iso , in mk1 3200 is max later you have to change picture profile . At now I can do all wedding using just wd range profile .
I'm curious to how the waveform is useful to you guys in run n gun situations. Unless you're just making an overall judgment about exposure of the whole frame like you do with a histogram, rather than trying to keep skin tones at 70 or something precise ('cause on a tiny waveform in RnG situation, how would you even know where the skin tones are represented?). I would think zebras or false color (if the C100 has that) would be more useful for making quick judgments but that's me.
Last edited:
doubledark
Well-known member
Theres probably enough of us trying to move from stills only to stills+video. I think Canon have deliberately let their DSLR range fall behind in video capability so they can sell the C100 range. It makes sense IF you happen to shoot Canon.
But not all of us shoot Canon DSLR so we look at other camera options.
Carrying two brands of cameras is a pain in terms of learning AND remembering the menu structure; lens compatibility etc.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
None of those things you mentioned I need. I don't do weddings, or run and gun stuff. I never use the viewfinder . Mostly inside with controlled lighting. The idea again of having to compensate the white balance on different cameras is precisely the thing I want to get away from. If I were buying a new C100 then I might have gotten the mkII to begin with. There is just nothing appealing enough to make me spend an extra $1500 bucks on for the mkII.