jasonmillard81

When will it drop? Any clue on where the price point will fall? Worth waiting instead of buying a c100 II now?

From what I've seen online seems comparable to 5d3

I foolishly sold my 5d3 and bought a gh4. I do however have my tamron 17-50 2.8 VC sitting in my bag. Does that mean a 24-105 would be a better option? Then pickup a canon 50 1.8 and a rokinon 85 1.4? would those fit an 80D and c100? Not sure I can invest in c100, 1dc, and quality glass. Still on the fence about 80D or 1dc for photography and some video when traveling. It would be nice to have dpaf and internal time lapse or is that easily achieved on 1dc

Wow! Some interesting perspectives. I'd like to make sense to some of the commentary and please correct me if I am wrong. 1. It seems that regarding stills the 1D C blows the 80D/GH4 out of the water, which isn't surprising due to the price differentials etc. 2. The biggest downside is lack of certain features (DPAF), large files, and it's heavy 3. The 1DX II may have more features than 1D C but is about 2-3k more in price Questions: A. I will most likely get a C100 II for video and separate cam for photography B. I see some used 1D C and C100 II for sale both on Craigslist and (BH/Adorama) 1. For 1D C I have seen sub 3K cameras being sold but with 65,000 actuations. My question is is it worth paying $1K more for one that is sub 10,000 actuations? I've read that Canon has rated the camera for 400,000 actuations. A camera with 65,000 does not seem that bad and seems like it would last me 5+ years with recreational possibly moderate use as a hobbyist/amateur. What are your thoughts on buying used? How should i interpret actuations? My gut says pay $500+ more to buy from Adorama than Craigslist, am I delusional? 2. For C100 II does it matter how many "hours of footage" have been shot on it similar to actuations on a camera? Again, is it better to go new vs. used here and store front vs. craigslist? I have no problem ordering a c100 II and used 1D C (65,000 actuations) tonight if it seems like a good deal both short and long-term Thanks in advance!

Used 1D C bodies are popping up for sub-$3k and some just a little over $2K. Considering the already touted video capabilities and final product one can attain on the 1D C 4K video side, what is the general consensus as it being a primary stills camera as well? While my other post recently discussed selling the GH4 for an 80D to act as B-cam for the c100 II, I am wondering if the older 1D C body would offer equal, if not, better image quality in stills than an 80D or GH4. If so, then it may be worth the extra $1K investment to have a better b-cam for video and an equal if not superior stills cam. Thoughts on a 1D C for a stills camera over 80D/GH4 types?

@tomsemiterrific, again I know you've argued that point enthusiastically but my opinion still stands that I've yet to see footage from the xc10/xc15 that compares to the c100II. You've also said it has c300 II colors which I completely disagree with but if you're happy with that system that is what matters most. I, as a viewer of content and consumer of electronics prefer the look of other canon C cameras.

I am by no means a pro let alone a decent amateur. However, to my average eye I find the XC footage to be lackluster and less desirable than an FS5. I also don't think it remotely comes close to the image of the c100 Mark I. Is that just me/?

Hi all! I am 85% of the way ready to purchase a c100 II but wanted to make the best decision with regards to options and lenses. I don't own any Canon glass anymore and have the GH4 system which I will most likely sell to get a B-cam for my C100II. I could also keep the GH4 as a b-cam to the C100 II. Is there any strong reasons to sell my GH4 for an 80D? My C100 II will be my A-cam for video and my GH4 or 80D will be my B-cam for video and main stills camera. I'd like to take stills to print large sizes for print. So I could theoretically keep my GH4 for stills and have a decent b-cam with 4K video but no DPAF. The 80D would give me the DPAF but not 4K video. Any thoughts on what to use as a b-cam and stills camera to print images? As far as C100 II options 1. Body Only: $3999 2. Body & 24-105 4L: $4499 I'm not sure if it is better to start with just the body and get a different "kit" lens or get the body and 24-105 for 500 more which would save me 400-500 on the actual lens. I think it seems best to have an all-around zoom lens and 1 or 2 lenses that are much sharper for up-close interviews etc since the C100 II could use a bit more help in the resolution department. Sorry if that seemed stream of conscious. Thanks in advance!

thanks! I will keep an eye out as I haven't seen many used on there.

The scamster never replied. I gave up. Question though, second hand used c100 II can be had in the 2000s....is it worth waiting around for one to be sold in NY or is it worth getting brand new? I do not know much about the pros/cons. Any insight?

Question guys: is there a reason to invest in an XC system over C100 other than price?

Too shady. I gave up...$900 is about what I'd get for my GH4 that I'd like to sell.

Tell me this is a scam: scam?.tiff

IronFilm I am curious about your thoughts!!!! Question 1: Also, Omar et. al: any reason you'd prefer to buy a brand new c100 II vs. used? I live in Queens NY and have seen a few for sale 1500-2000 on craigslist. Anything I should be aware of? Seems like a much better deal. If I get it for 2000 and buy a 24-105 for 900 then i'd save 1500 from BH. Question 2: If you got a c100 I with DPAF is the detail/ISO performance much better on a c100 II?

Any chance the a7S III will sport: improved color rendition/palette 10 bit internal Sidenote: How large could one print photos taken on the a7s II 12mp camera? Is the a7rII that much better for printing large images? Such as huge posters for wall artwork in an apartment? 48" 52" image max?

Lots of cool information I'll have to read up on!! It seem like there is a fairly basic decision people like myself must make: Choice A (c100 II)- Invest in a system in your budget that has decent built-in preamps, ND filters, easy to process codec, with a decent image Rating: Image 7.5/10 Documentary Features: 9/10 (audio, ND, codec) Choice B (A7s II/III; 5d IV) - invest in system in your budget that has excel 4k images that can be downscaled to 1080p with a more complicated right that must be created (audio/ND/transcoding/syncing audio with video etc.) Rating: Image: 9/10 Documentary Features: 5/10 (audio, ND, codec, transcoding etc.) I am trying to wait out to see more footage from the A99 II, what the GH5 will have in store (if the ISO isn't clean to at least 6400 or higher its a non-starter) and the a7s III looks like. I just wish the c100 II was a bit more detailed. Maybe the videos I found were poorly created but can anyone show me c100 II images that have been shot and graded with a cinematic feel. If possible could it be internal video? I will not be investing or looking to rig an external recorder at this point. I wish the following issues weren't present on some cameras: 1. a7s/r II: colors colors colors! 2. 5d IV: DR and general image I can't put my finger on it but what I've seen doesn't seem too cinematic or am I missing something?

I'm curious: For those who think the c100 Mk II image isn't as great as I or others feel it is compared to some of the top level DSLR options out there could you point me to either comparison videos or stand alone videos of DSLR images that you think equal or surpass the C100 MK II image quality ? Also, if I were to consider a top level DSLR to serve for both video and stills instead of one for each, what would be the smallest/simplest/cheapest way to capture audio?

Question: What is everyone's take on buying refurbished or used vs. brand new? Any basic guidelines/thought processes you use to determine which avenue is best for you? Also, if I were to buy used/refurbished are there any reputable dealers as I am not sure I would use craigslist or eBay.

Interesting take all! So far I'm thinking the 1dX II is out due to the difficulty it would be for me as an amateur and single person to capture decent audio and manage file sizes. So far the C100 Mark II is jumping out at me. I'm curious what everyone's thoughts were on the Sony A99II videos. The color seemed to blow away their a7x models and were pleasant enough to be on the same screen as Canon colors. Unless the GH5 delivers color equal to Canon and ISO performance too then it is a non-starter for me. Regarding photography counterpart to the c100 II does that 6D seem like a better fit here than the 80D due to ISO and DR?

Thanks for the replies. The Sony a7r II video posted here does look pretty good but invariably I always feel that people look like zombies and their real world vibrant colors that Canon captures look "muted" on Sony. However, I did see this video on the yet to be released Sony A99 II that showcases a much improved color palette: My question about getting a single DSLR is how do you get decent sound without needing a rig of some sort, which for an amateur like me is not wanted at all. I want to plug a mic into my camera and capture audio that is of acceptable quality to the majority of viewers, I'm not doing narrative work where I want to make a movie but basic interviews etc. I will have to look into Nikon but I am assuming it is recommended for my photo needs and not video?

I purchased a GH4 a few years back under the guidance and direction of some helpful members here. I have like the camera in many aspects and learned that I am probably more implicitly biased to video and photo look of FF cameras. I am a complete amateur/hobbyist but appreciate the technical side of the artwork and the discussions that go on here. I am going to sell my GH4 soon and want to replace it. What I do: 1. Personal photography/video for myself/family/friends 2. Mini video documentaries for my history and special education students where I may interview people etc. What I liked about the GH4: *Superior sharpness/clarity compared to my 5d MK iii I sold to purchase the GH4 What I dislike about the GH4: *#1 is definitely ISO performance, I understand that I can purchase neat video or get LED lights but again this is not my profession although I'd like the ability to deliver as high quality content I can doing this by myself *I miss the FF look and bokeh Options: A7R II (seems to be a better camera than a7S II for 50/50 video and stills) - I like the MP count since I'd like to print and frame photos but dislike Sony colors with a passion 5D MK IV - I think the video is fairly comparable to the 1DX II but not as clear/sharp as I'd like even at 4K C100 MK II + 5D MK II (use ML raw at times for video) - I think I like this combo the best since it would provide great video/audio on the c100 II and good photos with the 5d I really love Canon colors and have yet to see too many images that do a good enough job. I like that the C100 II has built in ND filters and I can mount my Rode NTG 2 on it for good audio. I wish there was a hybrid DSLR that could be both photo/video but it seems like I am leaning toward separate tools for separate functions. I love the video look on this Netflix documentary: I believe this was mostly shot on a Canon C300 Mark II Questions: Which of the above choices do you think would fit my needs the best? Are there any other options/combos that may be better suited and I should look into?

Cool, which scenes/shots were which cameras?

So let me know redirect my original question to this scenario: If you're assessing an investment into equipment and have a choice between the trade off of 4k or 1080p but the 4K is a DSLR and the 1080p is a Cinema camera what would be your metrics in deciding where to go? I.E. a Canon 1DX Mark II or a Canon C100 Mark II? Is the 4K worth giving up the benefits of the c100 or is the image from the c100 good enough to forego the DSLR 4K image?

The idea that 4K "can" be great dependent upon how the rest of image quality performs (i.e. DR, highlight roll-off, colors etc.) is an important one. I probably won't have a 4K TV for years, nor will the people that are my audience (my students). However 4K with great colors and DR down-res to 1080P would be more desirable to 1080P with similar qualities and characteristics. I strongly disagree that 4K is always better than 1080, again I'd prefer to see/use a c100 than a gh4/nx1/a7s. But when you ask about an fs7, 1dx II vs. a c100/c300 then you may have a more appropriate discussion about 4K vs. 1080. Context is key. When the latter discussion is had, I'm particular to canon colors over sony and within canon's lineup it's a toss up between 1080 and 4K. I guess this discussion has demonstrated to me that 4K isn't necessary but is desirable with the right context (DR, etc.) and that investing in quality 1080 isn't a bad move if you're not being mandated by work to have a 4K workflow. Thanks!

Good points for 4K I like the analysis. Do do you think on a tv the average person would prefer the nx1 or a7s image versus the image from a c100 ? my own inquiry into this was the c100 was chosen 100% of the time. A few said of the 4K cameras I mentioned "wow that's sharp, pretty cool" but the color rendition of c100 was desired above even the fs5/fs7 image. So if 4K seems to be desirable for more than image does than then mean a 1dxii is more desirable than a c100 in the same price point? just curious, I'm learning here