C100 mark II vs C300

[vlodeck]

Hey,

Thinking of getting either C100mk2 or C300mk1. Doesn't the C300 produce a better image than C100? Apart from the codec (422), is it sharper or has a better color science?

[Inazuma]

AFAIK the image is the same. Or a bit cleaner at high iso's on the c100 ii. 

[IronFilm]

C100mk2: 60fps FHD

C300mk1: SDI, genlock, timecode, better codec, cheaper (? arguably, or at least easier to find secondhand), and more. 

Seems like an easy choice!

But here is an even easier choice:

C300mk1 vs Sony PMW-F3

F3 all the way! 

Here is a trickier choice:

Sony F3 vs Sony FS700

FS700 gains some notable advantages (super slow motion, and 4K external), but also has some disadvantages, plus is significantly more expensive (but still easily cheaper than a C300mk1!).

For the 4K raw obsessed, but who don't care about having a very "quirky" (read: flawed) camera: RED ONE MX or URSA Mini 4K, both similar (or maybe cheaper! If lucky) prices as a C300mk1

And I'll finish off this post with one last candidate, which is an oddball wild card suggestion: the JVC LS300! 4K internal, a tonne of fancy features such as streaming, a very versatile mirrorless mount, extremely affordable, but it is a JVC which no one knows. 

 

[Kisaha]

Completely different cameras. Size and ergonomics completely different. I would go Canon C100mkII for sure. My favorite workhorse of a camera, low price, extremely capable in high ISO, incredible Dual Pixel AF - the only worthy of pro use, best size per performance codec ever (Canon voodoo here, for sure), deliverable picture almost immediately. Best size and weight for such a camera.

If you care more for the extras @IronFilm mentioned, then C300, but then there are better options out there in that category (he named few, definitely more research to find out the best option as they vary in era, features, weight, ergonomics, ets), and with C300 you need a full rig for it, it isn't "plug n play" such as the C100.

If you want more options for a dead low price, the aforementioned JVC LS300 is an extremely and unexpectedly capable camera. With all the modern bells and whistles (no worthy slow motion though, worst ergonomics than Canon, worst low light capabilities, C100mkII is a low light monster - do not forget), some innovation (prime zoom function, native m43 - S35 sensor!) and in the dead low price (new) was an Atomos recorder (I do not know if the offer still stands) capable of recording 4K/60f, so a camera still relevant for the near future. 

JVC does cameras since forever by the way, in 1978 (yep, when Super 8 film was still king) they did the first ever portable video system, and in 1984 they did the first all-in-one video camera ever (camera and recorder in one box)! 

[IronFilm]

49 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

Completely different cameras. Size and ergonomics completely different.

True, I don't like how top heavy the C300 is (not a problem the F3 has...)

 

 

50 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

and with C300 you need a full rig for it, it isn't "plug n play" such as the C100.

Nah, not so, plenty of people shoot with just a C300 + lens and not much else (although yes, there are also people who massively rig it up)

 

 

53 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

no worthy slow motion though

4K 60fps external output is a heck of a lot more than the C300mk1 can do!

 

 

55 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

worst low light capabilities

I'd be curious to see side by side of a LS300 vs C100, with the LS300 having a focal reducer and down scaled 4K 422, maybe your assumption here won't hold true?

[Kisaha]

LS300 suffers from extensive noise in shadows, and it is not even close to a C100mkII. We used to use the JVC LS300 with a metabones and EF lenses (now we go native as well, as the company bought GH5). C100 already downscales to 1080p to be honest, but the speedboster alone doesn't compensate for the high ISO capabilities of the C100 sensor. Also, you have to add aditional cost for extra equipment. As I said, the magic of C100 is its simplicity!

The 4K/60f is only with the Atomos. The normal slow motion of the LS300 is dreadful (unusable), they crop huge too. C100mkII is a worry free camera,   you shoot, you transfer, you use, you deliver. Most of the other options need some rigging, tweaking, external stuff, etc. 

There was a good sale of C100mkII with a Ninja too.

I believe people shooting with a C300 and a lens is out of necessity!

[User]

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

12 hours ago, Kisaha said:

and with C300 you need a full rig for it, it isn't "plug n play" such as the C100.

Nah, not so, plenty of people shoot with just a C300 + lens and not much else (although yes, there are also people who massively rig it up)

The Canon Cxxx cameras are made for handheld work.

Expose correctly with the C100MKII and it's ever bit as good as the C300. I'd reason that it is actually even better.

The Cxxx line lets you focus on the story you are trying to tell, and that is far more valuable to me than a bit more colour depth or resolution. And with so many millions now clamouring towards 'filmmaking,' one's approach to the story (and sound design) will draw more people than anything else. But we know this right gang?

Maybe before all this camera stuff,  take a moment to ask yourself what are your intentions? And actually, how personable and well-rounded are you with your fellow human beings? For it is this here, in this space, that really decides who will prosper at what they set their hand to.

[HockeyFan12]

17 hours ago, vlodeck said:

Hey,

Thinking of getting either C100mk2 or C300mk1. Doesn't the C300 produce a better image than C100? Apart from the codec (422), is it sharper or has a better color science?

Canon claims the processing is identical. I've shot them side-by-side and could not see a difference, other than codec. However some people online will argue that Canon is using a simplified processor on the C100 and lying about it. The C100 Mk II has slightly cleaner images and noticeably different color from both.

I find the ergonomics and menus on the F3 to be bad, but for the price used it is an amazing value, especially if you can get it with support gear included. @IronFilm isn't the only one who prefers F3 ergonomics, but I certainly don't. It's too heavy for me, and I find the image subjectively worse than the C300 (worse skin tones) but technically it is a bit better than the C300 in terms of tonality and a half stop more highlight detail, and it has 60p and 10 bit 444 color. The C300 is a little sharper, though. In most ways I prefer the F3 to the F5. Better image, imo. If you like the form factor and need genlock, it's a great option. I wouldn't choose it over the Canon options, but I can't argue with anyone who would. If you're a pro hiring out dual system sound, genlock pays for itself fast, and the C100 lacks it.

Short answer: if there's a difference in image, you'll never notice it. But there are other differences worth considering.

 

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, HockeyFan12 said:

@IronFilm isn't the only one who prefers F3 ergonomics, but I certainly don't.

I prefer the handling of the C100 over the F3. 

But the C100 and F3 are in two different categories as cameras.

When you comparing F3 vs C300, then the F3 nudges ahead by a nose for its handling. But I fully admit this is very subjective, and varies from person to person. Even with the same person, their views can change from job to job! Depending on the needs/style of the shoot.

 

1 hour ago, HockeyFan12 said:

If you're a pro hiring out dual system sound, genlock pays for itself fast, and the C100 lacks it.

Note: genlock and timecode are two different things. 

Just in case maybe you might be confusing the two?

[HockeyFan12]

47 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I prefer the handling of the C100 over the F3. 

But the C100 and F3 are in two different categories as cameras.

When you comparing F3 vs C300, then the F3 nudges ahead by a nose for its handling. But I fully admit this is very subjective, and varies from person to person. Even with the same person, their views can change from job to job! Depending on the needs/style of the shoot.

 

Note: genlock and timecode are two different things. 

Just in case maybe you might be confusing the two?

Yep, definitely confusing the two. I am an idiot about practical things lol.

And yeah, that's totally fair. If you prefer a more traditional form factor, the F3 seems to be the winner. And it's the winner on price. 

[Masturias]

Considering upgrading from a C100 MKII to either a C300 or C300 MKII

is dropping 10k on a C300 MARKII or should I go with the C300. 

Thanks 

[webrunner5]

A C300 would be a step back form a C100 mkII I would think? And a C300 is like 2000 bucks and a C300 mkII is like 7500. Sure it is way better but that is a serious jump price wise, and I not too sure I would even buy a C300 mk II over some of the others choices unless you have a Ton of EF lenses.

[IronFilm]

On 5/18/2019 at 11:55 PM, Masturias said:

Considering upgrading from a C100 MKII to either a C300 or C300 MKII

is dropping 10k on a C300 MARKII or should I go with the C300. 

Thanks 

What a very odd question... C300 mk1 and C300 mk2 are totally different cameras for totally different budgets! 

They're even further apart than say the FS700 vs FS7! (which are the respective cameras from the same era from Sony)

On 5/21/2019 at 8:54 AM, webrunner5 said:

A C300 would be a step back form a C100 mkII I would think?

Personally I'd prefer that C300 instead. 

 

[webrunner5]

8 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

What a very odd question... C300 mk1 and C300 mk2 are totally different cameras for totally different budgets! 

They're even further apart than say the FS700 vs FS7! (which are the respective cameras from the same era from Sony)

Personally I'd prefer that C300 instead. 

 

I do also for certain things. But Very few C300's have DPAF in them, and unless you go to the C200 viewfinder they are about 2 foot tall. A C100 mkII is petite to a C300. But I like the older output CS wise, but it was not really accurate.

Oh you are comparing the C300 to the C300 mkII. I have no real knowledge about the mkII.

[IronFilm]

Nothing I have now has DPAF, none of my lenses would use DPAF. So yeah, I'd take the C300 mk1 over the C100 mk2 (yeah the top heaviness is annoying, but worth it for the higher quality of the C300 over a C100)