C100 Mark ii in 2018

[sqm]

Hey Guys, 

I got an offer, 2000€ for the C100 Mark ii.

You guys think its still relevant today?

I know the Pocket is right around the corner but damn, there is something about the c series.

Crazy battery life, build in ND+ XLR, ergonomics, AF and just the ease of use.

What do you think ?

[Damphousse]

I'm not a pro and I've never used a C series camera.  I do own a BMPCC though.

C series are totally different cameras.  They are the polar opposite of the BMPCC.  There is no comparison.  They are both good for what they are.

The BMPCC 4k looks like it will be substantially easier to work with than the BMPCC but it isn't going to be in the same league as the C Series.  If you like the colors, the codecs, and need 4k get the BMPCC 4k.  But if you are delivering 1080p and are a one man band in a fast turn around commercial setting I would stick with the C Series.

Honestly I am not into this hybrid camera thing.  In the end I will probably end up with a a couple of video cameras and a DSLR and maybe a mirrorless camera.  There are just too many compromises trying to get everything in one camera.  So owning a BMPCC 4k and a C series camera would be something I could see myself doing.

[Dave Maze]

I’d say no to the c100 mkii today. It’s too big. Under performer. Much better options. Gh5s comes to mind. 

[Damphousse]

6 minutes ago, DaveAltizer said:

I’d say no to the c100 mkii today. It’s too big. Under performer. Much better options. Gh5s comes to mind. 

 

GH5s is a totally different camera.  Personally I see plenty of situations where I would go with the C100 mk II over a GH5s.  They are both nice cameras but I see each having strengths in different scenario.  C100 mk II's APS-C sensor, DPAF, and native use of EF lenses to name a few make it a natural over the GH5s for certain jobs.  Also what is the low light comparison between the two?

[ReinisK]

Depends on what you shoot of course. Does that camera make your work easier vs the camera you already have?

Of course it's good to have internal nd, xlr, good AF etc, but do you need those things? I can say for myself, that I don't. For the majority of the work I do, I'm happy with using shutter speed to adjust exposure instead of ND, 3.5mm mic is fine, and I mostly shoot with manual lenses. Recently I have picked up a G80 with a manual speedbooster. It's a real joy to use because of it's size and IBIS. For now I would definitely not trade small size and IBIS for internal ND, xlr and good AF.

I can't really see the c100 making my main work (edited TV stuff, interviews, small corporate videos, events) easier. But that's totally me, for you if could be different.

[JordanWright]

I think the C100 Mark 2 would be a great camera for low-middle end corporate work where image quality isn't as important as ergonomics. Its a great all in one solution that just works. Great battery life, XLR, DPAF, internal ND. Although, I do agree that for the money, the image isn't the best avaliable 

 

[Damphousse]

18 minutes ago, ReinisK said:

Of course it's good to have internal nd, xlr, good AF etc, but do you need those things? I can say for myself, that I don't. For the majority of the work I do, I'm happy with using shutter speed to adjust exposure instead of ND, 3.5mm mic is fine, and I mostly shoot with manual lenses.

Okay.

[MurtlandPhoto]

The GH5s with a speedbooster and XLR-1 gives you 90% of the functionality of the C100ii plus the added benefits of smaller size, 4k, slo-mo, HLG, dual native ISO, and more. If AF is a dealmaker/breaker, then you already know your answer.

[sqm]

1 hour ago, DaveAltizer said:

I’d say no to the c100 mkii today. It’s too big. Under performer. Much better options. Gh5s comes to mind. 

GH5/S is not an option for me, i dont like the image that much, just saw a few "filmic" videos that i really liked. In my eyes its to "Video".

Bigger (not a red one ? ) is a Plus for me, clients are blindet by big cameras.

29 minutes ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

The GH5s with a speedbooster and XLR-1 gives you 90% of the functionality of the C100ii plus the added benefits of smaller size, 4k, slo-mo, HLG, dual native ISO, and more. If AF is a dealmaker/breaker, then you already know your answer.

leave the fact that i dont like the Gh5, this package would be almost double the price. But thanks for your reply

1 hour ago, JordanWright said:

I think the C100 Mark 2 would be a great camera for low-middle end corporate work where image quality isn't as important as ergonomics. Its a great all in one solution that just works. Great battery life, XLR, DPAF, internal ND. Although, I do agree that for the money, the image isn't the best avaliable 

 

Thats the work i do, if i do something bigger i will rent a RED.

Plan for this Camera would be, image films, music videos and shortfilms... maybe a doc someday.

Sorry i should gave you guys the infos earlier

[mercer]

I’m thinking about buying a Mark I, so yeah I think the Mark II is definitely still relevant. As John Brawley stated in a different thread... a lot of US network television is broadcasted at 720p... so 1080p is more than enough.

The C100 series cameras are workhorses... I’m sure you’ll have the camera paid off after a job or two and then it’s all profit. And for that money... it’s a no brainer.

[Django]

I bought a C100 mark 1 in 2018  so +1 from me too... but it obviously depends on what your needs are. for a $2K budget it's imo the best cine cam. Not DSLR, not MILC. CINE camera.

Super35 sensor. 1080p downsampled from 4K. Dual Pixel AF (with face tracking on Mk2). XLR inputs. internal NDs. Internal stereo boom mic. outstanding battery. Canon Log. Canon colors. Native Canon EF lenses. Waveform assist. Great ergonomics. Modularity...etc.

[Kisaha]

C100mkii is my favorite video camera of all time. Easily the best ergonomics of such a camera, better than the C200 in my opinion.

I could see only 2 possible limitations.

No slow motion (what a pity not to have 100/120f), and no 4K, which in 2018 can be a factor for some.

Still the best option for 80% of what I do.

[IronFilm]

Depends entirely on the kind of work you do. If it is fast paced, quick turn around, limited/no post, then a C100 can be a good choice. 

However the C100mk2 sells at a hefty premium over the C100mk1, and what do you really gain? Not much, most notably 1080 60fps. If you don't  need that, then go for a C100mk1 DPAF instead (or even an older C100 without DPAF if you don't need and won't to get a real bargain bargain).

And is worthwhile checking the "superior" Sony PMW-F3 and Sony FS700 which sell for even cheaper prices. 

And depending on your line of work you do, is worthwhile keeping an eye out for a C300mk1 or C500, which sell for a massive discount over their original prices. 

[Yurolov]

If you dont need 4k, which let's be honest only a small amount of us really do, then it is the best bang for the buck camera out there in terms of the image quality and ergos. The image is better than the gh5s and in the end it will cost you less. 

I think Dave is right though in terms of size. It's not a camera that can be put on a single-handed gimbal like the gh5s. But with an IS lens you get fantastic handheld footage. 

[BrooklynDan]

I heart my C100 mk 1. Still the most cinematic image you can get for the money. Dslrs and Mirrorless cameras just don't have the same level of richness and depth to the colors. 

[BenEricson]

If you shoot a lot of interviews, definitely a good camera to own. The Canon series is so good in low/mixed lighting.

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

worthwhile checking the "superior" Sony PMW-F3 and Sony FS700 which sell for even cheaper prices. 

And depending on your line of work you do, is worthwhile keeping an eye out for a C300mk1 or C500, which sell for a massive discount over their original prices. 

Great cameras but I feel like the need for the external recorders puts them in a different category.

8 hours ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

The GH5s with a speedbooster and XLR-1 gives you 90% of the functionality of the C100ii plus the added benefits of smaller size, 4k, slo-mo, HLG, dual native ISO, and more. If AF is a dealmaker/breaker, then you already know your answer.

Internal ND and auto focus is a BIG 10 percent... Of course all depends on what you typically shoot. 

[jhnkng]

I love my C100mk2, I wouldn't give it up unless I was getting a C200 or C300mk2. If you shoot solo or very small crew, having dependable AF is life changing. The audio sounds pretty darn good as well, and having both a decent screen and decent EVF that swivels makes life easier when working outside or in. Files look great out of the box so it's great for fast turnaround stuff, and C-Log grades pretty well considering the gimped codec, which actually turns out to be a blessing because a 128gb card lasts all day, and it shoots backup to a second slot. A lot of the time I go out with the camera with 2 x 128gb and 2 x batteries and I can shoot all day without worrying about downloading or data management. I can complain all day about Canon, but the one thing they got right with the C series cameras is that it gets out of the way and lets you get on with shooting.

That said, I have fairly specific requirements. If you work with a larger crew, or if you're not working on paid jobs, there are probably better options. I shoot Fuji for stills so I have an X-T2 which goes on the gimbal, but a GH5s is certainly an excellent option that I would consider as a gimbal cam if I needed it. If I'm going to be on me feet all day I tend to hire an EasyRig (excellent combo with the C100mk2) but you're not exactly discreet -- so if discretion is required you definitely don't want a C100. 

[zerocool22]

Ha I sold my c100 2 years ago. As I found there were much better options out there. Oh man did I hate that LCD screen and the lack of 60fps. The internal ND is sweet though and the image isnt that bad. Prob still better then the gh5. I owned the 5d iii and the c 100 back then and I shot 90% 5d iii raw, the 5d iii image just blows everything away. I recently bought a 5d iii back again, and boy do I like that image. I do miss 60fps and a faster workflow. Thats why I upgraded to the ursa mini pro. But 1080p vs 1080p 25fps in low dr setting I would prob still prefer the 5d iii raw. If I could get my hands on a anamorphic lens, then it would be a different story, then the UMP would shine it away. 

[sqm]

10 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Depends entirely on the kind of work you do. If it is fast paced, quick turn around, limited/no post, then a C100 can be a good choice. 

However the C100mk2 sells at a hefty premium over the C100mk1, and what do you really gain? Not much, most notably 1080 60fps. If you don't  need that, then go for a C100mk1 DPAF instead (or even an older C100 without DPAF if you don't need and won't to get a real bargain bargain).

And is worthwhile checking the "superior" Sony PMW-F3 and Sony FS700 which sell for even cheaper prices. 

And depending on your line of work you do, is worthwhile keeping an eye out for a C300mk1 or C500, which sell for a massive discount over their original prices. 

Sadly 50/60p is a must have for me. Never shot with the F3 but with the fs700 but was not that happy with the image,  a big thing is that I have to put so much more work in grading with the Sonys, while Canon just looks awesome right out of the box.

Its funny were all bashing Canon for the lack of features but at the end I buy them anyway. 

3 Years ago I was in for a ne FF stills camera, bought a Nikon D750 liked it but then tried the old 5d iii and was totally sold.

Even if the Nikon is the better camera  on so many levels, its just the easy of use und the colors out of the box that are worth it.

5 hours ago, jhnkng said:

I shoot Fuji for stills so I have an X-T2 which goes on the gimbal, but a GH5s is certainly an excellent option that I would consider as a gimbal cam if I needed it.

I also bought an X-T2 a few months ago as a small hybrid for privat and travel stuff. I also shoot weddings here and then (stills) and use the X-T2 as a second cam to my 5D iii just on a modded Acros Profile. Never liked black and white that much but with that camera its mind blowing, its making shooting fun again.

27 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

I owned the 5d iii and the c 100 back then and I shot 90% 5d iii raw, the 5d iii image just blows everything away

5d Raw is crazy no question, but the workflow is a pain and on paid jobs I´m to scared something will fuck up (drop frames and so on) but I totally can see myself using it for small shorts.

Can someone maybe send me a 50/60p clog file to play around with ? Didn't saw any interesting downloadable files on google.

[User]

A few here have said th C100Mk2 doesn't shoot 60fps... they're talking out of their asses.

This camera smokes! Period.