C100 Mark ii in 2018

[zerocool22]

11 minutes ago, User said:

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

This camera smokes! Period.

Nobody did.. was an original c100 reference.
Shooting 12stops 1080p 8bit in 2018 is not really what I would call an awesome camera though(try 6 years ago).

[webrunner5]

4 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Nobody did.. was an original c100 reference.
Shooting 12stops 1080p 8bit in 2018 is not really what I would call an awesome camera though(try 6 years ago).

Yeah a little on the weak side, and still soft 1080p footage to boot. At times it is nice to have it soft like it is, but I would sure like the option to soften it, as to not really being able to have it sharper when I want or need it to be with out having sharpening artifacts from hell..

[HockeyFan12]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah a little on the weak side, and still soft 1080p footage to boot. At times it is nice to have it soft like it is, but I would sure like the option to soften it, as to not really being able to have it sharper when I want or need it to be with out having sharpening artifacts from hell..

I’m in the minority, I love the CX00 series, so I’m a biased.

But while I can agree with most of the complaints against them, including poor highlight dynamic range (relative to A7S/A7RII, FS7, etc. where there's about one stop missing in the highlights–not relative to mirrorless or dSLR, where they're still excellent) and thin codec, sharpness isn’t one. What settings did you have when you were using the C100 Mk II that led to a soft image when you used it? Perhaps it was the lens or underexposure or something else?

Imo, that series still has the sharpest out of the box 1080p image I’ve ever seen, sharper than Alexa 2k or downscaled Red MX (and I've intercut the three in the same scene before). I think because it’s exactly 2x oversampled without being downsampled it’s razor sharp since there's no loss of sharpness in the downsampling algorithm, but I also think it has a thin AA filter on top of that because the C500 is sharper at 4k than you’d expect, and aliases where the Red MX doesn't. (Not necessarily good.) The cinema lock mode on the C300 has most sharpening disabled and is still razor sharp, sharper at 1080p than 2k Alexa , which has always been sharp enough for me, and is plenty sharp enough for theaters.

But the rest is outdated, particularly the codec, and I agree it isn't the best deal for the price based on image alone. I'm just surprised you found sharpness to be the big problem with this camera. But otherwise I agree it's long in the tooth.

To the OP, I would rent and try it out. We all have different needs. Personally I would also look elsewhere on the basis of technical image quality alone, which is the concern of most on this forum (either spend less or spend more for best price/performance) because the AVCHD codec is a bit thin for pushing things hard in the grade, and it has a three-frame GOP (group of pictures, not the party) where you can get ghosting artifacts in the shadows or desaturation for dark scenes or very high contrast scenes that fill the full 12 stops. But the ergonomics are great for an owner/op (bad for traditional production where you have two ACs)... so it might be a good doc camera and the basic look is great imo, the basic look of Canon Log is pretty baked in and requires less grading but has great skin tones and proper chroma rolloff (most dSLRS don't, though GH5 does), which makes up for the thin codec a bit, assuming you like the look.

Not trying to start a flame war or big argument, just offer my opinion. Sharpness is the one area (despite the 1080p resolution) where I found the original C-series cameras to be rock solid, so just offering a difference of opinion. DPs I work with recommend using light diffusion filters on them when interacting with Alexa, in fact.

I've been working lately on content graded by Technicolor, the Mill, and Company 3 and sharing stories with others who sit in there and haven't heard anything from them in the way of using post sharpening with any camera–and that includes a piece shot on the AF100–so I'm confused about why it's brought up so often on this forum. But again I'm not a colorist, just offering a differing opinion, that's just that–an opinion. No one's is more right or might wrong. If you're producing content for 4k tv displays specifically, that's different from Technicolor producing 2k for a theatrical DCP, and so in that case Technicolor's opinion might be wrong. Just offering my perspective. 

To the OP, I recommend trying the camera out. I love the C-series the best of anything and recently considering a C100 Mk II but decided otherwise. The price/performance on the C100 Mk II is not good from a technical perspective in today's market so I'd go downmarket (original C100 is nice, GH5 is nice) or upmarket (FS7) unless it very specifically fits your needs. That said, sharpness isn't the concern I would have with that camera, I always tended toward using diffusion filters or vintage lenses with it to intercut with the Alexa at 2k, in fact.

[zerocool22]

Yeah sharpness isnt the issue with the c series. 

[mercer]

Yeah... I just spent an hour watching short films on Vimeo shot with the C100 Mark I and II... I actually preferred the image from the Mark I... and there was absolutely nothing about the image I didn’t like or caused concern with either camera... and I specifically watched narratives only.

For the price of these cameras, and the set of features, I’d have no problem choosing it for a Micro/No budget feature film.

Like most cameras discussed on this forum, there’s absolutely no reason one can’t create great images with a C100. As always, content is king and the C100 is just a tool that has proven to work. 

[zerocool22]

Yeah I shot a shortfilm on the c100 recorded to a blackmagic video assist. And that worked fine, ok the cost is next to nothing and you def can get cinematic video out of it. Aswel as on the c300. But there are for sure better cameras out there at a similar pricepoint. But you can get good results on a lot of cameras as you know whag youre doing. The color science on the c series is its best feature. 

[hijodeibn]

4 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

To the OP, I would rent and try it out. We all have different needs. Personally I would also look elsewhere on the basis of technical image quality alone, which is the concern of most on this forum (either spend less or spend more for best price/performance) because the AVCHD codec is a bit thin for pushing things hard in the grade, and it has a three-frame GOP (group of pictures, not the party) where you can get ghosting artifacts in the shadows or desaturation for dark scenes or very high contrast scenes that fill the full 12 stops. But the ergonomics are great for an owner/op (bad for traditional production where you have two ACs)... so it might be a good doc camera and the basic look is great imo, the basic look of Canon Log is pretty baked in and requires less grading but has great skin tones and proper chroma rolloff (most dSLRS don't, though GH5 does), which makes up for the thin codec a bit, assuming you like the look.

I agree with everything you said, but the codec in the C100 can be easily improved with a ninja star, which is a very small external recorded which provides ProRess 8+ bit 422. I owned a C100 mark I and for doc work is a fantastic camera, the main issue to me is that it is too big to pass unnotice on the street, I really need a M50. The other thing you fall in love is the DPAF, it makes shooting so much easy....and you can also mount the C100 in a pistol stabilizer (actually only the Nedula 5100 can support it) and get very cinematic shoots.....if you add also a steadicam to the pistol to control the z axis, you are in heaven!!!

[mercer]

20 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

I agree with everything you said, but the codec in the C100 can be easily improved with a ninja star, which is a very small external recorded which provides ProRess 8+ bit 422. I owned a C100 mark I and for doc work is a fantastic camera, the main issue to me is that it is too big to pass unnotice on the street, I really need a M50. The other thing you fall in love is the DPAF, it makes shooting so much easy....and you can also mount the C100 in a pistol stabilizer (actually only the Nedula 5100 can support it) and get very cinematic shoots.....if you add also a steadicam to the pistol to control the z axis, you are in heaven!!!

I recently saw a Mark II on the trade show floor and I was surprised by how small it actually was without the top handle. I don’t think it looks much bigger than my 5D3... although I’m sure it is if they were side by side.

[HockeyFan12]

5 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

I agree with everything you said, but the codec in the C100 can be easily improved with a ninja star, which is a very small external recorded which provides ProRess 8+ bit 422. I owned a C100 mark I and for doc work is a fantastic camera, the main issue to me is that it is too big to pass unnotice on the street, I really need a M50. The other thing you fall in love is the DPAF, it makes shooting so much easy....and you can also mount the C100 in a pistol stabilizer (actually only the Nedula 5100 can support it) and get very cinematic shoots.....if you add also a steadicam to the pistol to control the z axis, you are in heaven!!!

I don't like external recorders much from an ease of use perspective, but you don't have to convince me when it comes to the image being very nice and there are circumstances where the external recorder helps. It's weird since it varies between shots it seems if it helps a lot or a little.

 A stop more highlight detail would be nice, but it's still leagues ahead of any dSLR I've used, and not too far behind an A7S. At $1999, I think the original is a steal. 

[jhnkng]

7 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

I agree with everything you said, but the codec in the C100 can be easily improved with a ninja star, which is a very small external recorded which provides ProRess 8+ bit 422. I owned a C100 mark I and for doc work is a fantastic camera, the main issue to me is that it is too big to pass unnotice on the street, I really need a M50. The other thing you fall in love is the DPAF, it makes shooting so much easy....and you can also mount the C100 in a pistol stabilizer (actually only the Nedula 5100 can support it) and get very cinematic shoots.....if you add also a steadicam to the pistol to control the z axis, you are in heaven!!!

I've mounted my C100mk2 with the 24mm pancake on a Crane 2 and it's ok, but the height of the camera and the evf gets in the way of tilts. It's quite a nice way to work, I usually have it mounted on a monopod so I can put it down when I need to.

7 hours ago, mercer said:

I recently saw a Mark II on the trade show floor and I was surprised by how small it actually was without the top handle. I don’t think it looks much bigger than my 5D3... although I’m sure it is if they were side by side.

I'm constantly surprised by the ergonomics of it in the hand, it really is lovely to use. All the buttons are where you need them and right where your fingers are. It's pretty compact if you take the side handle off as well, it's *almost* discreet

[Django]

7 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I don't like external recorders much from an ease of use perspective, but you don't have to convince me when it comes to the image being very nice and there are circumstances where the external recorder helps. It's weird since it varies between shots it seems if it helps a lot or a little.

 A stop more highlight detail would be nice, but it's still leagues ahead of any dSLR I've used, and not too far behind an A7S. At $1999, I think the original is a steal. 

Externally recording  the direct YCC 422 signal in Prores definitely make a substantial difference in post compared to the internal codec that can't be pushed much. 

The Ninja Star is also the most compact/lightweight recorder on the market, uses CFAST cards and of course can be triggered from the cameras record buttons.

So fairly easy to use and trouble-free. some C100 users even have it permanently stuck to their cameras lol..

I have to say there is a kind of old school docu/film modjo to the original C100 (and C300). Not always suitable when trying to achieve a very 'modern' cutting edge look which is why I'll prefer shooting on XT2/A73 for certain projects that require wow/pop factor. But for more classic docu/indie film stuff it's a great tool to have in the arsenal and a joy to shoot with, especially on sticks.

 

[IronFilm]

On 7/13/2018 at 6:38 AM, sqm said:

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.

Yes, let's not underestimate the benefits of not coming across as "the DSLR guy" to a client. 

I just did a film shoot today (as a DoP! A change from my usual sound work) with 2x Sony PMW-F3 (and an a7S on a glidecam). Was nice getting to shoot with 2x F3 at once!

To be honest I feel 2x BMPCC4K (if they had shipped already! That is) would have done a better job, or at least an equally good job overall. 

But there is next to no chance this would have been acceptable to the director or the client, due to the impression a big cameras vs a small ones gives on set. Sad, but true, sometimes you need to do a bit of dog and pony show for them so they've got confidence in you and what the final product will be. 

[Django]

True. I remember this interview i shot on XT2 where this mid-aged corporate geezer was like "when are you done shooting stills and setting up the video camera so we can get started" ?

Can't imagine on a real set with actual talent. There is certainly confidence that only a big boy cam gives you even though you always get the snarky assistant/sound-engineer/tech that'll go "oh you're shooting this with a C ONE hundred" "when did that cam come out again?" "does it shoot RAW/4K?" "we had a RED/ARRI on our last shoot".. but then usually when they see the end result they'll be back with "is this cam still for sale? how much does it run for?" ?

[mercer]

7 hours ago, jhnkng said:

I'm constantly surprised by the ergonomics of it in the hand, it really is lovely to use. All the buttons are where you need them and right where your fingers are. It's pretty compact if you take the side handle off as well, it's *almost* discreet 

As I’ve said dozens of times, I’m really just a hobbyist that enjoys shooting narratives. In the back of my mind, I hope one of my short films will get some attention or can be used one day for a crowdfunding campaign to raise some money for a micro budget feature film... but I don’t base my decisions on that long shot.

So for now, discretion is key. I shoot in public places with no crew... just me and actors. I shoot handheld or with a monopod. I am thinking about looking for a couple low rent paid jobs... birthday parties, family reunions, etc... to help fund some of my upcoming projects and it seems like the original C100 could be a great camera for that. I could attach all of the gizmos to make it look more “pro” but then strip it down to shoot a short film where the small file sizes and cheaper media is more appropriate than my 5D3 and ML Raw.

Have you used an external recorder with it? I’ve heard so many conflicting statements on whether it’s worth it or not, even in this thread. And to be honest, I’ve watched a ton of videos, some with an external recorder, some without, and I’ve yet to see any real difference... maybe a little, but I don’t know if it’s enough to warrant the extra hassle and expense.

It’s been so long since I owned a second camera, so it has to be an earner, good enough to shoot some narratives on it as well, and cheap enough where the investment can be recouped with a few paid jobs so it can start funding my short films fairly quickly... otherwise it’s not even worth the trouble. I’m more than happy with my 5D3 and will be for the foreseeable future. 

[webrunner5]

45 minutes ago, Django said:

True. I remember this interview i shot on XT2 where this mid-aged corporate geezer was like "when are you done shooting stills and setting up the video camera so we can get started" ?

Can't imagine on a real set with actual talent. There is certainly confidence that only a big boy cam gives you even though you always get the snarky assistant/sound-engineer/tech that'll go "oh you're shooting this with a C ONE hundred" "when did that cam come out again?" "does it shoot RAW/4K?" "we had a RED/ARRI on our last shoot".. but then usually when they see the end result they'll be back with "is this cam still for sale? how much does it run for?" ?

If I am the one paying you Big Azz money I want a Big Azz camera LoL.

[hijodeibn]

3 hours ago, Django said:

Externally recording  the direct YCC 422 signal in Prores definitely make a substantial difference in post compared to the internal codec that can't be pushed much. 

The Ninja Star is also the most compact/lightweight recorder on the market, uses CFAST cards and of course can be triggered from the cameras record buttons.

So fairly easy to use and trouble-free. some C100 users even have it permanently stuck to their cameras lol..

I have to say there is a kind of old school docu/film modjo to the original C100 (and C300). Not always suitable when trying to achieve a very 'modern' cutting edge look which is why I'll prefer shooting on XT2/A73 for certain projects that require wow/pop factor. But for more classic docu/indie film stuff it's a great tool to have in the arsenal and a joy to shoot with, especially on sticks.

 

Yeap....I also have the ninja star permanently on the C100, and only use the internal recording for backup. I got an almost new ninja star for 180 bucks from ebay and a SuperTalent 256 Cfast card for $120, really a cheap upgrade, weight added is minimal, so if you have a C100, this is the right way to go.

[mercer]

10 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

Yeap....I also have the ninja star permanently on the C100, and only use the internal recording for backup. I got an almost new ninja star for 180 bucks from ebay and a SuperTalent 256 Cfast card for $120, really a cheap upgrade, weight added is minimal, so if you have a C100, this is the right way to go.

Do you have the C100 I or II?

[hijodeibn]

33 minutes ago, mercer said:

As I’ve said dozens of times, I’m really just a hobbyist that enjoys shooting narratives. In the back of my mind, I hope one of my short films will get some attention or can be used one day for a crowdfunding campaign to raise some money for a micro budget feature film... but I don’t base my decisions on that long shot.

So for now, discretion is key. I shoot in public places with no crew... just me and actors. I shoot handheld or with a monopod. I am thinking about looking for a couple low rent paid jobs... birthday parties, family reunions, etc... to help fund some of my upcoming projects and it seems like the original C100 could be a great camera for that. I could attach all of the gizmos to make it look more “pro” but then strip it down to shoot a short film where the small file sizes and cheaper media is more appropriate than my 5D3 and ML Raw.

Have you used an external recorder with it? I’ve heard so many conflicting statements on whether it’s worth it or not, even in this thread. And to be honest, I’ve watched a ton of videos, some with an external recorder, some without, and I’ve yet to see any real difference... maybe a little, but I don’t know if it’s enough to warrant the extra hassle and expense.

It’s been so long since I owned a second camera, so it has to be an earner, good enough to shoot some narratives on it as well, and cheap enough where the investment can be recouped with a few paid jobs so it can start funding my short films fairly quickly... otherwise it’s not even worth the trouble. I’m more than happy with my 5D3 and will be for the foreseeable future. 

To be honest, the image difference is little like you have seen in the videos, you can see the difference more during low light shootings, in the sky during sunset you see more color degradation, but is really not so much. What the external recording provides is more room during color correction, if you screw up the color temperature you will certainlly have a better chance to fix it, or if you are looking for a special look, also more room to play.

Now, if you are good with ligthing, checking the camera parameters, and you really don´t make mistakes, then you probably are OK with the internal recording. But the ninja star is so cheap, the media (supertalent) so cheap, that probably later you will get them ether just to give you more peace of mind....

15 minutes ago, mercer said:

Do you have the C100 I or II?

C100 mark I together with a ninja star

[mercer]

On the C100 I, does the Ninja Star do a 60i to 60p conversion?

[HockeyFan12]

6 hours ago, Django said:

Externally recording  the direct YCC 422 signal in Prores definitely make a substantial difference in post compared to the internal codec that can't be pushed much. 

The Ninja Star is also the most compact/lightweight recorder on the market, uses CFAST cards and of course can be triggered from the cameras record buttons.

So fairly easy to use and trouble-free. some C100 users even have it permanently stuck to their cameras lol..

I have to say there is a kind of old school docu/film modjo to the original C100 (and C300). Not always suitable when trying to achieve a very 'modern' cutting edge look which is why I'll prefer shooting on XT2/A73 for certain projects that require wow/pop factor. But for more classic docu/indie film stuff it's a great tool to have in the arsenal and a joy to shoot with, especially on sticks.

 

Don't you have a C200 and a C300 now? How do you find they compare?

As you know I think the original C300 has a nicer color profile (subjective preference) and is easier to get to a good looking place quickly, but I know its technical limitations. Has a "film look" to it to the extent that skin tones are darker and more saturated and greens are sort of teal/blue reds are sort of warm/orange. But owner/ops would often expose it terribly wrong, bringing out its weaknesses relating to limited dynamic range.

Would you estimate a stop more highlight detail when both are at base ISO (800/850) on the C200? Do you find the texture of the noise okay on the C200? For some projects in the future, I want to go with one or the other.