C100 - Mark I, Mark II, or just wait???

[Django]

My C100 mk1 (w/ Dual Pixel AF) is by far my best camera investment ever, and still goes strong in 2018 imo. so much so that i cancelled my C200 order at last minute. As much as I want the C200 i know it's going to sit on my shelf collect dust 95% time. I'll just rent one when need comes. C100 is already max size for most of my run & gun needs. Hell i hardly bring my DSLRs out aside for day long events. MILCs really got us spoiled!

[webrunner5]

9 minutes ago, Django said:

My C100 mk1 (w/ Dual Pixel AF) is by far my best camera investment ever, and still goes strong in 2018 imo. so much so that i cancelled my C200 order at last minute. As much as I want the C200 i know it's going to sit on my shelf collect dust 95% time. I'll just rent one when need comes. C100 is already max size for most of my run & gun needs. Hell i hardly bring my DSLRs out aside for day long events. MILCs really got us spoiled!

It's a 2 trick pony.

[newfoundmass]

I don't see why you should wait. It's unlikely that a comparable Canon camera will be released that fits your budget any time soon. If you don't need 4k then it's a great option. Even if you find you need a better codec you can buy a cheap Atomos recorder to get ProRes out of it. 

I say go for it. I think I'd try to get the mk2 if I could find a good deal on it, but the mk1 would still be a great option. 

[webrunner5]

53 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

I don't see why you should wait. It's unlikely that a comparable Canon camera will be released that fits your budget any time soon. If you don't need 4k then it's a great option. Even if you find you need a better codec you can buy a cheap Atomos recorder to get ProRes out of it. 

I say go for it. I think I'd try to get the mk2 if I could find a good deal on it, but the mk1 would still be a great option. 

I have seen a lot of tests on the old "web o roonie" that show there is really not much to gain by using ProRes over the internal Codec. For what is on paper, a pretty crappy Codec, it does amazingly well. Now if he Has to submit broadcast quality, ergo 50mbps or better, yeah no choice.

And sure the mk II is a better choice, but they are 2500 dollars or more, but not bad for a real Cine camera to be honest. But still an awkward camera to use on a Ronin S, and then you are getting into some pretty big money. But nobody said Video was cheap.

Hey they are nice cameras, but there has just been too many gains for the average person to still consider one. Sure he doesn't Need 4K, but what if one of his clients Demands it? And they will down the road, if not now. It is just too limiting. I have went back and forth on buying one myself, and I just can't push the "Buy it Now button" on one. I just don't think older Cine cameras are that good in this day and age for any kind of mobile usage. And they are a total pain in the ass to setup and take down. And stealth they Ain't. They take bigger Tripods, bigger, better Fluid Heads, bigger bags to carry them, on and on. It all adds up money wise. But you Do look Pro, and that alone can be a reason to go that route. Yeah and the OP has the lenses to make a nice kit with it other than some MF primes.

Thing that scares me is he wants to shoot "lots of performances on stage (2-3 camera shoots) including small theater (10), larger theater shows (4), and about 8 musical Performances. So it’s a HUGE variety of shooting and I’m a one man band". I would not call a original C100 a low light beast for indoor stuff. Sure he has some fast EFS lenses but you can't shoot wide open and hope to have crap in focus shooting back from the peanut gallery.

[MurtlandPhoto]

I shot with a set of 3 C100's exclusively with a past employer. When I left and the company was looking to offload them, I begged to buy one because I'd grown so fond of them. There is not a better get-out-of-your-way camera  with a high quality image at a low datarate than the C100. If you don't absolutely need 4k, I wouldn't hesitate to pick one up at their current used prices.

[webrunner5]

Well with his 1800 dollar budget he would be in business then. And I agree OOC footage is hard to beat.

[MurtlandPhoto]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

It's a 2 trick pony.

But they're 2 very good tricks ?

[BrunoLandMedia]

Wow, Thanks everyone for your thoughts. 

I should have been more clear about absolute needs and workflow. 

When I arrived at this job, all I had was the XA10 camcorder and two 720 handycams. I did the best I could. I started bringing my 70d in to do all the run and gun stuff, and finally after a while convinced THEM to buy me an 80d with the 18-135. That was the max budget I could get out of them. I couldn't just "save" that 1000 so I went ahead got the 80d. I personally have always had DSLR for my family, music, and travel and the 6dmk2 clicks my boxes there so then I was a 2 DSLR show and the old XA10. Now with a little more money and possible selling the 80d, I am looking for real video. 

1. No 4k needed, and not wanted really. I do things like Go to Kindergarten while the paint pumpkins. Take real quick B-roll of all the actions, cute shots of them together. Super tight, super wide shots, mostly on mono pod (Gimbal in future) head up to my office and turn around a quick 1-2 min video in an hour. 4k would crush that workflow. And I do this all the time, a few times a week along with all these other videos I'm doing. 

2. Need a "no time limit" camera. This is why mirrorless won't work for this camera. Maybe one day, I'll dump the 6d for canon's new mirrorless or something else, but that's not the question right now. 

3. Much better picture in low light, mostly situations where I don't have ANY control of the light. Better than 80d or 6dmk2.

4. Oh, I also need to stream 1080p HDMI out which I know both c100's do. 

I feel like the mk1 could keep me with the 80d/6d for the 60p and run and gun work and maybe that is just stupid. Just go for the mk2 and use it for everything. Then I wouldn't have to worry about changing cameras all the time, just adding cameras for performances. 

Cheers

[newfoundmass]

55 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Thing that scares me is he wants to shoot "lots of performances on stage (2-3 camera shoots) including small theater (10), larger theater shows (4), and about 8 musical Performances. So it’s a HUGE variety of shooting and I’m a one man band". I would not call a original C100 a low light beast for indoor stuff. Sure he has some fast EFS lenses but you can't shoot wide open and hope to have crap in focus shooting back from the peanut gallery.

The c100 should do fine with stage lighting.

I never get asked about 4k. I really only shoot it when I know I'll need the extra resolution. He doesn't seem like he needs / wants 4k in the immediate future, so I wouldn't worry about it. He can always rent a camera if necessary. 

[webrunner5]

I don't know about the Sony A7 mk III,but there has been a hack out for years to get rid of the 30 minute thingy on Sony cameras. My A7s will record for as long as there is space on a SD card. And that can be for hours and hours of run time. And A7 series cameras don't really over heat. They fixed that with firmware. The A7s never did overheat. 

Yeah not having 60p on the original C100 is a bummer no doubt. Cheapest C100 mk II on ebay today is 2700 bucks. Main reason I have not done the old Buy it Now.

[ntblowz]

We shot event with live switch/live stream/live projection + QA with couple c100mkii and gh5s, works really well, full size hdmi out is a must cause I break so many mini/micro hdmi out cables in the past.

We also use 5D3 and M50 with C100mkii for some other shoots, they match really well together vs matching with other brand of camera. (like the GH5S and A7III I own).

I wouldnt do C100 on Ronin, too heavy and big for all day shoot, the 6D2/80D will be better for that, especially with touchscreen autofocus and fd and smaller size/weight overall. For stage event 30P is enough, i dont think i ever have to do a slowmo for those kind of stuff.

 

[kye]

In terms of budget, I'd say that you're about to spend a large sum of money so you should get a large upgrade.  Buying something that only adds a little to what you can do wouldn't be worth it.  

It sounds like you already have enough cameras for your multi-camera setup, so buying another one isn't a huge value-add.  In that sense you might be better off selling one of your existing cameras and using that extra money to make sure your purchase really gives you a lot more than your current setup.

I find that if you have analysed the problem well enough then the solution becomes obvious, so try making a list of all the current pain points in your setup (is it stabilisation, is it the 30 minute limit, is it something else?) and then rank them as to what the biggest ones are, then you'll be able to tell which potential purchase will give you the most benefit.

Good luck!!

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, kye said:

In terms of budget, I'd say that you're about to spend a large sum of money so you should get a large upgrade.  Buying something that only adds a little to what you can do wouldn't be worth it.  

 

Well stated. I don't see enough real gain over the 80D, 6D mk II either to be honest. They both have DPAF, flippy screens, and 60p touch to focus. What is even the C100 mk II bringing to the table other than ND filters, and a bit sharper output?  And he is not going to need the ND filters for what I see he is shooting.

[HockeyFan12]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Well stated. I don't see enough real gain over the 80D, 6D mk II either to be honest. They both have DPAF, flippy screens, and 60p touch to focus. What is even the C100 mk II bringing to the table other than ND filters, and a bit sharper output?  And he is not going to need the ND filters for what I see he is shooting.

What lenses were you using with the C100? In my experience the output is dramatically sharper than any Canon dSLR, and sharper than downscaled 4k Red to 1080p or Alexa 1080p... (not as sharp as 3.2k or 4k when upscaled, though). Absolute night and day difference, same with dramatically better lack of aliasing, better color, incredible battery life, better low light (even than the 5D III raw, which is also much softer than the C100 with less DR) etc. Better sensor than the Red MX, imo, and a half stop better dynamic range, just a much worse codec. (Dragon sensor is another story–better than either except for low light.) I'm not trying to call your experience with it into question, but I'd make sure you were using good lens samples and exposing properly if you got those results since it's far from my experience with the camera. (And I've shot it extensively as a b camera next to the C300, F5, Red MX, BMCC, Amira, Alexa, new Varicam, etc. and a lot of that footage ended up on tv, including tier one cable and I think even Netflix, where it intercut seamlessly.)

While it's my absolute favorite camera for the money, I still basically agree that it's not going to offer much over the 80D for web shooters. Yes, you get a much much better image with far more dynamic range and better tonality, but for most clients, either image is good enough and for those clients who require something really good... most of them don't want AVCHD and do want timecode sync. And the external recorders are a PITA and the lack of timecode sync sucks. I had to use them then sync with plural eyes and I can't stand them and can't stand plural eyes, either. 

So I agree with your sentiment, but not your experience. I suspect the lenses you were using with the C100 were faulty (shoddy adapter resulting in incorrect focus marks or something) in some way if those were your experiences.

I do agree that the Mk II is too long in the tooth to command its current price, but I find the Mk 1 to be an absolute steal at $2k. Personally, I would look to the C200, except it lacks proper timecode sync, too, so maybe I'd look to the FS7, but by then you're getting a quite large camera and quite expensive. ?

Of course I disagree respectfully, just trying to offer my own experience. But I'm stumped re: your experience with sharpness and DR as it does not mirror my own at all. I also find the neutral NDs to be a godsend, even if the strongest one isn't strong enough. Never had any luck with ND faders (color shift and the cross polarization messes with skin specularity) and even IRNDs have color shift, so I'm a big fan of internal NDs. Same with the ergonomic improvements and video features (waveform monitor, focus peaking, etc.)–indispensable. 

But the EVF is unusable and lack of slow motion is very ten years ago. I agree there. I'm not saying it's the right camera for the OP, just that its sharpness is stellar and I didn't share any of your ergonomic complaints except the EVF.

[IronFilm]

12 hours ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

Thanks, I feel like with the price of used Mk2's out there, the mk1 would just be a waste. I won't use 4k in my job for a long time, so that is NOT the issue for me. Just a camera that can do the things an 80d and 6dmk2 can't and look great. I'm hopeing in 2018 something will work for me that isn't $7k.

Consider a Sony FS5 or a secondhand FS7, they'll be 4K for when you do need it in the future and sell for well under $7K.

Another thought is the C300mk1 which goes for very cheap secondhand as well, as you're happy to give up 4K, and you gain a lot of extra features that the C100 lacks. Although those might not matter so much to you as it sounds you just do a lot as a solo run and gun guy.

 

 

12 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

They are Not dirt cheap here anymore for some reason with the DPAF. They run 1800 dollars or more. You can buy a brand new one from B&H for 1999 dollars. Stupid. I am not too sure an original one is worth 2 grand. Not with the GH5, GH5s and the Sony A7 mk III the same money or less. Heck you have the Fuji, Olympus EM1 mk II, on and on. This new Nikon, nah.

Those are all stills cameras. For a C series camera than yes sub $2K is very cheap indeed! 

And I'm seeing ones for US$1.5K with a buy it now price, and I'm sure you can find prices much lower than that BIN with a little patience. 

 

[newfoundmass]

There's no comparison between the C100 and Canon DSLRs; the IQ is far superior. It provides some of the best 1080p video I've ever seen, which is remarkable considering the codec.

The ergonomics, the pro features, no recording limit, etc. all fit what he's looking for. It's still a great camera and, in my opinion, a good deal. Crazy to see people arguing against it. 

[IronFilm]

I'm no Canon fanboy and even I can see it would be a good match for his needs :-P 

However it is worth giving a second look at the other options (FS5/FS7/LS300/UMP/etc) before pulling the trigger on the final decision of buying a C100/C300.

[webrunner5]

This is his cost statement.

"BUDGET: Top of my budget is around $1800ish and that would get me a c100, or if I sold my 80d, could be a stretch to get the mk2, but I feel 1 extra job will pay for the rest."

He is not going to bring Anything new to the table from what he already has with a C100, no matter the model. In this day and age a C100 is an antique.

And with 1800 bucks he Ain't buying no (FS5/FS7/LS300/UMP/etc).

[newfoundmass]

51 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

This is his cost statement.

"BUDGET: Top of my budget is around $1800ish and that would get me a c100, or if I sold my 80d, could be a stretch to get the mk2, but I feel 1 extra job will pay for the rest."

He is not going to bring Anything new to the table from what he already has with a C100, no matter the model. In this day and age a C100 is an antique.

And with 1800 bucks he Ain't buying no (FS5/FS7/LS300/UMP/etc).

You're acting like he's planning to buy an XL1 or something! That's an antique. You don't call a perfectly capable camera that meets most professional's requirements an antique because it doesn't shoot 4k or have insane HFR.

He'll get superior image quality, vastly better audio, better ergonomics, and the ability to record longer than 30 minutes (a necessity for the content he wants to produce).

The C100 is still used by tons of professionals even today. I know at least a dozen personally that shoot on it still, from studio work to going into war zones in Iraq to shoot news/documentary footage. I'm sure if he had the money he'd buy the C200 or C300, even if he still only shot in 1080p. But for under $2,000 and for his specific requirements (wanting to stay in the Canon family), he's not going to do any better than the C100 and it'll still be a relevant and capable camera for years to come. For his uses and budget it's a good investment. 

Hell, in a couple years he'll still be able to get something for it, probably at least half of what he'll pay for it, if he decides to sell or upgrade. 

[IronFilm]

Not just folks who still use the C100 as their main camera, but there are lots of people I know with say a FS700/C300mk2/UMP/REDs/etc who still bring out their C100 on a semi regular basis for their cheaper/smaller jobs such as the OP mostly does.