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

[Geoff CB]

For what you shoot, just get a used C100 and be happy

[webrunner5]

6 hours ago, ntblowz said:

Yeah first time for me to hear the sensor actually get burned, unfortunately I did encounter Sony A7sII overheat and shut down on me.

 

 

 

This is the combo I use for event, unlimited recording time, full size HDMI out, long battery  (well C100mKII battery is much longer with bigger battery), and never overheat whatsoever.

Wow gear lust. Yeah I can see that being able to get the job done. Yeah there is a reason Cine cameras are the way to go for big boy jobs that is for sure. Like I said always wanted the C100 mk II just can't justify it money  wise. Probably the OP can and should.

But it would seem to me hard to get the Canon and the Panny to match footage wise? Night and day difference it would seem to me.

[BrunoLandMedia]

1 minute ago, Geoff CB said:

For what you shoot, just get a used C100 and be happy

Yeah, after reading and re-reading the advice here and after seeing things head into the M4/3 conversation, it only makes me feel more like moving towards a c100 mkii. Since everyone's shooting situation is different and people hear have thoughtfully commented on mine, it seems the big signs point that way. c100 mkii offers me;

- 60p for my slow mo
- Native lens support and DPAF
- ND's Built in (which helps a guy running around outside at a school, weddings sometimes, etc.)
- No Time Limit recording
- I also believe that current USED price point (around $2500-2800) is going to be my best bet for a Cinima camera. mk3 would be out of my price range if one came out and who knows what the future holds. I actually almost pulled the trigger on one for $2480 2 weeks ago, but ended up being too scared, and now I'm kinda kicking myself, that was a good price I believe. 

Once again, thanks everyone for your thoughts and advice.  I think I am going to wait for a good price and start worrying about my shooting, not my gear. 

Cheers, Chris
 

[mercer]

10 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

Yeah, after reading and re-reading the advice here and after seeing things head into the M4/3 conversation, it only makes me feel more like moving towards a c100 mkii. Since everyone's shooting situation is different and people hear have thoughtfully commented on mine, it seems the big signs point that way. c100 mkii offers me;

- 60p for my slow mo
- Native lens support and DPAF
- ND's Built in (which helps a guy running around outside at a school, weddings sometimes, etc.)
- No Time Limit recording
- I also believe that current USED price point (around $2500-2800) is going to be my best bet for a Cinima camera. mk3 would be out of my price range if one came out and who knows what the future holds. I actually almost pulled the trigger on one for $2480 2 weeks ago, but ended up being too scared, and now I'm kinda kicking myself, that was a good price I believe. 

Once again, thanks everyone for your thoughts and advice.  I think I am going to wait for a good price and start worrying about my shooting, not my gear. 

Cheers, Chris
 

Good plan. The C100 version I or II will just get out of your way and let you work.

[webrunner5]

This site here is good for tracking cameras price wise.

https://n.stuccu.com/s/Canon+C100+Mark+Ii?drsm=5b7d6e30eba0c90fd4811958

[BrunoLandMedia]

You all have been great. One more question in regards to lenses. 

Ive seen a lot of talk of people using 24-105 f/4. Constant ap is Great but I thought f/4 was pretty slow still. Is it for the c100 or is the low light so good that f/4 can be as good as 2.8 on some dslrs?

my 70-200 2.8 and 35 f2 will be great but is there a go to zoom? 17-55 2.8? 24-105? Are those the only options? 

[Kisaha]

1 minute ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

You all have been great. One more question in regards to lenses. 

Ive seen a lot of talk of people using 24-105 f/4. Constant ap is Great but I thought f/4 was pretty slow still. Is it for the c100 or is the low light so good that f/4 can be as good as 2.8 on some dslrs?

my 70-200 2.8 and 35 f2 will be great but is there a go to zoom? 17-55 2.8? 24-105? Are those the only options? 

The low light of the C100mkII is amazing. 4f is great.

I enjoy the 18-135 as a cheap run n gun in some jobs.

The 24-105 is ok. In works we either prefer the L series (ultra wide, 24-70 and 70-200) or the 18-135. The 24-105 is lost in between those, rarely used.

I would love an C100mkIII (yes, the next one with touch DPAF) coupled with the 18-80 and 70-200 cheap CN-E lenses.

Again, in a market full of specs and imaginery uses of them (that never occur), I admire your pragmatistic and realistic thought process.

[webrunner5]

12 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

You all have been great. One more question in regards to lenses. 

Ive seen a lot of talk of people using 24-105 f/4. Constant ap is Great but I thought f/4 was pretty slow still. Is it for the c100 or is the low light so good that f/4 can be as good as 2.8 on some dslrs?

my 70-200 2.8 and 35 f2 will be great but is there a go to zoom? 17-55 2.8? 24-105? Are those the only options?

I have heard that the 24-105 f/4 is pretty noisy on the C100 focus wise? Going by what I have read about it. Never owned it.

[HockeyFan12]

1 hour ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

You all have been great. One more question in regards to lenses. 

Ive seen a lot of talk of people using 24-105 f/4. Constant ap is Great but I thought f/4 was pretty slow still. Is it for the c100 or is the low light so good that f/4 can be as good as 2.8 on some dslrs?

my 70-200 2.8 and 35 f2 will be great but is there a go to zoom? 17-55 2.8? 24-105? Are those the only options? 

I have more experience with the Mk I than Mk II (a lot more) but the low light on the Mk I is outstanding and I understand it's much better on the Mk II (due to more in-camera NR). If you expose properly and boost your ISO rather than trying to underexpose and push the footage in post, which is a mess with AVCHD, you'll have a usable image up to 20,000 ISO and a great image up to 4000-5000 ISO. So I would say a massive improvement over a Canon dSLR, but still significantly worse than an A7S for low light (where I would consider an f4 zoom fast enough). The A7S is much cleaner at extreme ISOs but smudges color more so it's a bit subjective which is preferable in medium low light, but I think the A7S is pretty clearly the extreme low light king.

I think you could get by with the 24-105mm, but I never found the 24-105mm great (granted, I was using it on FF) and I find the 18-135mm USM with the rocker zoom a lot better for crop. Constant aperture is less of an advantage if there's no rocker zoom, AF is worse, and it's not parfocal, so I wouldn't dwell on the one-stop advantage on the long end. If you have access to the 18-135mm and to the 24-70mm f4 IS, you're more than good for slow zooms imo.

I had two 17-55mm f2.8 IS lenses, but sold both. They're very useful but a bit old, not optically up to the latest. We put one up against a $50k Angenieux zoom and the Angenieux was much much better, but by f4 it was close enough. I think the newer Canon zooms would compete better. But I still slightly preferred its image to the 24-105mm. The  24-70mm f2.8 is also good zoom range to complement the 70-200mm and adequately fast, but poor for small spaces and terrible for real estate; I used the version one on a C100 and I liked it, but it could have gone wider. For me the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, a 50mm f1.8, and the 70-200 zoom make a great kit, but you have to be okay with swapping lenses. For documentary use or short form narrative I'd say that's an ideal kit, but for videography or news the 18-135mm Nano USM is far preferable. But imo the 24-105mm feels redundant with, and generally worse than, the superb 18-135mm Nano USM (I just sold one but I loved it while I had it, though I found the zoom rocker really cheap). 

If you have the money and don't need wide angle, the 24-70mm f2.8 Mk II is sick and might be the lens that spends the most time on your camera. Great image. Haven't used one myself but worked with someone who had one and was really impressed with the images and ergonomics. Can't vouch for the AF, though. Lack of IS is not a big deal with it since it doesn't go that long. I remember I rented out my 18-35mm Sigma as part of a kit and the DP refused to use it and went with the 24-70mm f2.8 II IS instead. I think the image is even better with the 24-70mm than with the Sigma, but both of those are outstanding lenses and the trade offs between them will depend on personal preference and brand loyalty. The Canon has better build quality, though, will last much longer imo.

I'd wait on a new lens until you're familiar with the camera. 

[BrunoLandMedia]

1 hour ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I think you could get by with the 24-105mm, but I never found the 24-105mm great (granted, I was using it on FF) and I find the 18-135mm USM with the rocker zoom a lot better for crop. Constant aperture is less of an advantage if there's no rocker zoom, AF is worse, and it's not parfocal, so I wouldn't dwell on the one-stop advantage on the long end. If you have access to the 18-135mm and to the 24-70mm f4 IS, you're more than good for slow zooms imo.

I've never been compelled to get the 24-105 from all the reviews, and on a crop/s35, it just isn't great, but the constant f/4 still seems better than the 18-135, but maybe I'm wrong. 

18-135 USM with power zoom: I have it, haven't used it with the c100 yet, but not amazing with my 80d. It totally works, but I always get better overall quality from my other lenses, even if they don't fit the situation. I guess I'll just have to see the quality with the c100 once I use the combo. 

70-200 f/2.8 II: Definitely the best lens I have, but not wide enough for a lot of situations, and not great for run and gun (weight & focal length). 

24-70 f/4 IS: It's weird, I'm just not that impressed with this lens. I've had it for a while, and the IS works for video, but I still keep the 35 f/2 on my 6d or the 16-35 f/4 most of the time. It's just never fast enough inside and things just never look as good. 24-70 f/2.8 could just never work for me without the IS for handheld and monopod video. 

Primes: 35 f/2 IS is great for me, I might even buy a second. Works for both Crop and FF. I'm looking at the 85 f/1.4 IS but it's so expensive. I might just settle for the 100mm f/2.8L IS but there are not a lot of reviews on this lens for video. Any thoughts? I know a slower 85 f/1.8 would be good for tripod but seems like a waste if I can't handhold. 

I guess everyone has a need for a fast zoom with IS. 24-70, 16-80. Anything really, but nothing seems to exist there right now. 

Ok, those are my lens complaints/questions. 

[HockeyFan12]

55 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

I've never been compelled to get the 24-105 from all the reviews, and on a crop/s35, it just isn't great, but the constant f/4 still seems better than the 18-135, but maybe I'm wrong. 

18-135 USM with power zoom: I have it, haven't used it with the c100 yet, but not amazing with my 80d. It totally works, but I always get better overall quality from my other lenses, even if they don't fit the situation. I guess I'll just have to see the quality with the c100 once I use the combo. 

70-200 f/2.8 II: Definitely the best lens I have, but not wide enough for a lot of situations, and not great for run and gun (weight & focal length). 

24-70 f/4 IS: It's weird, I'm just not that impressed with this lens. I've had it for a while, and the IS works for video, but I still keep the 35 f/2 on my 6d or the 16-35 f/4 most of the time. It's just never fast enough inside and things just never look as good. 24-70 f/2.8 could just never work for me without the IS for handheld and monopod video. 

Primes: 35 f/2 IS is great for me, I might even buy a second. Works for both Crop and FF. I'm looking at the 85 f/1.4 IS but it's so expensive. I might just settle for the 100mm f/2.8L IS but there are not a lot of reviews on this lens for video. Any thoughts? I know a slower 85 f/1.8 would be good for tripod but seems like a waste if I can't handhold. 

I guess everyone has a need for a fast zoom with IS. 24-70, 16-80. Anything really, but nothing seems to exist there right now. 

Ok, those are my lens complaints/questions. 

I'd wait until you have the camera and try everything out for a few shoots with it. That way, you'll really know what you need and what you don't.

I've heard the 24-70mm f2.8 VR Tamron is nice. Haven't tried it. I found the VR on their 17-50mm a little "sticky" though like it was locking on and jumping a bit. Or the 24-105mm might work for you after all if IS is important. But I find that I don't need IS when I have a cinema camera on a shoulder rig, or even when I use the EVF as a third point of contact, I need IS much less when the lens isn't too front-heavy. So I would try everything you have now and consider how the new ergonomics and low light improvement change your need for lenses, rather than buying everything at once.

Fwiw, the 100mm f2.8 IS is fantastic but imo not a material improvement over the 70-200mm imo unless you need macro specifically. Maybe at 8k or something it would be a little better, but the 70-200mm is already super sharp.

Gonna stop chiming in because I've already said just about all I know. Others will have more experience. I rarely shoot professionally anymore, so don't take my advice too seriously. I'm only back on the forum because I'm hoping to get back into shooting... just waiting for a price drop on the C200 lol. But my ideas are a bit old school; it was only recently I decided IS and AF for video wouldn't ruin everything completely... I still try to avoid them, which is probably stupid.

[mercer]

53 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

I've never been compelled to get the 24-105 from all the reviews, and on a crop/s35, it just isn't great, but the constant f/4 still seems better than the 18-135, but maybe I'm wrong. 

18-135 USM with power zoom: I have it, haven't used it with the c100 yet, but not amazing with my 80d. It totally works, but I always get better overall quality from my other lenses, even if they don't fit the situation. I guess I'll just have to see the quality with the c100 once I use the combo. 

70-200 f/2.8 II: Definitely the best lens I have, but not wide enough for a lot of situations, and not great for run and gun (weight & focal length). 

24-70 f/4 IS: It's weird, I'm just not that impressed with this lens. I've had it for a while, and the IS works for video, but I still keep the 35 f/2 on my 6d or the 16-35 f/4 most of the time. It's just never fast enough inside and things just never look as good. 24-70 f/2.8 could just never work for me without the IS for handheld and monopod video. 

Primes: 35 f/2 IS is great for me, I might even buy a second. Works for both Crop and FF. I'm looking at the 85 f/1.4 IS but it's so expensive. I might just settle for the 100mm f/2.8L IS but there are not a lot of reviews on this lens for video. Any thoughts? I know a slower 85 f/1.8 would be good for tripod but seems like a waste if I can't handhold. 

I guess everyone has a need for a fast zoom with IS. 24-70, 16-80. Anything really, but nothing seems to exist there right now. 

Ok, those are my lens complaints/questions. 

I loved the 24-70mm f/4. Sharp wide open with amazing IS. I swear the IS on that lens is as good as IBIS on the GX85. I also love the 35mm f/2... also with great IS.

If you’re looking for a good prime, the 28mm 1.8 is a great lens. On the C100 it would be a fast 40-45mm... soo worth it and if you have steady hands, it can work handheld.

[IronFilm]

9 hours ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

Ive seen a lot of talk of people using 24-105 f/4. Constant ap is Great but I thought f/4 was pretty slow still. Is it for the c100 or is the low light so good that f/4 can be as good as 2.8 on some dslrs?

 

Remember the Canon 24-105mm f4 sucks because the tele end is a lot darker than the wide end

None the less, it is still a very popular lens! Because of its wide range for a mid length FF zoom lens. 

 

[User]

The 18-35mm pretty much lives on my C100Mk2... my feet do the zooming.

The 24-105 is decent enough during daytime run and gun, but as others have mentioned, not a constant f4 so maybe that 18-135mm makes better sense... though I'd question the quality and probably not want to use it for personal projects.

You can't go wrong with the C100Mk2, it still the best bang for the buck out there.

[QB416]

On 8/22/2018 at 11:53 PM, IronFilm said:

Remember the Canon 24-105mm f4 sucks because the tele end is a lot darker than the wide end

None the less, it is still a very popular lens! Because of its wide range for a mid length FF zoom lens. 

I'm just a noob here but  your statement isn't really true. if you leave it on f4 and go through the range it doesn't change. Once you change it  (f5) then it will "go darker" when zooming.

On 8/22/2018 at 11:53 PM, IronFilm said:

 

 

[BrunoLandMedia]

Not sure if anyone has experience with eBay sellers internationally, but this looks like a great deal from a reputable seller. 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-C100-MK-II-Cinema-Camera-body-EF/223106003077?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

Any thoughts? Will I have to pay import taxes or something?

[BTM_Pix]

6 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

Not sure if anyone has experience with eBay sellers internationally, but this looks like a great deal from a reputable seller. 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-C100-MK-II-Cinema-Camera-body-EF/223106003077?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

Any thoughts? Will I have to pay import taxes or something?

I've not used them but if you look at their list of previously sold items in the Feedback Profile it is almost exclusively printer cartridges.

Some of them are Canon ones but thats about as close as you'll get to them having a track record of them selling Canon products.

 

[hijodeibn]

14 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

Not sure if anyone has experience with eBay sellers internationally, but this looks like a great deal from a reputable seller. 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-C100-MK-II-Cinema-Camera-body-EF/223106003077?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

Any thoughts? Will I have to pay import taxes or something?

Forget it….for a C100 only choose a seller with 100% positive feedback….and I have a lot of experience buying from ebay!!!

[webrunner5]

Wow that sounds damn expensive! Is that what you guys have to pay across the pond? Yikes! There is one on there for 2700 bucks, but local pickup only.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-C100-Mark-II-Cinema-EOS-Camera-64GB-Package/201274468445?hash=item2edce4a85d%3Ag%3AlLsAAOSwm8VUyAjA&LH_BIN=1

6 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

Forget it….for a C100 only choose a seller with 100% positive feedback….and I have a lot of experience buying from ebay!!!

There is no seller that has sold hundreds, thousands of items EVER going to have a 100% feedback rating! Ain't happening. You could give someone something for free and they would piss a bitch it took 3 days to get there LoL.

But yeah, I would not buy one from someone with 80% rating.

[IronFilm]

On 8/27/2018 at 6:11 AM, QB416 said:

I'm just a noob here but  your statement isn't really true. if you leave it on f4 and go through the range it doesn't change. Once you change it  (f5) then it will "go darker" when zooming.

 

Strange, I’d have expected that behaviour mainly when wide open?