C100 vs 5D3 Raw as a business investment

[gibbygoo]

I know this line of thought is going to sound dumb and woefully redundant (and maybe provocative) but after all I've read (and invested), I'm still struggling to see the overall advantages to shooting a 5D3 raw over a C100 in a production environment (specifically: regional commercial retail and fashion).

 

What am I missing? Is it the full frame sensor? A cost savings of a couple grand? The way I see it, $6-$8K for a camera is NOTHING for a business or even an independent contractor. Then again, I don't want to waste money if the hacked 5D3 can do the heavy lifting in a production environment.

 

We can all point to "tests" and all kinds of numbers. But seriously guys, look at what the C100 is putting out in skilled hands: 

 

What's the real argument for a hacked 5D3 over THAT???

 

This is the kind of work we aspire to do in 2014. The sample here is all on a C100, right to the card. Why would anyone opt for a 5D3 Raw for that kind of work? For the 60p in 720? Being able to suddenly be a still photographer? I don't know. So here I am asking y'all.

 

Any input on this from working videographers would be great. Thanks.

[Ben Prater]

No one doubts that the C-series from Canon creates amazing images. They all do. The C100 is a perfect workhorse camera and many cinematographers are using it as such.

 

The big limitation of the C100 is the codec -- it's 8-bit and its limited to a 24Mbps data rate. (Doesn't even meet broadcast spec.) It's a fairly minor limitation, given the images it pumps out.

 

The raw image coming from the 5D3 gives you a lot of additional latitude in post-production. 

 

5D3 raw isn't for daily commercial work. The C100 is. The C100 has all the bells/whistles designed for a working videographer.

 

If I were making a narrative film, I'd shoot on 5D3 raw. If I were shooting a documentary, I wouldn't want anything except the C100 in my hands. If I'm shooting a daily video online show, I'm all over the C100. If I'm shooting an experimental film, I'd want the 5D3 raw.

 

For the style of working that you are doing -- you'll want a C100 in your shop.

[gibbygoo]

Good points. Thanks for the input! Different applications call for different tools, that's for sure.

[Danyyyel]

Just to clarify that the C100/C300 are rated at 12 stop of DR up to 20 000 iso. The 5Dmark3 is rated at 11.7 in photo RAW mode. So it might not as straight forward as saying that a RAW camera has necessarily more DR. The problem is that we don't have any test putting them one against each other.

 

A second thing is that the C100 uncompressed hdmi out and that you can record it to 220 mbits 422 with an Atomos ninja. The last thing being that the 2003 Palme d'or was shot on C300 http://www.fdtimes.com/2013/05/28/canon-c300-cameras-win-cannes/ . In fact reaching a certain good enough level like true HD resolution, 12 stop DR and good to very good low-light things like Lighting will make a much much better impact to the final image quality.

[jgharding]

Horse for the course and all that. If you don't need stills, slow motion, or very very intensive post for ultimate quality go for C100.

 

If you mainly handle corporate etc just go for C100 and thank yourself.Day to day I mostly handle and shoot with C300 in paying work. Once you know it, it's pretty sexy. Cheap to hire! Great results if shot beautifully.

 

Raw is wonderfully flexible but very time consuming.

 

Apparently the video above doesn't exist, I'd like to see if you get a chance to relink though!

[Andrew Reid]

I know this line of thought is going to sound dumb and woefully redundant (and maybe provocative) but after all I've read (and invested), I'm still struggling to see the overall advantages to shooting a 5D3 raw over a C100 in a production environment (specifically: regional commercial retail and fashion).

 

It depends on what you're interested in as a filmmaker. If you want to leave something behind as an artist, make a statement and make a mark as a filmmaker the 5D Mark III with raw is a good way to do it. The image does justice to talent.

 

If you want to pick up a cheque at the end of the day the C100 will get you to pay day with minimum of fuss.

[Danyyyel]

 

 

Nearly completely shot on the C100, I think that if someone cannot do nice film with the C100, then no matter what technology he uses won't make a difference.

[hmcindie]

Sometimes it's great to just pickup the C100, shoot, edit and be done with it. Most of the productions done by C100 are just that. Work to be done. You can shoot good looking images and get audio straight in. Really boost your productivity compared to a DSLR.

 

But the 5dmarkIII is absolutely wonderful for personal projects that you WANT to fiddle with a long time.

 

It's also not just the RAW aspect. It's also the fullframe.

[hmcindie]

The 5Dmark3 is rated at 11.7 in photo RAW mode

 

The great thing about RAW is that you can squeeze stuff out. Even if the shadows are noisy, neatvideo can do absolutely magic to RAW. It doesn't clean up H264 nearly as well.

[Danyyyel]

It seems that everyone forget that you can add a Ninja to get 220 mbit 422 prores files. From my experience with the D7100 it gives you much better image quality with better resolution and much better gradability before the image breaks-up. If you have a basic skill set and know what you want to achieve some gorgeous shot with the C100 type of camera. Raw is better but show me better production from raw 5d3, than the stillmotion video I posted above. Again, if you can't do beautiful shot with a C100 then no tech will make your shot better.