BenEricson Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Thousands of professional videos done with GoPro, GH4, Dji cameras, thousands of Professional videos........... *With all due respect, enthusiasts seem to do too much talking and have no idea how things work in the "real" worldThis really comes to mind when I think of the C100 vs A7S/5D raw etc. The canon c100 is a workhorse and looks beautiful with little to no post work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 How do you guya think now after seeing the Clog footage samples? I am in love with the image and weirdly with the lens, just a very large range that covers landscapes to close ups to telephoto with any optical flaws throuought the range as I can see, no fringing, no corner softness, and of course most importantly how the colours look, DR seems very high in C Log too, and one thing, the sharpness in C log is COMPLETELY off, like the 1DC 0 sharpnrss image which is very detailed yet soft and organic. I love this specific quality and I think it's the sole reason why people see gh4/rx10/ax100/fz1000 to look videoish, because sharpness can't be completely off. The AF seems to track people'a faces perfectly at 240mm with quite a shallow DOF.It seems like a camera you can give to an kid, and get great filmic, in-focus, steady images.I am really falling in love with the C-log image at 2000$ is very tempting, just need to see a lowlight test. If it does well in lowlight this will be my wedding camera, as I've always wanted AF at weddings and hated changing lenses and wanted shallow DOF but not SO much, so the XC10 looks like a small beast for beauty weddings, wide, mids, close ups, teles, IS 5 axis, 4K res, small size, unlimited recording, just looks lovely for that kind of application where you want a camcorder AF, lens range, NDs, body, unlimited recording, yet don't want to completelt lose the filmic look. The fact that it's a broadcast approved codec gives a LOT of value too if I plan shooting something and still have the option to offer it to broadcasters, like documentaries and nature pieces. Just waiting for a low light test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.f.r. Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 This really comes to mind when I think of the C100 vs A7S/5D raw etc. The canon c100 is a workhorse and looks beautiful with little to no post work. Way to go totally off topic, my post was relevant to the discussion......Now let me entertain you since you obviously want some attention. A7s shoots in S-Log mode for maximum dynamic range the cost is learning how to grade the footage (I've posted pics). 5D Mark III RAW requires a RAW workflow, for those who want great colors, high bit rate and many other advantages of RAW then workflow of converting/exporting and grading files is the cost.C100 is a run and gun designed camera, built in Nd's, Xlr, EVF, long lasting batteries and countless programmable buttons + much more. These cameras are used a lot for Documentaries, tv shows, bts, interviews, etc. If you can afford the new C100 Mark II at around $5K+ then it's a great camera for what it's intended for. Now around the $1500-$3K you have GH4, NX1, A7s, 5D, Nikon etc. and of course Blackmagic Cameras. Every single camera has it's + / - choose your tool and create art as they are ALL capable of creating a great quality image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tugela Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 How do you guya think now after seeing the Clog footage samples? I am in love with the image and weirdly with the lens, just a very large range that covers landscapes to close ups to telephoto with any optical flaws throuought the range as I can see, no fringing, no corner softness, and of course most importantly how the colours look, DR seems very high in C Log too, and one thing, the sharpness in C log is COMPLETELY off, like the 1DC 0 sharpnrss image which is very detailed yet soft and organic. I love this specific quality and I think it's the sole reason why people see gh4/rx10/ax100/fz1000 to look videoish, because sharpness can't be completely off. The AF seems to track people'a faces perfectly at 240mm with quite a shallow DOF.It seems like a camera you can give to an kid, and get great filmic, in-focus, steady images.I am really falling in love with the C-log image at 2000$ is very tempting, just need to see a lowlight test. If it does well in lowlight this will be my wedding camera, as I've always wanted AF at weddings and hated changing lenses and wanted shallow DOF but not SO much, so the XC10 looks like a small beast for beauty weddings, wide, mids, close ups, teles, IS 5 axis, 4K res, small size, unlimited recording, just looks lovely for that kind of application where you want a camcorder AF, lens range, NDs, body, unlimited recording, yet don't want to completelt lose the filmic look. The fact that it's a broadcast approved codec gives a LOT of value too if I plan shooting something and still have the option to offer it to broadcasters, like documentaries and nature pieces. Just waiting for a low light test. Footage shot for broadcast can't be transcoded? I did not know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tugela Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I didn't realize the XC10 was that lightweight. What does it weigh?Just under a kilogram IIRC. It isn't lightweight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I read 230 grammes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tugela Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I read 230 grammes No way. That would make it lighter than the RX100.With a 24-240mm zoom on a 1 inch sensor, and given it's general dimensions from PR pictures, it is more likely around 850g or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Sorry, yea... 2.3 pounds.... Brain playing tricks on me so early in the morning Still a lightweight camera though... Much the same as a GH4 with kit lens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 That's not very light. The C100 is 2.1 lbs without a lens. Wonder why they're marketing it as a drone camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Because most drones not built for GoPro can take that payload.You have 3 tiers of drone work and they are clearly marketing it for tier 2 (GH4, BMPCC etc rigs) and hoping to grab some of tier 3 too (C300, RED etc rigs) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I guess cost is comparable to tier 2, but if one could put a pancake wide angle on a C100 for the same weight as the XC10 I just don't see a reason for it in the drone space. The C Log footage does look great though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 4K and 4:2:2 is the reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 If GH4 does add v-log and it works well in the 4:2:0 colour space, I think most will choose that option... Though rolling shutter might sway it back in the direction of the XC10Btw - I really am not yet sold on this thing... Need to see it in person, test it out etc... I just think it MIGHT be a good option for drone and gimbal use, if you need 4K and good DR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 4K and 4:2:2 is the reasonAh yes. Forgot about 4K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhar Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Is 4:2:2 worth the extra cost/storage/etc. over 4:2:0 for 4K, especially if you're going to down-res to 1080p? Except for specific situations like green screen work, seems to be more a marketing/headlline feature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Broadcast networks like the BBC generally only allow 4:2:2 50mbps+ , so whether we can really see a difference or not, it is often worth it.As storage is cheap, i'd rather have better IQ, for sure. Just wish they would start adding 10 bit, that is the real leap in quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhar Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 On-camera storage is not cheap: XC10 is requiring expensive CFast cards for its codec and 4:2:2 4K, so there is absolutely a tradeoff worth discussing when considering XC10. Agreed though that 10 bit is more important, I'm sure it will become mainstream once Rec 2020 kicks in and 10 bit displays become commonplace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I would prefer the option to lower the bitrate, rather than move from 4:2:2 to 4:2:0The less colour info thrown away, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnymossville Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 There's no EVF on this thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 The LCD is both a 3.2" tiltable screen, and it comes with an optical loup that turns the LCD into a high quality electronic viewfinder (many external EVFs are LCDs with a high quality optics in a loup)But of course the downside here is you add an extra step of attaching the loup before you can use the EVF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.