Hi hopes for the possible C100 MKIII announcement leading up to or at NAB. I have been ready to buy a C300 MKII for a while but it's lack of 4K 60p, plus the overall cost for me to upgrade from my C100 has been holding me back. If it was just a camera body upgrade for $12k, okay, but add in all of the rigging stuff from Wooden or Movcam, $2k worth of new batteries, $2k worth of CFast cards, a new, larger capacity Sachtler head and legs to hold it all and I am knocking on the door of $25k. C100 MKIII will have 4K, but probably won't have 4K 60P although it's possible. It will still be stuck with HDMI, which I hate on the C100 but I make do with it. Pairing the C100 MKIII, assuming it will have some sort of internally hobbled recording scheme, with a CD Odyssey 7Q+ or Atomos Shogun Inferno would result in a nicely capable 4k EOS Cinema solution at around $8K. And I could continue to use my Sachtler DV6 SB and Miller Solo DV CF legs. But might have to buy new batteries and media for the camera, depending on what version of 4K they deem appropriate for the C100 MKIII.

Any thoughts? We are due for the C100 MKIII. Doesn't mean Canon will give it to us, but by the calendar and previous releases, it would be logical for them to intro at NAB 2017.

From Canon's perspective if they added 4k and 60p to the C100 III why would anyone buy their C300 II for $12k? In addition you'd have a long wait for anything announced to be available. People have been grumbling about these issues but are they enough to make you jump ship? I'd assume Canon will have change their tune if they lose significant market share to a competitor. Which I believe only Sony offers a similar option.

As a C100 owner and one who shoots with the C300 MKII as a rental occasionally, I have thought about this. You are correct, I don't think they will give the C100 MKIII too many features that are better than the C300 MKII, that would be a strategic blunder. But they know they are losing a lot of market share to the FS5 and FS7 as well as a few to the Ursa Mini so the need for a sub $10k EOS Cinema camera is there.

There would be a way to utilize 4K in the C100 MKIII with an inferior codec to the C300 MKII, much like the AVCHD in the C100 MKII was inferior to the XF codec in the C300 MKI. This would be the real differentiator between spending $12k for a C300 MKII and $6k for a C100 MKIII. One to CFAST cards at up to 410 Mbps with the cheaper C100 MKIII perhaps utilizing a 100 Mbps or 150 Mbps highly compressed codec to SD cards? The Panasonic DVX200 and others utilize this sort of 4K at up to 150Mbps, using SD cards. Those who want/need better could still output to a Atomos, CD or SD external recorder?

The C100 MKII was introduced well after the C300 MKI and featured 1080 60p while the C300 MKI was stuck with 720 60p so there is precedent for the C100 MKIII having 4K 60p but a more highly compressed codec to get there.

The C100 MKIII will be stuck with HDMI only while the C300 MKII has SDI and HDMI outputs. The C300 MKII also has the ability to record and output up to three different codecs simultaneously, which the C100 MKIII probably will not be able to do.

C300 MKII also has PL mount option which the C100 MKIII won't.

Knowing Canon's past actions and strategic mindset, I think there is way for Canon to intro a C100 MKIII while still keeping up the sales of the C300 MKII. Time will tell if this conjecture or reality.

I've used the original C100 since it came out. Despite the big issue of a poor viewfinder, the camera has delivered excellent results.

Now I'm ready to move on. As of yet I don't have a client need/request for 4K. However I do have a need for 2K. I've shot three features at 1080, and in the end my deliverable is a 2K DCP.

Making a 2K file from 1920x1080 works fine, but it would be great to record in 2K in-camera.

Perhaps Canon could make this option available as differentiation from the C300. I have no idea how many people would want 2K as an option.

I've never loved Sony menus and ergonomics but I'd make the move if need be.

Does Canon have a "low" bit-rate UHD codec? It's not like they would use XAVC-L. It seems like an excellent way to differentiate the C100 from the C300, but then they also have budget cameras like the XC10/XC15 that use C-Fast and high bitrate recording. You would think they would push their existing workflows.

I've used the original C100 since it came out.

Quite a coincidence, I too have a C100. I am starting a feature doc at the end of March and when I asked the producer if they needed/wanted to shoot 4K, they replied, "No, 2k should be fine". Then I had to tell them my camera doesn't shoot 2k.

I might ask them if they will pay a decent day rate and might buy a C300 MKII as this shoot would pay for about half of it, not sure yet though. I think 2k 12bit 4 4 4 would be ideal for this film but not sure how much we are shooting. It is being shot in South America and we are supposed to be going very lean as far as gear, not sure if I could afford enough CFast cards for the shoot and I am not sure I want to drag my laptop and drives.

But I hate to buy a new camera just a few weeks ahead of NAB.

Does Canon have a "low" bit-rate UHD codec? It's not like they would use XAVC-L. It seems like an excellent way to differentiate the C100 from the C300, but then they also have budget cameras like the XC10/XC15 that use C-Fast and high bitrate recording. You would think they would push their existing workflows.

Figuring their strategy out is just about impossible, other than the generalities that Canon is mostly a follower, not an innovator, they are conservative and they don't take chances, other than by leaving key features out of their cameras. (unusable EVF on C100 MKI, no in camera 4K C500, no 4K 60p on C300 MKII) It was obviously a huge blunder for them not include 4K 60P on what was at the beginning, a $15k or $16k camera when the competition does much higher frame rates at cameras that are half of the cost (FS7)

But we keep buying their cameras because of glass investment, DPAF and skin tones, or at least I do.

Hi hopes for the possible C100 MKIII announcement leading up to or at NAB. I have been ready to buy a C300 MKII for a while but it's lack of 4K 60p, plus the overall cost for me to upgrade from my C100 has been holding me back. If it was just a camera body upgrade for $12k, okay, but add in all of the rigging stuff from Wooden or Movcam, $2k worth of new batteries, $2k worth of CFast cards, a new, larger capacity Sachtler head and legs to hold it all and I am knocking on the door of $25k. C100 MKIII will have 4K, but probably won't have 4K 60P although it's possible. It will still be stuck with HDMI, which I hate on the C100 but I make do with it. Pairing the C100 MKIII, assuming it will have some sort of internally hobbled recording scheme, with a CD Odyssey 7Q+ or Atomos Shogun Inferno would result in a nicely capable 4k EOS Cinema solution at around $8K. And I could continue to use my Sachtler DV6 SB and Miller Solo DV CF legs. But might have to buy new batteries and media for the camera, depending on what version of 4K they deem appropriate for the C100 MKIII.

Any thoughts? We are due for the C100 MKIII. Doesn't mean Canon will give it to us, but by the calendar and previous releases, it would be logical for them to intro at NAB 2017.

I doubt the the C100 III will have 4k 60p, Canon likes small incremental upgrades. You should look into the GH5, with it's internal 10bit 4k and 4k 60p it's going to be superior to the C100 II and the III, additionally a smaller form factor, of coarse unless you don't have any need for 10bit and tend to shoot with very high ISO settings. ,

I had a GH4, I really, really disliked everything about it. The colors were awful pastels, very unflattering to people, audio was terrible, high noise on anything over ISO 400, I disliked M43 DOF and FOV, pretty much kept it for a few months, shot one corporate piece and a PBS doc and sold it with all of the lenses, everything. Two of my clients specifically requested that we never use that camera again. Sold it and bought the C100, the same two clients love the images from it. No way I would ever buy a GH5, it's just a more fully featured GH4.

I've said this before but people get carried away with numbers when image quality is more important. Just look at the GH5 thread, people were working themselves into a frenzy and anointing it and claiming it was the death nell for all other dslrs before they had even laid hands on it. People often confuse what they want with what they need. I personally think 60p is a valuable feature especially if you do much slow mo. 4k gives more flexibility for post cropping and stabilization but is far from essential. People get very worked up if their camera doesn't have 4k even if they don't need it.

Pete, whilst I agree with some of the hysteria in that thread, please don't tar us all with the same brush. I can assure you I do have a need for 4k with several clients a year now requesting it. 60p 4K is therefore of value to me as is 10bit 4:2:2 for grading vlog footage. Something I am doing now with the GH4, though struggling with the 8 bit image.

I had a GH4, I really, really disliked everything about it. The colors were awful pastels, very unflattering to people, audio was terrible, high noise on anything over ISO 400, I disliked M43 DOF and FOV, pretty much kept it for a few months, shot one corporate piece and a PBS doc and sold it with all of the lenses, everything. Two of my clients specifically requested that we never use that camera again. Sold it and bought the C100, the same two clients love the images from it. No way I would ever buy a GH5, it's just a more fully featured GH4.

Actually colours are improved on the GH5, as is ISO performance. There's a new audio module that can be purchased that will improve on the sound. Plus 5 axis IS for better handheld work. Wide range of codecs, a Log profile, with a Summer upgrade that will allow better compatibility with HDR. So I'd say it's got the potential to be a worthy competitor to the C100 if it delivers on its promise, if nothing else.

If they got rid of the M43 sensor, I might consider it, I come from a long lineage of owning and renting Panasonic cameras. I owned the DVX100A, HVX200, HPX170, HPX300 and used to rent the Varicams, both the tape and P2 units quite a bit. That's why I was so disappointed with the GH4, no bright, vivid colors with flattering skin tones. No good quality audio. The lenses were like toys to me, they all kind of seemed small and cheap, even the expensive ones.

I was stuck with 1/3" sensors in most of the Panasonics that I owned, but once I moved to DSLRs, then S35 imagers in my Canons and in the REDs, Arris and C300 MKII that I rent, there is no going back to M43. The FOV and DOF are both subpar for my needs. Clients like shallow DOF, not too shallow but more than I could get with the GH4. They like clean images without a lot of noise and grain. The GH4 was a good hobbyist camera but for clients and budgets, not the right tool. The GH5 will be the same, not a terrible camera, great specs but not the right tool set for what I do. The GH4 was simply an experiment for me to see if I could reduce the weight of gear I have to lug through airports while gaining a 4K image. It failed miserably for that, it was small and light but our clients hated the images.

I've said this before but people get carried away with numbers when image quality is more important. Just look at the GH5 thread, people were working themselves into a frenzy and anointing it and claiming it was the death nell for all other dslrs before they had even laid hands on it. People often confuse what they want with what they need. I personally think 60p is a valuable feature especially if you do much slow mo. 4k gives more flexibility for post cropping and stabilization but is far from essential. People get very worked up if their camera doesn't have 4k even if they don't need it.

I agree, that's why I have stuck with our C100 and C300, up until recently, most of our clients actively avoided 4K, they did not have the infrastructure to edit and archive it, bigger files, they mostly delivered 1080 as their final product. The times we shoot with a greater than 4K camera, they have requested 1080 delivery from it, not even 4K. I am starting to get requests though. I shot the worldwide promo campaign with Lauren Graham for the Netflix reboot of Gilmore Girls last Fall. We shot it in 1080 and the editor, was punching in on it to make it look like a two camera shoot. The good news was (it was green screen), the punch in worked remarkably well, luckily it was for the web. The bad news was, that should have been a 4k or two camera shoot, I discussed it with the client afterward and they agreed. We are lining up to shoot more for Netflix and Hulu and they require 4K origination and delivery so for me, 4K is a requirement now, even though some our clients will still request 1080 delivery.

I have to say, even wedding videographers and event videographers are starting to get 4K demands, it's pretty much a given now that the majority of working pros need 4K. Hobbyists, not so much.

If they got rid of the M43 sensor, I might consider it,

Dan, not all of us are anti micro 4/3's, and value the camera because of a sensor size that gives us a smaller camera and smaller lenses; ideal for solo work, especially when filming with multiple cameras. Whilst lenses can look like toys, it is results that matter and those like the voigtlander are professionally made if one isn't too snobbist to look down on its smaller form factor.
Nor do we all share your video requirements and type of clients. Its clear the GH5 would be a poor choice for your line of work, but it is still a worthy contender for the C100 for some users, whatever your personal needs and feelings on the matter.

I disagree the GH4 is a hobbyist camera, as it is used by Professionals including myself and has been used in some TV shows, albeit as a B camera or for aerial footage. In fact I have seen the GH4 paired with a 12mm olympus, the very definition of a toy like lens, which was used on a TV show. So clearly it was Professional enough for them. As you say, it is a case of the right tool for the job, but not everyone has the same job and arguably the same requirements.

Of course, it is somewhat heresy to say this on a Canon thread, but many C100 operators that I know have moved to the Sony FS5 or FS7. Again, colours are not great out of the box, but I've seen a fair few videos where grading has paid dividends. Canon are dragging their heels with 4K. The C100 Mark ii was a great time to implement it and would have had me snapping one up in a heart beat. I can't see how 4K at 100mbps would have cut into their C300 line. If the Canon Mark III offers some form of 4K recording, I'd certainly be interested. However unless they announce one this year, I'd be wondering if they even plan on having a replacement released.

The GH4 /5 and similar dslrs have there place for live events. Their small footprint make them ideal for gimbal work and low cost ideal for multiple camera shoots. There are all levels of budgets and requirements so it's silly to look down at any camera , "Oh you're using..."

My view on 4k is beyond digital streaming there isn't currently or in the near future viable methods to deliver it. You need a 4k tv, a 4k player and some sort of 4k media and/or the bandwidth to stream 4k. What is the % of the public that meet that criteria?

Clients who ask for it might not understand this. Just saying 4k makes me feel good but at least in my line of work I'm still delivering SD and struggling to find ways to physically deliver HD let alone 4k. Of course we all live in different worlds.

At this point, I have to have 4K. I would pick up a C100 that had 4K to use as a secondary camera to my C300 Mark II, but so far that's the XC10/15 and while that is a really nice camera in certain respects, I need an EF mount. So right now, that's the A7R Mark II for me.

I believe the Canon 5D IV is also 4k

The codec isn't that good. Not that it doesn't deliver a nice image, but its akin to using a sledgehammer to bang in a nail. Now if it was 10 bit 4:2:2, I could excuse the large file size. Plus it lacks focus peaking and all the other useful video features that make our lives a bit easier. Pretty sure there's a time limit to recordings just to add insult to injury. It's designed perhaps understandably as a Photographic tool that does video, rather than one that gives equal measure to both. My personal opinion mind.

My view on 4k is beyond digital streaming there isn't currently or in the near future viable methods to deliver it. You need a 4k tv, a 4k player and some sort of 4k media and/or the bandwidth to stream 4k. What is the % of the public that meet that criteria?



I would say online delivery is becoming more common every year. Whilst DVD is still popular amongst my Wedding clients - maybe 50% of them requesting it, I'm finding more and more prefer USB and in that I deliver both HD and 4K files. I can play 4K files via USB plugged directly to my TV and on my Parents new 4K TV, without any need of a player.

Youtube and Vimeo offer 4K playback. There are 4K Blurays, though this hasn't extended to recordables, but how long before it does. I've had Wedding clients contacting me and asking if I did 4K. Netflix is now 4K; do you think they'd insist all their original shows adhere to that format if they didn't have customers making use of it. It's a small margin now, but a growing one that I can see taking off more paired with HDR.

Dan, not all of us are anti micro 4/3's, and value the camera because of a sensor size that gives us a smaller camera and smaller lenses; ideal for solo work, especially when filming with multiple cameras.

That was exactly why I purchased it and all I can say is, generally, I rarely see video or still images from M43 imagers that impress me. I have had most other size imagers as well (1/3', 2/3", FF, S35) and I could say the same about 1/3" sensors, they are too noisy, grainy and the FOV and DOF is a handicap for most of my work, thank goodness Panasonic finally saw the light and make small fixed lens cameras with larger imagers. But even the DVX200, I have really wanted to like the images from it but I have only seen one or two examples, out of dozens or possibly even hundreds I have looked at that I would consider desirable for me, my work and my clients. It's not the lighting and compositional skills of the shooters using the DVX200, its the camera/imager. It looks okay but does not have the nice colors and skin tones of even my old HPX170. Someone at Panasonic lost "the touch" with their lower end cameras and I don't know why. I look at a lot of footage I even shot years ago in 720p with the HVX200 and the HPX170 and it objectively looked a lot better than the GH4. That's another reason I bought the GH4, I though it would be a small, changeable lens, 4K version of what I could get out of the HPX170 and it wasn't even close. Sure, higher resolution but everything else was not as good.

Whilst lenses can look like toys, it is results that matter and those like the voigtlander are professionally made if one isn't too snobbist to look down on its smaller form factor.
Nor do we all share your video requirements and type of clients. Its clear the GH5 would be a poor choice for your line of work, but it is still a worthy contender for the C100 for some users, whatever your personal needs and feelings on the matter.

I don't judge anyone's skills or visual storytelling capability by the camera they shoot with. I just personally found that M43 and for that matter, 1/3" sensors don't work for our clients and my aesthetic preference. Doesn't mean I think they are bad, they are just not what I choose to use for work and our clients have responded in like. With the GH4, they actually would get irritated when shooting an interview and we couldn't really make the BG as shallow DOF as they were used to or liked and we were shooting these interviews in people's homes, not on a set so there was no way to move the camera and subject further apart to gain shallower DOF since the room the producer had chosen was for specific aesthetic reasons. They would take the correctly lit and exposed images into post and ask why there was so much graininess, even in the footage shot at ISO 400. Some of my GH4 footage was intercut with some C300 footage shot by another crew in Washington and the comparison was amazing, that was when I decided to buy a C100, then a C300. I had lit the interviews to look good and they looked decent, but compared to the C300 interviews the other crew shot, I was embarrassed at how much softer, grainier and less defined the interviews I shot looked. And the C300 was obviously in 1080 versus the 4K images we shot on the GH4.

I disagree the GH4 is a hobbyist camera, as it is used by Professionals including myself and has been used in some TV shows, albeit as a B camera or for aerial footage. In fact I have seen the GH4 paired with a 12mm olympus, the very definition of a toy like lens, which was used on a TV show. So clearly it was Professional enough for them. As you say, it is a case of the right tool for the job, but not everyone has the same job and arguably the same requirements.

I have a fellow DP colleague I speak with who used a GH4 as a POV camera on a quad for a TV show and as a crash cam for some explosions next to Go Pros. A useful tool for many people, I don't dispute that, just not my choice as an A camera I am hanging my career on.

Anyway, this is supposed to be a thread about a possible upcoming C100 MKIII, not a GH4/GH5 thread so back to our original programming...

Anyway, this is supposed to be a thread about a possible upcoming C100 MKIII, not a GH4/GH5 thread so back to our original programming...

To be honest, concerning the GH4/5, I really didn't need you to clarify your feelings and experiences any further. You had already made your position pretty clear to me in your earlier replies and are now guilty of somewhat milking the point here.

Personally regarding your situation, I would say the C100 in any form is not Professional enough for your needs. From the description of your work and clients, I'd stump up for the C300 Mark ii. No way will the C100 mark iii have 4K 60p. That just would be a leap too far. Plus the 4K at 30p would be a weaker codec than what the C300 would offer. Fine for event filming, but no way suitable for broadcast or the discerning client. The C300 is the Professional choice over the C100.

Of course there's another alternative, the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II, which does 4k at 60p, but suffers from the same terrible codec that blights the 5d Mark IV that gives enormous file sizes for no good reason. Plus it's a crop of the sensor as per the 5d. Still consistent with the C100 angle of view. It is a well regarded professional camera and has a smaller size. A slightly cheaper option when considering rigging and accessories, if 4k at 60p is really that important.

To be honest, concerning the GH4/5, I really didn't need you to clarify your feelings and experiences any further. You had already made your position pretty clear to me in your earlier replies and are now guilty of somewhat milking the point here.

It sounds as if you have a personal attachment to and have wrapped up your identity in your choice of camera Steve. I didn't intend to hurt your feelings. I'm not emotionally intertwined with which camera I own or rent. I shot a decent budget project recently just using two Go Pros (in-car stuff). I use a "lowly" 1080 only Canon 80D on my Zhiyun Crane, even though everyone else looks down on it because it's not a mirrorless 4K camera like a GH4, or an A6300. I like small, cheap cameras for certain things. Good enough for the client and for CBS as B camera. My only real conviction about cameras is that we all should shoot with what makes sense financially, what makes our clients happy and whatever camera makes us money.

Personally regarding your situation, I would say the C100 in any form is not Professional enough for your needs. From the description of your work and clients, I'd stump up for the C300 Mark ii.

We often do, depending on the client and project. Some of our corporate clients are very happy with the C100 when we team it with the Atomos Ninja Blade and we can hand them Prores HQ files at the end of the shoot. But Netflix, Hulu, PBS and several of the studios are now upping their origination requirements to 4K (UHD) 4:2:2. Have not seen anyone yet require DCI though, UHD seems to be the new standard. For those clients, renting the C300 MKII often works. Unless they want Sony, RED or Arri. I am always happy to rent whatever the client wants/needs. In some ways, it's better because we don't have to invest money in one system when clients want us to shoot with other cameras.

No way will the C100 mark iii have 4K 60p. That just would be a leap too far.

Time will tell. Some think that Canon won't even introduce a C100 MKIII, at least at NAB. A few have posted that Canon may introduce something higher cost with more features, but it won't be until the Fall of this year. Who knows? Canon is rarely one to tip their hat about what they are coming out with.

Plus the 4K at 30p would be a weaker codec than what the C300 would offer. Fine for event filming, but no way suitable for broadcast or the discerning client. The C300 is the Professional choice over the C100.

It should be for two to three times the price. But we have used the C100 for quite a few professional/broadcast projects as well, (almost always output to the Blade to overcome the weaker internal codec) just depends on the clients, their needs and of course, their budgets. Budgets are generally shrinking in our client base so if they cannot afford the day rate for an F55, C300 MKII or better, then they sometimes only have budget for the C100 or C300. That's why we keep it and keep using it, it's still making us profit.

Of course there's another alternative, the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II, which does 4k at 60p, but suffers from the same terrible codec that blights the 5d Mark IV that gives enormous file sizes for no good reason. Plus it's a crop of the sensor as per the 5d. Still consistent with the C100 angle of view. It is a well regarded professional camera and has a smaller size. A slightly cheaper option when considering rigging and accessories, if 4k at 60p is really that important.

We've been tempted, the images from it looks good, but having shot collectively quite a lot of projects with the 5D MKII, MKIII, GH4 and a few others, the DSLR form factor doesn't work well. Lack of internal NDs, lack of time code, having to shoot dual system sound, it just doesn't work for how we shoot. We're the classic case of needing a video or digital cinema camera. Our clients don't have time to transcode formats to easily editable formats (they prefer Prores), they hated when we had to hand them separate audio files to sync with the camera scratch tracks, and they often want to go from tripod to shoulder mounted with fast zooms and the ability to provide smooth, steady footage for long periods of times. A video or digital cinema camera works better for all of these reasons.

It sounds as if you have a personal attachment to and have wrapped up your identity in your choice of camera Steve. I didn't intend to hurt your feelings.

Nah, I just have a low boredom threshold for reading the same stuff over and over again.

Our clients don't have time to transcode formats to easily editable formats (they prefer Prores), they hated when we had to hand them separate audio files to sync with the camera scratch tracks, and they often want to go from tripod to shoulder mounted with fast zooms and the ability to provide smooth, steady footage for long periods of times. A video or digital cinema camera works better for all of these reasons.

I agree on all of this. If I was in your shoes, I'd go for the C300. As for the C100, if Canon introduces a Mark III with 4K and as long as they don't cripple it too hard, it'll be a camera on my list to buy. I have some projects where it would be very useful.

As you say, time will tell if Canon releases such a thing.

To be blunt Canon does make the camera with the specs you want, it's called the C300 mkII. You might not like the price well neither do I but in fairness that's not Canon's problem. I want a lot of things but if my clients or type of work doesn't warrant the price tag you just live with in your means.

Canon does offer 4k under the c300 but it comes with caveats. But why wouldn't it otherwise there would be no reason to buy the c300. That's why C100 mkIII can't have all the specs you want. We can dance round and round the issue. In a nutshell you want to pay c100 price with c300 features. Not going to happen.

I agree on all of this. If I was in your shoes, I'd go for the C300. As for the C100, if Canon introduces a Mark III with 4K and as long as they don't cripple it too hard, it'll be a camera on my list to buy. I have some projects where it would be very useful.

As you say, time will tell if Canon releases such a thing.

On the fence now about buying the C300 MKII. Have a big documentary coming up where the client requested we shoot 2K and I would love to shoot the 2k 12 bit 4:4:4 for this, which looks amazing and makes the CFast cards last so much longer at 225 MBps versus 410 Mbps for 4K. But I know it will be a small shoot, with a small crew and we are trying to stay super low key. So the C100 might actually work better for this shoot in the sense of it's small and less conspicuous than a built up C300 MKII. We'll be all over Rio, trying to blend in as picture taking tourists, not as a film shoot. We will be trailing a celebrity musician so the C100 with just the handgrip and possibly the Blade can somewhat pass for a stills/consumer video camera in a lot of places. C300, not as much. Bringing the 80D as well in case we are getting too much hassle even with a C100. I used the 80D as a C camera on a recent shoot and it cuts pretty well with the C100/300 footage. Nice to have options for shooting low key.

Also, I can't pull the trigger until we see what happens at NAB. I bought my C100 MKI literally weeks before the C100 MKII was released because of the same situation. It killed me too because I knew the C100 MKII was coming but I needed the camera for a multi-week shoot in South Africa and it was either buy or rent one, it made more financial sense to buy it. So I did and the job almost paid for the C100 MKI package. But I really missed the 1080 60 FPS, face tracking and EVF from the MKII. So the lesson there was, if possible, try not to buy a month before the new model is introduced or Canon decides to reduce prices drastically.

I would love to shoot the 2k 12 bit 4:4:4 for this, which looks amazing and makes the CFast cards last so much longer at 225 MBps versus 410 Mbps for 4K.

I really love this mode coupled with Clog2.

the C100 might actually work better for this shoot in the sense of it's small and less conspicuous than a built up C300 MKII.

Take off the LCD unit and use the EVF. You can get the MA-400 if you need XLR, or use the 3.5mm input on the side if you can use that connection. Leave the handle off too. The C300 Mark II isn't much larger than the C100 when you do that.

We'll be all over Rio, trying to blend in as picture taking tourists, not as a film shoot. We will be trailing a celebrity musician so the C100 with just the handgrip and possibly the Blade can somewhat pass for a stills/consumer video camera in a lot of places.

But now you have 2 sets of different batteries, and there's no way the C100 + Blade will pass easier than a C300 Mark II stripped down. Plus you have a potential point of failure in the HDMI cable, so you'll need to bring spares for that as well. I would not trade my C300m2 for a C100 with an attached recorder.

We will be trailing a celebrity musician so the C100 with just the handgrip and possibly the Blade can somewhat pass for a stills/consumer video camera in a lot of places. C300, not as much. Bringing the 80D as well in case we are getting too much hassle even with a C100. I used the 80D as a C camera on a recent shoot and it cuts pretty well with the C100/300 footage. Nice to have options for shooting low key.



Having seen a C100 with a Blade attached, no way does it pass as a stills/consumer camera. I'm not a fan of the 80d personally either; by my observations and the various reviews and tests, it's HD is quite soft compared to Mirrorless cameras HD output and not in the same league as the C100 in terms of quality. Still if you stick to shallow depth of field, it can work. Wide shots with greater depth, details just tend to look mushy.

Frankly if I owned a C300 and I'd love to, I wouldn't be messing with C100 and an external recorder for a shoot like this. The two aren't that different in size - what 15% larger - no way more obtrusive than a C100 with an external recorder.

I'm not a fan of the 80d personally either; by my observations and the various reviews and tests, it's HD is quite soft compared to Mirrorless cameras HD output and not in the same league as the C100 in terms of quality.

Exactly. My B camera is an A7R Mark II. There is no comparison to the C100/300 level of detail with any of the Canon hybrids, save for the 5D4 and the 1DX in 4K. The 1080 on all of those cameras is terrible.

I find it depends on the clients. We used the 80D locked off and on a Rhino EVO/ARC slider a few weeks ago for a three camera corporate shoot. Only wide shots from the 80D, mediums and CUs from C300 MKI and C100 MKI. Client is pleased as punch with the results. We shot Prolost flat on the 80D, goosed up the sharpening a touch in post and we are good to go. WDR on the C100 and C300, they look different than the 80D but in the same neighborhood. A little CC matches them all nicely. These were skits with actors portraying employees, we are on the wide establishing or occasionally cutting to off angle Rhino slider moves for literally a couple of seconds here and there and it looks fine. 1080 delivery. Many clients are not nearly as picky about things like this as we are.

Also used 80D for shooting second camera gimbal for Dancing with the Stars, cut between C100 MKII with 70-200 2.8 IS II and 80D gimbal shots of contestants dancing. It went to broadcast and is on a clients website with a corporate sponsorship tie in and all of the clients were very happy with the end result. Not saying 80D looks "good" or nearly as sharp as a mirrorless 4K camera, it obviously doesn't. But it's looking "good enough" for how I am using it, and it's making me quite a profit after only a couple of shoots, clients are happy with the footage and how it intercuts with footage from much better cameras, DPAF is a joy for gimbal and Rhino EVO so I think it was a wise business move to buy it. Gimbal and 80D is getting $200.00 per day and 80D and Rhino EVO is getting $250.00 per day instead of hiring a second operator so they are happy to pay it for interviews because it gives us more to cut with and a more interesting look without a larger crew. The only mirrorless camera I personally like is the Fuji XT-2 and I may replace the 80D with that but at this point, no pressing need to. I can't handle Sony or Panasonic mirrorless, how they look and cut with the cameras I usually use.

The 1080 on the Canon M5 is pretty good. Same chip as the 80D.

Canon EOS M5 vs 1DX Mark II and C300 on Vimeo

80D has All-I, M5 does not but surprised at how good M5 is.

Aside from that video being another terrible example of a comparison video; tests I've seen show the M5 to be a touch more sharper than the 80d. Still not as good as the Panasonic G80 for example, when it comes to HD detail.

I never got it when people described how they could mix HD footage from Canon DSLRs such as the 70D, 80D, 5D Mk3 or 7D Mk2 etc. with HD footage shot with the likes of C100 Mk1 or Mk2 or C300 Mk1. They are certainly not at the same level when viewed at 100% and the differences are almost always very noticeable. I have tried, for quite a long time in the quest to save money, test-shooting in the top quality mode of the DSLRs models mentioned above but ultimately ended up with having to rent out the C100xx almost every time for paid shoots for my clients. Resolution (best or near best at HD), noise level, the looks of noise grains at moderately high to high ISOs, rolling shutter skew, arrangement of manual controls, form factor, you name it. The exception being that if I can shoot in 4K with either the 5D Mk4 or 1DX Mk2 and downconvert in post and this would be acceptable in terms of matching the IQ so that no particular part of the end result could stick out like a sore thumb. But then again these latter two DSLRs are not exactly cheap and the downsides of frame cropping, lack of zebra and peaking, bloated 4K files etc. make using them just to get the best HD footage neither a wise nor cost effective option IMHO.

But if your clients are satisfied with the match, who cares? Much of our obsession with image quality, resolution, color fidelity means nothing to our clients, it's not important to them. Sure, some clients care about this, I have one high end corporate client who will only shoot their live action with whatever the highest end RED is of the moment, but those clients are rare. Generally, they seem to care much more about if the script/concept for the piece works, is the sound good, is the edit snappy and interesting, did you get the coverage, does the piece tell the visual story effectively than "do all of the cameras used match perfectly?".

It also seems that today's producers have forgotten the aesthetic of mixed media. It's not as popular as it was in the 90s but I used to regularly shoot DigiBeta, Beta SP, DV and Super 8 or S16 film of the same setups and edit the whole thing together with all of the different formats. Clients loved it. Even as recently as last year, I shot and edited together a promo video for a training company. A camera for interview was a C300 but B and C cameras were a Go Pro and a 5D MKIII on a gimbal. We did not try to match the looks at all because they never would have matched even remotely so we embraced that the cutaways from the interview A camera were going to have a totally different look and the b-roll of the event was a total mix of three or four different looks.

It appears that a lot producer/shooters have become more engineers than artists. You can use shortcomings creatively, it's not that difficult, you just have to embrace the differences and use them creatively. Sometimes multiple cameras need to match but often, they don't if you have a few ounces of creativity. Not every, or in fact, very few projects need the best image quality. If they did, we would all shoot everything with an Alexa SXT and clients would gladly pay for that. Horses for courses.

Aside from that video being another terrible example of a comparison video; tests I've seen show the M5 to be a touch more sharper than the 80d. Still not as good as the Panasonic G80 for example, when it comes to HD detail.

Terrible? Really? Quick test to compare it to other cameras I had in the studio and that I know well. Also, part of longer blog post which ran on Newsshooter.com.

That said - I agree with Wacharapong. 1DXM2 footage at 4K is pretty spectacular and easily mixes with C300 footage on jobs (1DXM2 in Neutral, C300 in WDR). Have done it a bunch of times. But shooting 4K on 1DXM2 only to make HD is not very efficient. Lack of peaking on it less of an issue for me on certain shoots as the DPAF is so good that you can rely on it and shoot camera as if it was large mirrorless.

Also agree with Dan that matching depends upon the needs of the job. What's great about M5 and similar with 80D or upcoming M6 is they are so small you can really fly under the radar when filming with them in public situations. Also, viable to have them on small one-handed gimbal as b or c cam, ready to go, on jobs where appropriate.

But if your clients are satisfied with the match, who cares? Much of our obsession with image quality, resolution, color fidelity means nothing to our clients

So why spend so much money on a c300 if this doesn't matter to your clients, I'd get c100 mark 1 and a 80d instead (or maybe just two 80d's) and save a lot of money, your clients will be satisfied regardless.

Terrible? Really? Quick test to compare it to other cameras I had in the studio and that I know well. Also, part of longer blog post which ran on Newsshooter.com.

That said - I agree with Wacharapong. 1DXM2 footage at 4K is pretty spectacular and easily mixes with C300 footage on jobs (1DXM2 in Neutral, C300 in WDR). Have done it a bunch of times. But shooting 4K on 1DXM2 only to make HD is not very efficient. Lack of peaking on it less of an issue for me on certain shoots as the DPAF is so good that you can rely on it and shoot camera as if it was large mirrorless.

Also agree with Dan that matching depends upon the needs of the job. What's great about M5 and similar with 80D or upcoming M6 is they are so small you can really fly under the radar when filming with them in public situations. Also, viable to have them on small one-handed gimbal as b or c cam, ready to go, on jobs where appropriate.

Perhaps my comment is somewhat harsh, but alas the internet is littered with these quick test videos that tell me little of the strengths and weaknesses of each camera. I admit to have never done comparison videos, but I would at the least compare them under different scenarios, like low light, indoors, outdoors, close up of faces for skin tones etc. I would be less inclined to make any strong conclusions from the video you posted. Regretfully I was unaware it was part of a wider article and assumed that was it.

I agree with you that a smaller camera is very useful. In fact I use the GX80 a great deal for that very reason. Thankfully it matches better with the GH4 and even better I imagine with the GH5 as it shares the upgrades to the colour.

The issues many have with Canon's smaller cameras is that they limit them too much. My GX80 maybe small and cheaper than the 80d, but enjoys not only features like focus peaking, histogram and zebras, but also 5 axis IS which is a godsend for smaller handheld unobtrusive work. No one can tell me that such features would not be welcome on either the 80d or the M5. As welcome as they are unlikely given Canon's track record.

This coupled with the softer image of the 80d, makes it less desirable as a B camera, and why many I've spoken to who use the C100 and C300 choose a Sony or Panasonic Mirrorless to pair with them instead, despite the loss of DPAF and superior colour. Had Canon not crippled their smaller line, perhaps this would not be the case.

I agree with your posts Dan.

I have also used Go Pro for aerials and POV shots and used that with C300 shots.

I am amused by the attack on Canon's MJPEG codec used in 1DXII and 5DIV as space hungry. I find my 1DXII files to be very good. If you want good quality, then you shouldn't get frightened about file size.

The DPAF in the 1DXII is pretty good and even though they haven't included focusing aids, it works well.

Having said that, unless I am paid well, I won't use the 1DXII for two hour interviews because of CFast 2.0 cards and lack of XLRs.

The definition of professional film/videographer is one who earns majority of his/her income from doing filming/shooting video. So whether a person shoots with Go Pro or C300 or Alexa or anything in between, the person's viewpoint would be that of a professional. So each professional would have a different view point, personal likes, dislikes and fantasies. There are people shooting feature films with A7S/GH4/XC10/GoPro, albeit at a much lower budget. However that doesn't mean that each camera is suitable for every application.

When the original C100 was launched, a very senior executive had told me that the C100 was meant for DSLR folks to move up to that and they viewed it as a wedding camera. However, it became way more popular in every segment than was perhaps originally envisaged. Based on the feedback, they tried to remove the quirks from the C100 and created the C100 Mark II. I am not sure what feedback Canon is now working on.

Canon will not announce C300 Mark II successor at NAB. They will try to squeeze it till 2018 and announce its successor in 2018. However, they are likely to launch the C100 Mark II successor in 2017 which will definitely have 4K 60p. It may be pertinent to mention that nomenclature of cameras is always a marketing decision taken from a strategic point of view.

Never underestimate Canon. Their cameras are solid and work for me in jungles, deserts, rains and landslides, seas as well as saner environments. However enticing the recent camera introductions might be, Canon gives a peace of mind and I rate that highly. And there is of course the DPAF and the lovely colours straight out of the box.

I have also used Go Pro for aerials and POV shots and used that with C300 shots.

So have many of us. Though I have become more dissatisfied with GoPro as time went on and rarely use it now.


I am amused by the attack on Canon's MJPEG codec used in 1DXII and 5DIV as space hungry. I find my 1DXII files to be very good. If you want good quality, then you shouldn't get frightened about file size.

I think the informed opinion is that codec is inefficient. Chosen because it is more compatible with what Photographers are use to rather than something that works best for Videographers. I have no issues with say a 5 times larger file size if they deliver 5 times the quality. That isn't the case. If they were offering 10 bit 4:2:2 for that file size, I'd be onboard with it and so would many others I dare say. It's not.


There are people shooting feature films with A7S/GH4/XC10/GoPro, albeit at a much lower budget. However that doesn't mean that each camera is suitable for every application.

Couldn't agree more. Still these differences make for a lively discussion. :)



Canon will not announce C300 Mark II successor at NAB. They will try to squeeze it till 2018 and announce its successor in 2018. However, they are likely to launch the C100 Mark II successor in 2017 which will definitely have 4K 60p.

You can say this with certainty - who are your sources just to ask?



Never underestimate Canon. Their cameras are solid and work for me in jungles, deserts, rains and landslides, seas as well as saner environments. However enticing the recent camera introductions might be, Canon gives a peace of mind and I rate that highly. And there is of course the DPAF and the lovely colours straight out of the box.

Despite being one of those enticed over a recently announced camera, I'd gladly add a C100 mark III if it offered 4K. I'd even accept no 60p as long as the codec is no less than 100mbps and there's no crop on the sensor. Many Production companies don't limit themselves to 1 brand. Ideally I would like to have a Sony 4K Mirrorless for my extreme low light filming, a C100 (with 4K) for some of my Corporate Promo work and my Panasonics for much of my Wedding filming.

So why spend so much money on a c300 if this doesn't matter to your clients, I'd get c100 mark 1 and a 80d instead (or maybe just two 80d's) and save a lot of money, your clients will be satisfied regardless.

We do have lots of different clients who require varying levels of quality. Don't you? Have not bought anything new yet. C300 MKII would be for clients who require 4K or the 2K 12 bit 444. I am shooting a doc where they want to shoot 4K, probably with the C300 MKII, but the media management and amount of CFast cards required to shoot 410 Mbps for five hours a day for two weeks is convincing them we should just shoot 1080 Prores on my camera. I told them that if we need to shoot that much, they need to budget for a full time data wrangler because I cannot shoot 12 hours a day, then sit in my hotel room all night downloading CFast cards and cloning drives. (small crew documentary in South America). So adding another crew position for two weeks is a big expense as will be renting enough CFast cards. If we shoot on my Blade, that is one 480 GB drive per day to shoot Prores HQ, copy it, then clone it, done.

The majority of my clients out there have pretty good eyes for quality though, like myself they are not that sophisticated technically and often have trouble telling differences between say, 28Mbps or 36Mbps AVCHD or MP4 output from the Canon C100 Mk2 and a 10 bit, 4:2:2 ProRes footage from let's say a Shogun or Inferno. In short, they are comfortable with the H.264 files recorded internally on cheap SD cards though they and I do occasionally see some downsides. These however have been very few and far between and nothing compared to mixing in a few souped up Canon DSLRs snippets in the main footage. I would feel a little cheated and they could too. But I definitely agree to what you say that if the content and the rest of the production are done well enough these differences often hardly matter.

This and other boards we hang out on are for techno-nerds who are obsessed. I kind of wear two hats, I love all of the technology, specs and new toys, I am paid to write about it and find it fascinating, but my other hat is as a writer/producer and when it comes down to it, most of what we sweat and obsess about (specs, resolution, bit rate, data rate) here doesn't matter at all to 90% of clients. They are much more concerned about the concept, quality of writing, acting, direction, music, sound quality and how watching the project affects them emotionally than if it was shot 4K, 12bit, had superb color depth, etc.

I have a friend who is the opposite of most us. They know enough about the technology to shoot, but are not a great camera operator, shoot with older gear. But they are a great writer and producer. I have worked on projects for them, knew what we shot and have always been amazed and impressed at what they put together with the footage we shot and combined with the vast library of older footage we shot years ago for the same client. They often use SD footage we shot more than a decade ago, mix 720p with our modern 1080 and 4k footage. Much of the footage is technically inferior, but it totally works well because they are a master writer, editor and storyteller. That's what most paying clients care about more than technical perfection.

Most who frequent boards like these are wrapped up in specs and discussing new gear but are often clueless about being a great filmmaker and or an effective visual storyteller. I, as well as many of us, have worked on a well budgeted project where we got to use/rent or borrow the best gear available but the concept/script/casting/direction/sound went wrong and the end result was a failure. My point is, sometimes we need to take a step back from all of our techno-nerd obsession with specs and put forth some effort to better our skill set as visual storytellers. Which I write in a thread that I started, obsessing about the next great camera ;-)

This and other boards we hang out on are for techno-nerds who are obsessed. I kind of wear two hats, I love all of the technology, specs and new toys, I am paid to write about it and find it fascinating, but my other hat is as a writer/producer

Actually this forum and those like it are full of those who are happy to discuss the importance of specs, skin tones, bit depth and fine detail when attacking other cameras they don't like, but as soon as their preferred camera suffers a similar attack, the comeback of, it's all about content is reminded as to why these things are not important.

You're no different to the rest of us in that respect. You'll wag your finger against the GH4 over specs and colour science but tell us the Canon 80d is perfectly acceptable because it's all about content. I'm afraid many of us are equally guilty of similar behaviour, so I can't really complain.

Whilst there are plenty of techno-nerds here, at least many who write here are working professionally. I occasionally dip into DpReview forums and its more hobbyist there.

Actually this forum and those like it are full of those who are happy to discuss the importance of specs, skin tones, bit depth and fine detail when attacking other cameras they don't like, but as soon as their preferred camera suffers a similar attack, the comeback of, it's all about content is reminded as to why these things are not important.

You're no different to the rest of us in that respect. You'll wag your finger against the GH4 over specs and colour science but tell us the Canon 80d is perfectly acceptable because it's all about content. I'm afraid many of us are equally guilty of similar behaviour, so I can't really complain.

Whilst there are plenty of techno-nerds here, at least many who write here are working professionally. I occasionally dip into DpReview forums and its more hobbyist there.

Steve, still with the bruised feelings of inadequacy because I didn't like a camera that I bought years ago? I thought this was an NAB possible intro of a Canon C100 MKIII thread? You really should post more in the GH4 forum if you want to talk about the GH4.

Just out of curiosity, how can one "attack a camera"? Does the camera have feelings? Does it's esteem and personal worth suffer because one of us rude humans didn't like it? My 80D told me this morning that it doesn't care one lick about the rude bullies in this thread and all of the nastiness they heaped on him. I think my 80D has higher self esteem than your GH4 ;-)

Steve, still with the bruised feelings of inadequacy because I didn't like a camera that I bought years ago?

Nah, just amused at the hypocrisy in these discussions. See below :)


I thought this was an NAB possible intro of a Canon C100 MKIII thread? You really should post more in the GH4 forum if you want to talk about the GH4.

So it's okay for you to defend at great length using the 80d when it's criticised (your bruised feelings), but my mentioning the GH4 in relation to your own words on it in this thread are out of bounds. No problem. Your thread, your rules. ;-)


Just out of curiosity, how can one "attack a camera"? Does the camera have feelings?

One definition of the word attack - "to criticise or oppose fiercely and publicly."

Perhaps this is a British / American cultural difference in the use of the word. However I see no mention of feelings in that broad definition there.

To be honest, I can't say anymore on the C100 Mark III as it's all speculation. Will monitor NAB for any announcements, but not holding my breath. I did ask one guy to confirm his sources on how he knows for certain it'll have 4K 60p. Would be interested to know. Knowing Canon, they'll give the C100 Mark III 4K but make it a crop on the sensor just for the sake of making it not the C300.

Returning to the topic, sort of, and trying to avoid the flying handbags...

I agree that content is king but it also depends on how the client wants that content delivered. If they are happy with a C100, 80D, G4, or whatever, then it's obviously ok to use that level of gear provided it will do the job you want. I'm currently working on a doc for broadcast TV and in answer to an initial enquiry about the delivery specs we were told quite directly that "a C300mk2 shooting 4k is the minimum they would accept." So for us the camera specs were critical.

Specs are vital for many people and these forums offer great advice on what cameras will or will not do the job and I have learnt a lot. Photography, whether still or moving, is an unusual blend of technical and artistic considerations, You can't ignore either if you want people to see your product.

I agree that content is king but it also depends on how the client wants that content delivered. If they are happy with a C100, 80D, G4, or whatever, then it's obviously ok to use that level of gear provided it will do the job you want. I'm currently working on a doc for broadcast TV and in answer to an initial enquiry about the delivery specs we were told quite directly that "a C300mk2 shooting 4k is the minimum they would accept." So for us the camera specs were critical.

Specs are vital for many people and these forums offer great advice on what cameras will or will not do the job. Photography, whether still or moving, is an unusual blend of technical and artistic considerations, You can't ignore either if you want people to see your product.

I always see it that I can discuss any technical issues here and then content with my clients. It's rare I have a content issue to bring up here and if I do, its more in the Wedding forum where it would be best served. As we all deliver very different content, its often the technical issues that is common ground for discussions. I don't think that makes me a nerd obsessed with specs. Like Dan and many others here, I wear two hats and whilst specs make for lively discussions, it doesn't mean we rate content any less.

I hope Dan is not offended by our mild bit of hand bag waving at each other, but I can assure him and others, the last thing I wish to see is this forum detract from it's subject more than it already has. Always willing to read any other thoughts on the C100 Mark III and any possible info too.

The latest is I have now heard from two, independent sources that Canon will show no new camera at NAB. This is shaping up to be one of the more ho hum NABs in recent memory. Canon will obviously intro a new sub $10k camera at some point, but it sounds as if there is a good chance none of us will have it in hand before 2018. Sigh.

In the meanwhile, my C100 is still making me money. I shot more C300 MKII jobs last year, this year, so far, not one 4K project yet. Funny how demand ebbs and flows.