Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

I know this is an age old question, but does anyone have any opinions regarding the Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700? I am in the market for a new camera. I will probably be using an external recorder and I am looking for the best quality camera. I originally will be using the camera to shoot films/music videos, but my day job is in Corporate Video, local spots, etc. It would be great if I could use the camera for both. I know there is no perfect camera but any suggestions?

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

The C100 isn't out yet. It won't be out until December. Only a handful of people have actually used one, and those were probably pre-production units. I don't see how anyone can give you a knowledgeable opinion until it gets into general circulation.
A producer friend has used the C300 and FS700 and he prefers the Sony. He says he likes the look and the slo-mo capabilities of the FS. YMMV.

How soon do you need a camera? Can you wait until next year?
There are many cameras that can shoot music videos, corporate videos, commercials, weddings, etc. You don't need several to cover all of these shoots. I do all right with my one FS100. I'm certain the C100 or the FS700 are up to the task.
The FS700 is upgradeable to 4K, if you need that feature. It also has an HD/SDI connection.

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

As Glen mentioned, the C100 isn't out yet -- so if you can't wait for the (as you say) "best quality camera" I suggest that you check out RED's cameras (Scarlet & Epic). But if you can wait, I'd wait for the Canon 1DC (also a 4k camera): http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-...-december.html

-- peer

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

I'm sure if the OP had the budget for a Scarlet that's what he would have been looking at, but they are very different cameras at very different price points with very different workflows. As for the 1DC, well frankly an 8 bit 4k camera is a bit of a sideways step rather than a step forwards.

I doubt there will be much between the C100 and FS700 in terms of HD image quality. It's most likely to come down to which ergonomics you prefer, whether you need HDSDI and whether you want super slow mo and future 4k.

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

i believe the question should have been between C100 VS FS100 wich are almos tin the same price zone.

According to the specs and outside I believe that the only benefit that the C100 have againts the FS700 is only the ergonomics and nothing else.

Between the FS100 and the C100. the only better spec that the FS100 have is the 60p but am sure that Canon will release a firwmare update for this at one point.

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

Matt,

As indicated the C100 is not yet really available. However, I do have one on pre-order and the FS700 was the one I considered very hard as a serious potential alternative. My reasoning for why I chose the C100 over it (and a few other contenders) are on this link. This may help you or may not, I don't know, but I know a few others have found it worth reading.

CanonC100

If you're the cautious type, just wait for another few months and they'll be lots of comparative videos between the FS700 and C100, and many differing opinions. I think they both are/will be great cameras, each with strengths and weaknesses.

I've been waiting for nearly a year for the "next great camera" to supplement my EX3 and 7D (and TM900). I've got lots of work going on and I need a decent second camera NOW! The C100 ticked as many boxes as possible that I consider important (for the way I like to work and the type of work I do). Sometimes you've just got to go for the best option for your needs (and budget) at a particular point in time and put it to use!

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

Anthony-
You are missing a really big thing on the C100....the very special 4K chip, the same that is in the C300 & the C500. It sees in the dark (up to 20,000 ISO which is usable but most are using 3200 ISO), handle light & dark in the same shot and gets them both right. That, along with the Canon log gives you a huge latitude that will save you money on every shoot. You'll use 1/3 of the lights you'd normally use. That is a big difference between it and the FS700 (which I like) and much more important than the SloMo.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

Sensitivity and noise is almost the same between the C300 and FS700. They both have very similar sized photo sites, they are both using 4K sensors. FS700 has been measured at almost 13 stops with Cinegamma 4, although useable stops are around 12. Cinegamma 1 is close to Canon C-Log.

I doubt most people will be able to find any significant technical difference in IQ between the C100 and FS700. Colors are different, but both can be tweaked through picture profiles or in post as desired.

Would C-Log (or a cinegamma etc) save you money on a shoot? Maybe, maybe not. If you use Log then you'll need to grade, if you didn't grade previously then that will make your project more expensive, not less. Log and advanced gammas (C-log like S-Log is just a modified type of gamma) are certainly very useful, but if you want a look direct from the camera you'll probably use a less aggressive gamma curve.

Hi ISO's like 20,000 on the C100 or 12,800 on the FS700 are a bit of a nonsense on these cameras. Camera gain does not change the sensitivity of the cameras sensor, that depends above all else on the photosite size (and the C100 and FS700 are extremely close). Gain is simply a volume control for the sensor output. You can turn the volume up as much as you like but the camera doesn't really get any more sensitive. The image gets brighter, but so does the noise. You can add gain in post or in camera and the effect is similar. Pro's and cons to each. You can easily add more gain in post to make up for the 2/3rd stop difference between them.

If your lighting a scene you still need just as many lights with these cameras to achieve the same results. You might not need quite as much light, but if you need 3 lights to gain the look you want with one camera, you'll still need 3 lights with any other, just maybe not as powerful. Lights are used to control contrast ratios, and a more/less sensitive camera doesn't change the contrast ratios so there is often surprisingly little change in your lighting requirements when using more sensitive cameras. If you need to make something one stop brighter than another it requires the same amount of light to do that no matter what the sensitivity of the camera. Of course a more sensitive camera will allow you to shoot in darker environments when lighting is not an option.

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

Alright Alister, you got me...a little. We had a client come in the other day with the 700, so I put it up on our 50" TV Logic, turned the lights down and started running up the ISO, along with the C300. What I noticed is gain noise on the 700 was more than the corresponding ISO and grain on the C300. I'm calling it grain on the C300 because it looks like grain, a more organic look than the 700's noise....and that's what the ASC DP's have been saying for a while about the C300. Again, I like the 700, but I do like the overall look of the C300. The point being is the C100 has the same chip, and thus, the same performance in this area.

Just my opinion......but don't make me come over there Alister!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

Yes, agreed, and it therefore follows that they will indeed be very similar in respects such as sensitivity.

It is worth mentioning that I'd expect the C100 to have similar resolution to the C300 - so pretty much up to the 1080 spec, about 1000lpph horizontally and vertically. For some reason, in spite of virtually the same chip, the FS700 resolution is similar vertically, but less horizontally, more like 800lpph. So in absolute terms this is likely to be one area where the C100 may have a measurable edge - certainly on charts.

Practically, I'd doubt you'd see much difference between them in the real world, and both of them are far better than performance from DSLRs of the AF101. I'd be more inclined to base any purchasing decision more on feature set, ergonomics etc than absolute IQ and in that respect the slo-mo abilities of the FS700 must be significant.

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

Jim, was the test performed with the same lenses on both camera? One thing that many people fall foul of is comparing the FS100/FS700 with the very slow f3.5 kit lens to a Canon with a f1.4/f2.8 lens and like that the Canon will appear much more sensitive. Put matching lenses on and any differences are very small.

I used to own a C300 and this was about 1/2 a stop less sensitive than my F3 and the FS100. I know the FS700 is half a stop less sensitive than the F3, so C100 and FS700 should be almost exactly the same, which is what I would expect given the similar pixel sizes.

Wouldn't want to upset you too much Jim or you might end up coming over here and you don't want to do that because the weather is rubbish ;-)

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

Which preset are you using on FS700 when comparing the noise levels?
There is HUGE difference between the widest DR presets and the preset that contains the ITU709 color profile - on our EU camera it's the preset number 3. The difference is like night and day. I use wide dynamic range PP5 for daylight and PP3 for low light as it has that organic looking noise.
Also for low light slow motion the PP3 with ITU709 is the best solution so far for us - acceptable noise levels up to 6400.

I made a little comparison here:
T

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

I had the FS100, have the FS700 now and have seen some C300 Footage.

I think the FS100 and C300 are on the same level considering noise.

The FS700 is considerably (!) noisier than the FS100. With the FS100 I used ISO 1600 without any denoising and it was almost grain free. FS700 footage, though, I tend to denoise a little in a low key scene even at ISO 800. And the noise of the FS700 is not as grain like as on the FS100.

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

Thread moved here from Industry News.

Re: Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700
 

If this theory would have been true then companies would not have done development of sensors independently. This theory, if true means, all 4K cameras with same sensor size will have the same high ISO ability, as the photosite size is likely to be similar. If that is the case, then camera companies would not be introducing cameras which has better sensors roughly every two years.

The size of the individual photosites in the sensor is one criteria. It is not the only one.

Companies are in the race to produce better sensors by also trying to maximise the amount of light gathering capability of the individual photosites. So you find development of gapless sensors. There is also advancement on the circuits which results in reducing the heat and noise generated.

There are some companies like Canon who produce the chips and the back end as well, so they are much better than other companies. Sony too produces its own chips. Some other camera producers buy chips and don't have the finer controls like Canon does. At the moment, Canon has taken a march over others in terms of sensor technology. I am sure soon others will also produce great stuff. That is the reason why people are liking the Canon cinema cameras and buying it, despite the initial brickbats.

When you said high ISO or gain is the amplification of the signal, and it can be done equally well in the post, it may not be theoretically true though it may so happen that visually at times one may not be able to distinguish in a small screen. It depends how you are processing it, means whether the gain applied by the camera is better or equal to that done by the software in a computer program. For a software program to become equal to the camera in this respect means, the company making the program understands the processing the way the manufacturer understands.

I have never used a FS700 and my comment was just to clarify a generalisation.