60D vs C100 Pictures at DVinfo.net

Nicholas de Kock · July 6th, 2013, 06:42 PM

For anyone interested here is a quick comparison I did while filming with the C100, be sure to study them at full resolution. The C100 is an incredible camera, the low light capabilities is amazing, I can literally leave my Arri's at home from now on.

Erick Munari · July 6th, 2013, 06:55 PM

Impressive! It seems that you can extract beautiful stills from the C100?!?! Thanx for sharing.

Noa Put · July 6th, 2013, 06:56 PM

Here at least you can buy seven 60d's for the price of one c100 + the 60d is no better then first gen 550d or 7d dslrs when it comes to video and we all know they are soft and suffer from aliasing and moire and are very noisy at 3200 iso and above.

That the c100 is a remarkable camera is obvious but it comes at a price, a too high one if you ask me since no lens is included but that seems to be the trend canon has set with their c-line of camera's.

Nicholas de Kock · July 6th, 2013, 07:08 PM

Noa I basically went with the C100 to get rid of my lights, I didn't believe it was possible at first but after today I'm a believer. No more lights at weddings needed. F4, ISO6400 looks amazing you can even push it to ISO8000 if you have to worry free. I have a 312LED which blows out my shots set at it's lowest power setting, I'll have to get a smaller LED. I agree it's an expensive camera, I really wish it was priced more closely to the 5DIII.

Erick you can actually snap HD JPEGs stills while filming.

Eric Coughlin · July 6th, 2013, 07:34 PM

Lighting isn't just about having enough light to shoot at appropriate ISOs, it's also about shape, quality, etc. Without using my lights (such as my Arri too) at weddings even when there is enough light, things tend to look less interesting than they do with my lights. This, to the extent, that even when the venue gives me full control over their house lighting, I prefer to dim their lights and make my lights the main source of lighting.

It's the same concept as filming an interview, where you want to turn off all of the flat and ugly house lights which often give raccoon eyes, and then use just your own lights to create the exact look you want.

Also, while the C100 is good in low light, you'll always get better image quality shooting at more ideal ISOs. I certainly notice a big difference between ISO 320-850 vs ISO 6400, particularly when viewed on a big screen.

Marty Hudzik · July 6th, 2013, 07:55 PM

Wow. You guys are lucky if you are given the option to creatively light your weddings and receptions. Most clients and venues scoff at the idea of bringing in lighting as it kills the ambience. Even when I do bring some lights, I have to be honest....it ain't all that creative. I would barely have time to set them up, let alone creatively shape a scene like I am shooting a narrative. I usually bounce them off the ceiling to flood the main wedding tables with some lumens so my camera can see!

Eric Coughlin · July 6th, 2013, 10:59 PM

I don't film photography formals. I'll generally have a team of three shooters (and sometimes two), so one of us will film a bit of cocktail hour (or not), one will setup lights, and the third will work on setting up audio. Generally with formals and the cocktail hour, we have about an hour to setup, which is enough time. I use an Arri 650, two Lowel-Pro 250s, and 1-3 LED lights. For the brighter lights, I use 10-13 foot stands, which when placed that high, tend be much less noticeable to the extent we don't often get complaints about the lights. Barn doors (particularly on the Arri) work well for keeping the lights from shining on guests. We also turn down the lights when there aren't particular events going on, such as speeches, and all of the lights are dimmable (the tungsten ones are plugged into dimmers) so we can dim them to appropriate levels depending on the size of various venues.

I also freelance for a guy who has me as a solo shooter, and he doesn't like me using off-camera lights, so I have experience with no lights or just an on-camera light as well. Here are some frame grabs from speeches I shot below noting the cameras, lighting, settings, etc.

C100, Canon 24-105 f/4L @ f/4, approx ISO 8000-12,800, shutter 1/48. No additional lighting used.
Full-size Image: http://imageshack.us/a/img405/43/opu9.jpg

C100, Canon 24-105 f/4L @ f/4, approx ISO 3200 (not sure of exact ISO), shutter 1/48. On camera LED used, plus the photographer had some continuous light going from a light stand to my left.
Full-size Image: http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5048/lwf9.jpg

5D Mark III, Canon 135mm f/2L @ f/2.0, ISO 320, shutter 1/50 (or possibly 1/30). Lighting used, 2x Lowel-Pro 250s, Arri 650, & Comer 1800 LED.
Full-size image: http://imageshack.us/a/img62/2971/ad...uencespeec.png

60D, Canon 85mm f/1.8 @ f/2.0, ISO 320 or 640, shutter 1/30. Lighting used, 2x Lowel-Pro 250s, 3x LED lights.
Full-size image: http://imageshack.us/a/img19/5016/kbdv.jpg

My conclusion? I'd rather have a 60D with good lighting than a C100 with bad lighting. Fortunately, I now have both a C100 and good lights. :-)

James Manford · July 7th, 2013, 01:04 AM

Doesn't matter what camera you have ... lighting still makes a hell of a difference.

Noa Put · July 7th, 2013, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Coughlin;1803645I

use an Arri 650, two Lowel-Pro 250s, and 1-3 LED lights

That would be unacceptable in my country, I"d imagine one light nearby the dancefloor to bounce of the ceiling would be pushing it but turning a candlelit venue into a filmset would not make the guests and especially the client happy. That's why I need lightsensitive camera's as wel below the budget of a c100 but with a little bit of imagination you can get far. :)

Nicholas de Kock · July 7th, 2013, 04:17 AM

Well said & I agree lighting always adds life to an image however I no longer need my two Arri 750 Plus lights. Setting up lighting would usually take me anywhere between 30 to 50 minutes time that I could have spent filming. Laying down power, putting on gels, diffusion & securing cables. Now I can light the same scene effectively with a small battery powered LED at 20-40% power output. The C100 is going to make my job easier & the guests more comfortable.

Marty Hudzik · July 7th, 2013, 10:20 AM

The lit scenes look far better of course. I just find most venues will not allow it so shooting with minimal lighting is a must. Fortunately I rarely shoot weddings anymore but I guess the c100 will come in handy if I do.

Al Gardner · July 7th, 2013, 11:12 AM

Wouldn't a C100 allow you to charge 10 times as much as a guy using a lesser camera though?

That seems like a smart business plan to me.

Noa Put · July 7th, 2013, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Wouldn't a C100 allow you to charge 10 times as much as a guy using a lesser camera though?

For weddings? You wish :D
When the first video dslr's came out I also saw competitors charging a surplus for a dslr only wedding and I never understood why, at least not for wedding clients, as they don't know or either care what you shoot with. But if you can sell it at 10 times the price your a good salesman I guess, you can produce a crapvideo with a c100 as well so the type of camera would never justify a higher prricetag if you ask me.

Al Gardner · July 7th, 2013, 02:10 PM

Yeah, I remember when dvd came out way back when I was able to charge more for it. and within a year it was expected, so no premium for long.

So if you use a C100 for weddings I guess it's more to thrill yourself but not your bottom line? Sowhat's the point?

Noa Put · July 7th, 2013, 02:29 PM

I think from the vhs to the dvd transfer I could see a reason to charge more for it as it was a totally new medium, just like you would charge extra for a blu-ray dvd. If you do commercial, corporate or work for production companies the type of camera or codec it uses becomes a much more important factor and that would have a influence on the price but it doesn't work like that for camera's at weddings.

The point of using a c100 would be to get the best (or as good as) possible image with a very good low light performance, only if you give a canon 550d or a c100 in the hands of a very experienced and creative videographer the end result will look the same to the client for both versions, only if you let them show the result side by side they will see what the difference is but that is something we never do when we try to get new wedding clients, at least not as a reason to explain why you charge 10 times as much. You just show your work and there is never asked what camera you use.

July 6th, 2013, 06:42 PM	#1
Nicholas de Kock Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: KLD, South Africa Posts: 983	60D vs C100 Pictures For anyone interested here is a quick comparison I did while filming with the C100, be sure to study them at full resolution. The C100 is an incredible camera, the low light capabilities is amazing, I can literally leave my Arri's at home from now on. Attached Thumbnails

July 6th, 2013, 06:55 PM	#2
Erick Munari Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: New York Posts: 161	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Impressive! It seems that you can extract beautiful stills from the C100?!?! Thanx for sharing.

July 6th, 2013, 06:56 PM	#3
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,509	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Here at least you can buy seven 60d's for the price of one c100 + the 60d is no better then first gen 550d or 7d dslrs when it comes to video and we all know they are soft and suffer from aliasing and moire and are very noisy at 3200 iso and above. That the c100 is a remarkable camera is obvious but it comes at a price, a too high one if you ask me since no lens is included but that seems to be the trend canon has set with their c-line of camera's.

July 6th, 2013, 07:08 PM	#4
Nicholas de Kock Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: KLD, South Africa Posts: 983	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Noa I basically went with the C100 to get rid of my lights, I didn't believe it was possible at first but after today I'm a believer. No more lights at weddings needed. F4, ISO6400 looks amazing you can even push it to ISO8000 if you have to worry free. I have a 312LED which blows out my shots set at it's lowest power setting, I'll have to get a smaller LED. I agree it's an expensive camera, I really wish it was priced more closely to the 5DIII. Erick you can actually snap HD JPEGs stills while filming.

July 6th, 2013, 07:34 PM	#5
Eric Coughlin Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 72	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Lighting isn't just about having enough light to shoot at appropriate ISOs, it's also about shape, quality, etc. Without using my lights (such as my Arri too) at weddings even when there is enough light, things tend to look less interesting than they do with my lights. This, to the extent, that even when the venue gives me full control over their house lighting, I prefer to dim their lights and make my lights the main source of lighting. It's the same concept as filming an interview, where you want to turn off all of the flat and ugly house lights which often give raccoon eyes, and then use just your own lights to create the exact look you want. Also, while the C100 is good in low light, you'll always get better image quality shooting at more ideal ISOs. I certainly notice a big difference between ISO 320-850 vs ISO 6400, particularly when viewed on a big screen. __________________ https://Vimeo.com/TwoSenseFilms http://TwoSenseFilms.com Last edited by Eric Coughlin; July 6th, 2013 at 11:36 PM.

July 6th, 2013, 07:55 PM	#6
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Wow. You guys are lucky if you are given the option to creatively light your weddings and receptions. Most clients and venues scoff at the idea of bringing in lighting as it kills the ambience. Even when I do bring some lights, I have to be honest....it ain't all that creative. I would barely have time to set them up, let alone creatively shape a scene like I am shooting a narrative. I usually bounce them off the ceiling to flood the main wedding tables with some lumens so my camera can see!

July 6th, 2013, 10:59 PM	#7
Eric Coughlin Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 72	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures I don't film photography formals. I'll generally have a team of three shooters (and sometimes two), so one of us will film a bit of cocktail hour (or not), one will setup lights, and the third will work on setting up audio. Generally with formals and the cocktail hour, we have about an hour to setup, which is enough time. I use an Arri 650, two Lowel-Pro 250s, and 1-3 LED lights. For the brighter lights, I use 10-13 foot stands, which when placed that high, tend be much less noticeable to the extent we don't often get complaints about the lights. Barn doors (particularly on the Arri) work well for keeping the lights from shining on guests. We also turn down the lights when there aren't particular events going on, such as speeches, and all of the lights are dimmable (the tungsten ones are plugged into dimmers) so we can dim them to appropriate levels depending on the size of various venues. I also freelance for a guy who has me as a solo shooter, and he doesn't like me using off-camera lights, so I have experience with no lights or just an on-camera light as well. Here are some frame grabs from speeches I shot below noting the cameras, lighting, settings, etc. C100, Canon 24-105 f/4L @ f/4, approx ISO 8000-12,800, shutter 1/48. No additional lighting used. Full-size Image: http://imageshack.us/a/img405/43/opu9.jpg C100, Canon 24-105 f/4L @ f/4, approx ISO 3200 (not sure of exact ISO), shutter 1/48. On camera LED used, plus the photographer had some continuous light going from a light stand to my left. Full-size Image: http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/5048/lwf9.jpg 5D Mark III, Canon 135mm f/2L @ f/2.0, ISO 320, shutter 1/50 (or possibly 1/30). Lighting used, 2x Lowel-Pro 250s, Arri 650, & Comer 1800 LED. Full-size image: http://imageshack.us/a/img62/2971/ad...uencespeec.png 60D, Canon 85mm f/1.8 @ f/2.0, ISO 320 or 640, shutter 1/30. Lighting used, 2x Lowel-Pro 250s, 3x LED lights. Full-size image: http://imageshack.us/a/img19/5016/kbdv.jpg My conclusion? I'd rather have a 60D with good lighting than a C100 with bad lighting. Fortunately, I now have both a C100 and good lights. :-) __________________ https://Vimeo.com/TwoSenseFilms http://TwoSenseFilms.com Last edited by Eric Coughlin; July 7th, 2013 at 02:44 AM.

July 7th, 2013, 01:04 AM	#8
James Manford Trustee Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,393	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Doesn't matter what camera you have ... lighting still makes a hell of a difference.

July 7th, 2013, 04:17 AM	#10
Nicholas de Kock Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: KLD, South Africa Posts: 983	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Well said & I agree lighting always adds life to an image however I no longer need my two Arri 750 Plus lights. Setting up lighting would usually take me anywhere between 30 to 50 minutes time that I could have spent filming. Laying down power, putting on gels, diffusion & securing cables. Now I can light the same scene effectively with a small battery powered LED at 20-40% power output. The C100 is going to make my job easier & the guests more comfortable.

July 7th, 2013, 10:20 AM	#11
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures The lit scenes look far better of course. I just find most venues will not allow it so shooting with minimal lighting is a must. Fortunately I rarely shoot weddings anymore but I guess the c100 will come in handy if I do.

July 7th, 2013, 11:12 AM	#12
Al Gardner Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Diego CA. and New Orleans, Loiuisana Posts: 355	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Wouldn't a C100 allow you to charge 10 times as much as a guy using a lesser camera though? That seems like a smart business plan to me.

July 7th, 2013, 02:10 PM	#14
Al Gardner Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Diego CA. and New Orleans, Loiuisana Posts: 355	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Yeah, I remember when dvd came out way back when I was able to charge more for it. and within a year it was expected, so no premium for long. So if you use a C100 for weddings I guess it's more to thrill yourself but not your bottom line? Sowhat's the point?

July 7th, 2013, 02:29 PM	#15
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,509	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures I think from the vhs to the dvd transfer I could see a reason to charge more for it as it was a totally new medium, just like you would charge extra for a blu-ray dvd. If you do commercial, corporate or work for production companies the type of camera or codec it uses becomes a much more important factor and that would have a influence on the price but it doesn't work like that for camera's at weddings. The point of using a c100 would be to get the best (or as good as) possible image with a very good low light performance, only if you give a canon 550d or a c100 in the hands of a very experienced and creative videographer the end result will look the same to the client for both versions, only if you let them show the result side by side they will see what the difference is but that is something we never do when we try to get new wedding clients, at least not as a reason to explain why you charge 10 times as much. You just show your work and there is never asked what camera you use.