Awesome video showing C100mkII tracking AF, Face Detection, Slow Mo

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

4k also makes good 1080p and it does have other advantages, even if some c100 owners refuse to acknowledge that, but that's fine

Funny, because it was acknowledged. You seem to not understand that the 1080 from the C series models is 4K to 1080, so that advantage is moot. You only lose the ability to zoom in up to 200% and maintain resolution.

[Ken Diewert]

Regarding 4k...

yes, the ability to recompose through zooming is handy when you are too rushed, or had other restrictions to keep you from composing properly in the first place. But I don't think too many women (or men even) over 35 are going to want to see themselves in sharp focus when shot and broadcast at 4k. Even at 1080, this can require a little softening.

I saw some 4k demo footage recently with a younger model... and it was very revealing... Even with high end makeup.

Sports, action scenes, and landscapes - yes. Close ups - no.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Ken Diewert

Sports, action scenes, and landscapes - yes. Close ups - no.

If I understand right the c100 delivers equally detailed footage compared to a 4K camera when the footage is downscaled in post, does that mean we have to soften every shot on a c100 to make it look less realistic? What about photographers, they have to deal with way higher resolutions, does it mean they apply very heavy softening filters to portraits because it's too revealing?

I think we need to stop finding excuses why the c100 doesn't need 4K and maybe start questioning why Canon yet again intentionally cripples their camera to protect sales from higher end models, especially at the c100 pricepoint there is no reason not to incorporate a technology that's going to become a standard on every camera, even smartphones, very soon.

4K might not be something for you and that's fine but there are many other's out there that wished the c100 would do 4K and they would find 4K beneficial for their needs, it's 2015 after all.

[Les Wilson]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

...4K might not be something for you and that's fine but there are many other's out there that wished the c100 would do 4K and they would find 4K beneficial for their needs, it's 2015 after all.

The C100 does 4K. Just not in the way you want it. It wouldn't be a C100 if it did 4K differently. Get over it. Can you guys take the 4K war to another thread? This one is about the Face Detection.

[Noa Put]

The c100 downscales internally so it doesn't output 4K, it's 1080p what you get, nothing else. I do know it's about about the focus capabilities here but 4K became a part of the discussion along the way and was not started by me, but I have no problem not talking about it anymore as I have made my point.

[Ron Little]

The face Detection on my 70d with a 18 - 135 STM Lens works great. I keep looking for more STM Lenses. My Tokina 11 - 16 works well with Face detection also.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Ken Diewert

But I don't think too many women (or men even) over 35 are going to want to see themselves in sharp focus when shot and broadcast at 4k. Even at 1080, this can require a little softening.

I heard the same with HD when that transition was going on, and it ultimately had little effect on that.

Originally Posted by Noa Put

4K might not be something for you and that's fine but there are many other's out there that wished the c100 would do 4K and they would find 4K beneficial for their needs, it's 2015 after all.

Then don't buy it, simple as that. But someone shouldn't shoehorn themselves into some other camera when the C100 would fit their needs perfectly just because it doesn't do 4K, and the benefits otherwise are over-touted. I am pointing out specific workflows where the difference isn't really that big.

[Kyle Hawthorne]

What I find a bit amusing is the anti 4k crowd acting like it's not possible to shoot 1080p on a 4k camera.

It's like someone saying they don't want a camera to be capable of shooting high frame rates because they don't want big files, don't need slow motion, and it takes up too much time in post. Ummmm...ok then shoot in 24p.

4k is a tool just like any other tool. Sometimes you will need it and sometimes you will not. Would you refuse to buy a camera with built in NF filters because you never shoot in bright sunlight? Personally I like my cameras to have many different tools to suit a wide array of applications and we all know the C100 only falls short in a couple categories.

[Ken Diewert]

Personally, the c100 has been a great camera, and has paid for itself several times over without slomo or 4k... Just as my 5d2 paid for itself many times over without either. And one day when 4k is the required standard, I know that there will be lots of suitable, and affordable camera options... it's all good.

[Kyle Hawthorne]

I doubt 4k will be a broadcast standard for a least another 5-7 years. Most of the filmmakers who currently use 4k do not deliver in in 4k. They are just using the extra resolution when needed, like any other camera feature. When delivering in 4k is the new standard, filmmakers will likely be looking for 5k or greater to maintain the same creative control. This is why my current preference is 2.5k or 3k.

And we all know there are already plenty of suitable and affordable options... they just don't say Canon on the front.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Kyle Hawthorne

What I find a bit amusing is the anti 4k crowd acting like it's not possible to shoot 1080p on a 4k camera.

It is on an FS700 with the Odyssey 7Q. It is on the FS7 internally. Both of those options cost more than the C100 Mark II.

The DMC-GH4 does not shoot good 1080. It's very poor compared to its 4K mode downrezzed to 1080, which starts to resemble the C100 resolution.

What other camera are you thinking of?