C100 mark ii or C300?

[Mark Dobson]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

. . . However, my reality is, as an owner of a C300 since the day of it's release, I've really never had anyone ask what camera I own, nor have I lost work because I didn't have something "better". I was simply suggesting that the experiences some have had with producers preferring a certain camera, while valid, may not necessarily be everyone's experience.

I also truly believe that the work you provide is what matters most to producers and their clients, certainly the clients that I'm interested in working for.

Today, if I was given the choice between these two similarly priced cameras, I would definitely pick the new C100, and given my client base (smaller market and regional commercials, documentaries, and corporate films) I don't think I'd have a problem explaining that, with a recorder, the new C100 mark ii is everything and more than what the older C300 camera is. The 1080p60 alone is worth everything in my segment. Again, that would be if anyone asked.
Barry

Couldn't agree more. As the owner/director of a small production company our clients are more interested in the end result and I've never been asked what camera I'm using. I almost exclusively work on our own productions and don't have a lot of experience of the freelance marketplace at the moment.

However I feel it's vital to keep up with the technology which is why I'll be working out how to finance the C300 Mark 2. I've been absolutely knocked out with the C300, with the beauty and feel of the pictures. And a lot of that comes from the Canon Log production process, of having an image you can really dig into in post production. But that in no way is unique to the Canon cameras, everyone seems to offer some form of log mode and I wouldn't say that the C300 or C100 Mk2 are better cameras, just happen to like the Canon philosophy of not releasing products or firmware until it's passed stringent quality controls.

My understanding of freelance camera operators is that they are hired for their skills both empathic and technical and not for what camera they own. Sometimes this comes together and a lot of C300 owner operators will have done very well over the last few years. But the field has opened up now, especially with the Sony FS7, and it will be hard choice to decide which camera will get hired out more.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

So what do you do if a new client approaches you, you show them your reel with exactly what they are looking for, then they ask which camera do you have, then they tell you specifically, "We want someone with the C300"? This happened to me a few months ago, new client from Massachusetts, they ended up hiring someone who owned the C300, even though they loved what I showed them that I shot on the C100.

Both Barry and Mark have added some excellent points to this statement, but I had a slightly different tact I wanted to answer this with. Not owning a Red Epic, a Canon 5D Mark III, a Blackmagic Production Camera, and a Sony EX3 have all cost me potential gigs after the client contacted me based on my demo reel. So is the answer to simply make sure to own all of those? For me, personally, I've decided to pick what I think is the best value for my money and not worry about those clients shopping for the "best" gear at the best price instead of the individual who can do the job properly.

[Dave Mercer]

Being out in the boonies I'm pretty disconnected from a lot of the tech changes going on en el Norte.

I have read that the C100 Mk2 will be outdated within a year or so due to lack of 4k. The FS7 seems like the popular camera at the moment, but is costs twice as much with all the needed accessories ... Sounds like it's not meant to shoot straight out of the box, and it's more work to get beautiful images (compared to the canon c-series).

I work for news channels largely. Do you guys really think the world is moony to 4k that quickly?

I met a team in the Amazon filing 4k for a BBC natural history unit doc. I understand their need to future proof, but that's a totally different story.

[Dave Mercer]

PS - I tried to check out the FS7 when I was working in Mexico City over Xmas, but it wasn't in stock anywhere.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

I work for news channels largely. Do you guys really think the world is moony to 4k that quickly?

I'm curious to know where a sudden influx of cash would come from in order to move the broadcast world to 4K within the next year. It would require a total overhaul of all the gear and equipment that was purchased for the transition to digital/HD simply for a resolution boost. And all the encoding gear would have to be changed too, because H.265 is the only viable codec for compressing 4K content into a space that can fit within the digital broadcast signal which is currently occupied by what I believe is MPEG-2 HD.

There are people here who will tell you that 4K is best for reframing/cropping in post and future-proofing, but if you're reframing and re-cropping then you are mastering in 1080, and how would that stand for the future-proofing idea (because any and all of those shots would either have to be undone for 4K mastering or upscaled).

On top of that, here is the video I keep posting that is of a C100 Mark I upscaled to 4K. Is there any issue with doing this? Where would 4K originated content excel over this?

4K Upscale

[Michael Galvan]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

I'm curious to know where a sudden influx of cash would come from in order to move the broadcast world to 4K within the next year. It would require a total overhaul of all the gear and equipment that was purchased for the transition to digital/HD simply for a resolution boost. And all the encoding gear would have to be changed too, because H.265 is the only viable codec for compressing 4K content into a space that can fit within the digital broadcast signal which is currently occupied by what I believe is MPEG-2 HD.

4K Upscale

Gary is right. Especially if you are working within broadcast news... they will take quite a long while to migrate over to 4K. Camera acquisition in 4K is one thing... but for major broadcast networks, they have to upgrade the entire workflow chain to work with it as well. We're talking about everything from how it's transmitted in the field to editing workflows to archival solutions. This is all millions and millions of dollars in upgrades.

It's all about stability in workflow and speed for production when it comes to broadcast news.

[Brian Drysdale]

I suspect a move to 4k in the broadcast world will be a gradual process, with high end subscription channels being 4k first. In the meantime, the 4K televisions may just be a good way of viewing HD, The compression used on the Internet channels probably doesn't do much for the 4k quality of the original material and it effectively may be more HD quality than full 4k..

[Dave Mercer]

My work is quick turnaround mostly, but sometimes I have a bit more time. Have thought about slowmotion to enhance the creativity of longer pieces ... but ease of use and being able to get a good image even without the need for a crew, lighting, etc is essential.

Good to hear 4K is not just around the corner!

[Len Kaufman]

Recognizing that this thread is rather old, and hasn't had any recent posts, I hesitated to add this comment. But I felt that people are still making this decision and probably still reading this thread. So here goes.....

My comment has to do with lens choice. Many of the "purists" don't believe in auto iris. I am a firm believer because much of the work that I do is aerial video. Imagine if you will (Rod Serling fans?) that you are circling a cruise ship in a helicopter. First front lighting, then side lighting, then back lighting, then side lighting again, and back to front lighting. Do you really think you're going to be able to adjust your aperture quickly enough to not lose expensive helicopter time. Or what if you are on a stabilizer, like a Movi or similar? How are you going to adjust your iris to match the variations that your moves produce?

I have the C100 MK2 (I upgraded from the MK1). It is only with 2 STM lenses that you have auto iris: the 18-135 and the 18-55. The L lenses don't have it. I have both the 24-105 (from my still camera use) and the 18-135, and for me, it's a no-brainer. The 18-135 is on my camera 98% of the time. And just to make sure I don't get boxed in if in a tight environment, I carry the Tokin 11-16/2.8. While it's not auto iris, it is plenty wide.

If any of this has changed since I did my research (about a year ago), I'd welcome the additional information.

That's my 2 cents worth, adjusted for inflation.

[Jon Fairhurst]

A good example of auto iris is on Formula 1 cars in Monaco. The cars go into a tunnel and back out into daylight. Auto iris is the way to go.

The difficulty is when it's falsely triggered. A woman walks into the scene in a black dress. A man follows in a white t-shirt. Does the iris change? Same thing with the helicopter around the ship. You are on the front-lit side but then the sun reflects toward the camera from a large surface. If the iris closes, the whole scene is dimmed. Normally, you'd just want the reflection to blow out at 100% white for that large, specular highlight.

So you want the auto-iris to have some delay and hysteresis, but that delays the adjustment when it's warranted.

The other issue can be the smoothness of the adjustment. With a cine lens or even an adjustable ND filter, the adjustment is continuous. With the Canon lenses I've uses, they have 1/3 stop steps. Rather than ramp smoothly, they make small jumps. Do the STMs change smoothly?

Anyway, auto iris can work and can be necessary when you don't have a spare, skilled crew member in reach of the controls. But like anything automatic, it doesn't always make the adjustment that a human would choose.