$6,000 budget for a live music documentary series.

Loving my XF100...but upping to the XF300 keeps grabbing my eye. However, I really, really like the C100's size. I'll be running all over hell and back.

The main reason I don't like using an SLR for filming is the jerkiness while hand-holding. Would the C100 be similar? Is there a good lens around $1,000 that I could run around with? Does the top handle help? I suppose a must would be a good tripod. What about monopods?

I'm torn between a sound upgrade + XF300, or the C100 with a decent lens. Do not own any L lenses.

Will be in an out of planes, trains, and crazy crowds in dark spaces.

Wish there was a new round that more fit these needs.

Thoughts?

What is the upgrade to the XF300 going to reflect on screen vs the XF100.

I wouldn't recommend going to the C100 based on your description.

Agree with Gary. I've owned an XF300 and now C100 and have a lot of experience with the XF100 as well.
You will be better served by sticking with the lightweight XF100. The 300 gets you more throw and slightly better low light but weighs a lot more. Picture-wise they are hard to tell apart.
The C100 is a great camera but for run and gun it's not as friendly...better than a DSLR for sure but you still need to kit it up to make it work. The AF upgrade is good but nothing like the face-detect the XF series has. And then there's the main issue you mention...handheld smooth video. The IS systems in even the best L series lenses are not as nice as the onboard stabilization on the XF's. I typically throw my C100 on my Glidecam or sticks if I want smooth. Then there's the lens issue. There is no lens that will give you the same throw as the XF series. You will find yourself changing lenses which slows you down. The upside of the C100 is you can get constant aperture glass which was always annoying with the XF's. And you can get shallow DOF. Since you don't have lenses and your budget is $6k, I think you will come up a bit short going the C100 route. You can always rent to see if you like the C100 but from what you describe I don't think you'll be happy.

Wow...really? Still nearly double the price and the 300 isn't worth a jump from the 100? I love the XF100 and through my research figured this would be even better. I need a little extra oomph + low-light. Guess this isn't it.

I will get a decent fluid head monopod / tripod.

My idea was to get the xf300 and sell the xf100.

I thought I could grip the C100, a decent tripod / monopor or shoulder mount, and a good lens. Might be a shave more than $6,500.... but, no?

Huh. Well...jeez! Still nothing new for the middle ground, huh?

Thanks.

Canon pretty much abandoned the 3 ring camcorder market since the XF300 was announced until just this past April when they announced the XF200. Take a look. That is Canon's approach. You'll find plenty of 3-ring 3 chip cameras in Sony, JVC and Panasonic. Most are more svelt than the XF300 with a variety of modern features that may be of interest.

Agree with Gary and Robert...keep the XF100.

I've done a bunch of live event multi-cam shoots with my 3 XF105's, often along with XF305, C100 or C300...if Robert hadn't beat me to the punch, I'd have posted essentially the same words.

Of the cameras you're interested in, the one you have is the best for run-n-gun. Per the specs, even the upcoming XF200/205 will be a little bit larger and heavier. The C100 will give 2+ stops better low-light, wide DR, and shallow DoF but you'll be carrying at least of couple EF lenses and changing them on the fly which sounds like might be a concern for your fast-paced shooting environment.

If you have the budget and ability to carry both the XF100 and C100, then you have the best of both worlds. If you're set on replacing the 100 though...I've only seen the XF205 at NAB, not shot with it, but between the 300 and the 200/205 there's little doubt the new 200/205 would be the better buy at this point. It should start being stocked at all our favorite stores in the next few weeks.

I love shooting handheld with my C100 and I don't have anything to rig it up with. If you get the C100 witht he kit 24-105 f4, you'll be in good shape. Handholding a C100 is miles away from trying to handhold a DSLR. With IS on the lens, I love the look I get from handheld and I would guess that would work for a live music doc as well. I would say rent one and test it out.

This is a Canon forum. I am a Canon C100 advocate. But... allow me, humour me, in a little side step:

Have you considered the Sony EX1R or its replacement, the PMW200? Both half inch 3-chippers, and the half inch does make a difference.

Whilst the C100 is my main 'headline' camera, my 2 EX1s are still very busy. In fact, all of this month's work has been on EX1s. Of course it has its faults, but it's a very capable camera. In good light, with a fair wind and a little twiddling in post to bring back detail, it cuts well with the C100. The main issue is noise - a bit like the C100, but slightly more so in low light.

But it's the one 'little black sausage of joy' that you can pick up and go shoot ANYWHERE. Deep in a nightclub, deep sea fishing, waving overhead for an expo demo or clamped down for a studio lit green screen shoot. The EX1 does ENG acceptable 4:2:0 8 bit internal and will work with external recorders. The PMW-200 does better noise reduction so can be pushed an extra 3-6 dB, but more importantly does 50 Mbit 4:2:2 internally if that's your game.

I prefer both over the XF305 because of the half inch chip and CineGammas.

Yes, I'm a dirty heathen for mentioning them on a Canon board, but heck - they've earned me a LOT of money in circumstances similar to yours! LOL

Agree with Gary and Robert...keep the XF100.

I've done a bunch of live event multi-cam shoots with my 3 XF105's, often along with XF305, C100 or C300...if Robert hadn't beat me to the punch, I'd have posted essentially the same words.

Of the cameras you're interested in, the one you have is the best for run-n-gun. Per the specs, even the upcoming XF200/205 will be a little bit larger and heavier. The C100 will give 2+ stops better low-light, wide DR, and shallow DoF but you'll be carrying at least of couple EF lenses and changing them on the fly which sounds like might be a concern for your fast-paced shooting environment.

If you have the budget and ability to carry both the XF100 and C100, then you have the best of both worlds. If you're set on replacing the 100 though...I've only seen the XF205 at NAB, not shot with it, but between the 300 and the 200/205 there's little doubt the new 200/205 would be the better buy at this point. It should start being stocked at all our favorite stores in the next few weeks.

I'm glad to hear others praising the XF100. I love mine. With tweaked CP files you can get surprisingly wide DR and good sharpness. The size is great - in many settings it almost passes for a tourist cam, but decked out with wireless receiver and xlrs, etc. I often get comments often on what a serious, pro looking camera I have.

I guess I'd enjoy three lens rings, but since I rely a lot on autofocus, I keep the ring set on iris and watch the waveform to keep highs and lows under control.

I don't usually miss a longer zoom and a bit better low light, but I like slow motion so I wish it had 60fps at something larger than 720p.

On the Sony suggestions, I guess if you needed the specs of the XF300, I would also look at the PMW200, as it's a newer camera design, although it's more expensive. A used XF300 or EX1 would also be a good option perhaps. I'm just glad to hear that some folks don't try to shoot everything on DSLRs :-)

The other thing to consider is with the much better low light, the C100 might be better for a rock concert set up. Yes, the stage lights do a good job on the performers but if they move off their lighted area, you will quickly be in a potentially very low light area and the C100 will do much better than any small chip (!/3", 1/2" chips) camera.......so there is your dilemma...small chip (bigger DOF) not good in low light vs. big chip (small DOF) good in low light......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

You could make the case that actual concert shooting is not really run and gun - there's time to get things set. But reading the OP's post, he's talking a rock documentary, following musicians in all kinds of crazy situations with wildly (and suddenly) varying light and sound.

For those situations, he might find a big camcorder not the best option and the low light more of a factor. Maybe he's on the right track with a C100 with autofocus update and an f 2.8 wide to short tele zoom. Is there a small handle grip rig (not a shoulder rig) that would help on the steadiness?

Thanks, everyone!

Up for a challenge, the nerd in me caved.

I went with a C100 and an 24-105 f4 to get me started. That's way, way more camera than I've ever dealt with I'll grip that Froto mono-pod w/ ball-head. The ultimate low-light is something i've struggled with far too long. Can't drop that much for the XF300's low-light.

Will keep the XF100 as a back of the room wing-man to hold my Zoom H6.

...in other news, anyone need a 60D? Ha! Upping my microphone game as well.

>:)

John, just stumbled on your thread. I own both a C100 and XF305 and owned and sold a xf100. I would agree with your purchase. While I love using my xf305 for stage shows, where there is enough light, I would not consider using it on run and gun dimly lit situations. Your C100 will more than satisfy the lowest light situations. The 24 to 105 lens will do the job for 80% but I've had mixed reactions to using a monopod. For interviews and catch and grab, sure. But it's still not a replacement for a decent tripod. If you needed a long thrown lens then the xf305 would be a better choice (like wildlife and sports).

You are smart to keep the xf100 for now. The 200 should be a definite improvement when it arrives.

While I love my 305 I just don't use it as much anymore as the C100. The C100 image is really superb. Better than the xf305 in many situations. Not all but most.

That's what I thought... Thanks !!