Re: Canon EOS C100
 

CVP says that "The body weighs just 1020g (410g lighter than the EOS C300)." That is a very significant decrease in weight. Almost the same light weight as the FS100, just a little lighter. Only 160g more than the 5d MKiii. They are trying to move the DSLR crowd to a dedicated video cam replacement.

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

At first I thought that they were using the small & rather poor EVF from the XF105. However the XF105 specs state size 0.24" but only 260K dots which is awful while the C100 the specifications state size 0.24" 1.55M dots (960x540) which isn't so bad at all. A small EVF but high resolution

Canon U.S.A. : Professional Imaging Products : XF105
Canon U.S.A. : Professional Imaging Products : EOS C100

C300 EVF is pretty good & is twice as big at 0.52" but has the same 1.55M dots 960x540 resolution so maybe the C100 EVF won't be so bad after all.
Canon EOS C300 - Cinema EOS Cameras - Canon UK

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

We had a C100 on Tuesday here at Filmtools.......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

Jim -

Great stuff, thanks for posting.

A question: does the LCD also angle downward (for shooting from below the camera and looking UP?). You mentioned the opposite, which is nice, but does it also angle down?

Any chance you are allowed to comment on the image results yet :) ?

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

As you tilt it up from the closed position, it's on so you would see it from looking from below. Did not record anything (we had it for 30mins) but I'm not worried in the least bit on how good the footage will be.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

Jim, it's great to see you genuinely excited when you talk about new products that you're offering. Very refreshing compared to the canned pitches from most resellers.

Did you get a feel for how the EVF performs in those 30 mins by any chance?

-Dave

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

I am impressed with how much smaller the C100 appears than the C300. I love the DSLR form factor & TBH the C300 is just that bit too big & heavy in comparison to a 5D3. IThe C100 is supposed to be 15% smaller but when I see it being handled it looks smaller. It looks like it has the same C300 detachable handle as a point of comparison. Jim, does it feel a lot lighter?

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

Thanks Jim. Good info about the LCD being on as you open it out allowing some "from below" observation - in case I ever put on our K12 Jib, for example - although I'd probably rig up the remote monitor for that. Its a shame that LCD has limited positioning (for example, a side of camera view will need it to be in a near vertical position, I believe) - not ideal but I'll take what I can get.

About the only thing I didn't like (apart from the fixed VF and a few other things we all now know about) was the "available at the end of November" bit. Looks like that may be a month later than those of us with pre-orders around the world had hoped for (from the initial Canon announcement).

I do hope Canon is not continuing a recent trend in products becoming available later (sometimes much later) than they had initially indicated.

Mind you, I'd rather they got all the tooling and assembly things right first time. After all, one of the reasons I've chosen the C100 is because of a reputation for really good build quality, reliability and excellent image potential - I agree that its a very special sensor in there - and I just LOVE the ergonomics and small form factor of the C100. So I'll just sit and wait - and its not as if other "much desired" cameras announced this year by other manufacturers haven't suffered delays too!

Anytime before Christmas would be good!

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

I'm envious. This camera is going to be superb. I doubt many people will notice the difference between this and its pricier siblings even in AVCHD mode.

Also, stripped down, it will still look like a DSLR to many people, and thus be great for shooting without drawing attention to oneself.

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

Looks great but unless you put a recorder on it the difference will be easy to see compared to the C300. I own a C300 and will most likely buy a C100 as a B-Cam or jobs where AVCHD is not a problem. But together the C100 will need the Nano to match codec.

Testing the C300 yesterday I felt like I was cheating. Such a small camera putting out an amazing picture. Where I was testing people thought it was a still camera and would not believe me. Canon has a winner here.

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

Jim Martin told me that he films at the LA Farmer's Market food court area, great food there and love it,, and is never stopped when he uses a stripped C300 but is stopped the minute he adds the XLR rig, so people do mistake this for a DSLR and sleath filming should be easy.

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

Actually, when I had a tripod, the guards were on me immediately...when it was just the camera with the LCD, no problem. I agree that without LCD, even more stealthy......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

I dunno Paul, it can be very difficult to tell the difference most of the time. I read an FS700 article the other day and the writer couldn't tell the difference between the AVCHD output and the external recordings. Of course if you want to do a lot of grading or green screen that's another thing, but i'd be surprised if most people will be able to tell these cameras apart. We saw the same thing with the hpx 170 and 150 camera's which always looked identical to me.

One of the big pluses of this camera for me would be cheap recording format, but of course you can always stick a box on the back if someone insists on 50mb/s. It'll be interesting to see someone who owns both cameras doing a comparison. Perhaps yourself?

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

In terms of the first generation material, then yes, it may be hard to tell the difference.

But apart from grading/green screen (as you mention) there are other things which can show issues with AVC-HD.

Firstly is processing power required for post work - codecs like XDCAM422 are more computer friendly than AVC-HD.

Secondly are the implications of cascading codecs in a production or broadcast chain. There have been lots of tests which show a "falling off a cliff" effect as images get successively decoded/recoded. For a few generations there doesn't appear much degradation - then suddenly quality goes rapidly downhill.

If you know the entire production chain - such as you are producing the final Blu-Ray etc - then this may not be an issue. If the final product is acceptable - fine. But if the work is being passed on to someone else (such as a broadcaster for final compression for transmission) it's wisest not to take the risk - use a codec that's better than AVC-HD. Even if the edited master seems OK, the final compresion could be the one that sends it off the cliff.

Re: Canon EOS C100
 

"such as a broadcaster for final compression for transmission) it's wisest not to take the risk - use a codec that's better than AVC-HD."

David, which codec(s) would you suggest?
Thanks.

L