C100 mark ii or C300?

[Dave Mercer]

I've also had clients ask if I have a C300, and then go quiet when I told them it was a C100.

I'm now also in the same boat, wondering whether to upgrade to a C300 or a C100 MK2, and then add a ninja star for the times when I really need it.

Sounds like the image from the C100 MK2 is superior, as is the slow motion recording.

Ho hum ....

[Mike Butir]

Originally Posted by Dave Mercer

I've also had clients ask if I have a C300, and then go quiet when I told them it was a C100.

I'm now also in the same boat, wondering whether to upgrade to a C300 or a C100 MK2, and then add a ninja star for the times when I really need it.

Sounds like the image from the C100 MK2 is superior, as is the slow motion recording.

From the sound of things and looking at test films, the c100 mark ii is amazing. I thought right away when i saw the price drop of the c300 that i was going to buy it. But after hearing other members opinions and paying attention to what those have posted online, it is very evident that the c100 mark ii is much better in low light, sharper, and of course, 60P is a great feature to have. However, i thought i was set on the c300 because of the codec. but what i found is that the c300 is awful with green screen. I don't know if 50 mb/s was too low of a bit rate still and a ninja will far exceed if used on a c100 mark ii. but i think at this point i am more concerned with image quality than clientele, but that is just me.

[Barry Goyette]

Wow 'em with your reel...not your camera.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I wonder which camera has the lowest rolling shutter. Both do 1080p60, so that indicates the same floor. The C100 MkII's new sensor might be faster though.

This doesn't matter for tripod/stabilized shooting, but can be important for handheld.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

This doesn't matter for tripod/stabilized shooting, but can be important for handheld.

If you're whipping the camera around fast enough to actually show off skew and jello then you're probably doing it wrong, especially with 24p.

Even without rolling shutter, you still have judder.

Originally Posted by Dave Mercer

I've also had clients ask if I have a C300, and then go quiet when I told them it was a C100.

That's why the Ninja is an important element of the kit. Most clients prefer ProRes to XF codec in the MXF container, and that eliminates the C300's internal codec advantage too because it's far better.

[Glen Vandermolen]

The EBU recently revised their broadcast guidelines:

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r118.pdf


On pg. 10, they list the "tier" of the cameras. Tier HD 2L and above (mainstream HD broadcast programs, above TV news) in H.264 AVC is now 4:2:2 interlaced OR 4:2:0 Progressive.
I'm not sure if the C100 Mk II can qualify as HD 2L and above. Maybe someone else can figure out the codecs.

And if I were picking between the C100 Mk II or a C300, I'd go for the C100. It'd fit my shooting style. I've used the C300 and I always thought it was a heavy, clumsy camera for hand holding.

[Gary Huff]

Do you routinely shoot for Eurovision out of Jacksonville?

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

Do you routinely shoot for Eurovision out of Jacksonville?

LOL. Regularly? No, but I have had European clients.

[Troy Moss]

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
Wow 'em with your reel...not your camera.

True Statement Barry! Having the right camera gets you half way there........

[Jim Martin]

Originally Posted by Mike Butir

From the sound of things and looking at test films, the c100 mark ii is amazing. I thought right away when i saw the price drop of the c300 that i was going to buy it. But after hearing other members opinions and paying attention to what those have posted online, it is very evident that the c100 mark ii is much better in low light, sharper, and of course, 60P is a great feature to have. However, i thought i was set on the c300 because of the codec. but what i found is that the c300 is awful with green screen. I don't know if 50 mb/s was too low of a bit rate still and a ninja will far exceed if used on a c100 mark ii. but i think at this point i am more concerned with image quality than clientele, but that is just me.

The low light difference between the two is minimal at best, if not, the same.......but still the best in class!

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

If you're whipping the camera around fast enough to actually show off skew and jello then you're probably doing it wrong, especially with 24p.

Even without rolling shutter, you still have judder.

There's some truth in that; however, there are cases where rolling shutter matters.

Examples are run 'n gun handheld work when a stabilizer or tripod aren't practical. Even with a monopod, I find that I'm sensitive to the jello from relatively small vibrations. Of course, one can use a plug-in to remove rolling shutter, but this costs time.

Regarding 24p, whip pans are acceptable as they are disorienting enough that they overwhelm the judder. Unfortunately, this is a worst case for rolling shutter skew. Rolling shutter removal plug ins aren't practical in this case, unless you pre-plan for lots of cropping.

Another viable 24p case is where you track a main subject (which will have no judder) while allowing the background (which the audience ignores) to judder. An example might be a camera on a tripod filming a person on a fast moving train. With rolling shutter, telephone poles outside of the window will bend, which draws attention to the background that we want them to ignore.

Finally, there is the stylized hyper-action case with a fast shutter and handheld camera, like in the Bourne series of films. In this case, we want the frenzy of judder, but we want it crisp, rather than rubbery.

These might or might not be important for the OP, but for some situations, low rolling shutter can be very important, even at 24p.

[Buba Kastorski]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

Wow 'em with your reel...not your camera.

My reel make them call me, but the first question they ask is not even about the price, they all want to know what camera i shoot with. And I agree, this is wrong, and i would love to refuse the client that puts hardware first and my knowledge and experience last, but i don't make any rules, i just follow :)

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Buba Kastorski

My reel make them call me, but the first question they ask is not even about the price, they all want to know what camera i shoot with.

Ditto. In the end, for quite a number of people, the reel just gets them to the point where they want to call you to find out how much gear they can get for the lowest price.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Troy Moss

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
Wow 'em with your reel...not your camera.

True Statement Barry! Having the right camera gets you half way there........

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. If was buying today, I would buy the C300 today, even though I think the C100 MKII is a better camera. You cannot change producers minds when they get a model number or brand in their head. The C300 will be "the standard" mid to low end pro camera for another year or so. Then they will start asking for the C300 MKII.

If you shoot for yourself or are a hobbyist, C100 MKII all of the way. But if you shoot for producers, you are going to get asked for the C300. I usually rent but this guys budget precluded that.

[Barry Goyette]

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. If was buying today, I would buy the C300 today, even though I think the C100 MKII is a better camera. You cannot change producers minds when they get a model number or brand in their head. The C300 will be "the standard" mid to low end pro camera for another year or so. Then they will start asking for the C300 MKII.

If you shoot for yourself or are a hobbyist, C100 MKII all of the way. But if you shoot for producers, you are going to get asked for the C300. I usually rent but this guys budget precluded that.

I think my response here was simply an affirmation of what the OP had said in the previous comment about his priorities (quality over clientele) and also in reference to my original comment...which was that A) today, the c100 mark ii, is a more modern camera with a few important features that the C300 doesn't have, and that especially when paired with a recorder it is certainly the equal of the C300 in almost every way, and that B) the only real reason to by a C300 is "if" you might get hired more because you have it. So, yes, I totally agree with you on this.

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.

However, I, personally, will be doing neither of these things, as I'll most likely purchase a C300 mark II as soon as it's available. I liked what I saw in the canon booth at NAB, and I'll be buying that camera because it's the one I want....not the one some hypothetical producer might want (because most of the hypothetical producers I know want a RED, not a C300, anyway :-)

Barry