C100 mark ii or C300?
 

Hello Everyone,

I know that there was a similar post about this topic, however, i am coming from a completely different camera than Dave, in his post: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-ci...c100-c300.html

It has been a while since i have last been on the forum, which i was discussing my purchase of the Sony NX5U back in 2010. Everyone was a great help here!

To get things started, as i had mentioned above, I am in the market for a canon c100 mark ii or c300 since its price drop. I am upgrading from a sony NX5U, which at this time i hardly ever do work that requires that camera anymore. Lately i have been using the 5D mark iii, which has been a great camera, but cannot see myself buying a dslr. I also want to make away from AVCHD compression, which is what i currently have now with the nx5. I know that the c100 also shoots avchd, but i can eliminate that with the ninja of course, which will call for a bigger rig. Right out of the box, the c300 shoots 50mb/s 4:2:2. Aside from those 2 notably important differences between the two. what else separates the two cameras? What will i benefit by buying the c300 opposed to the c100, or perhaps the other way around? low light, dynamic range differences?



Thank you,
Mike

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

As a C300 owner since day one, I don't see a lot of advantages of the original c300 over the mark ii version of the C100. The C100mkii simply a more mature design and set of features, it's lighter, has better lowlight , has better image processing, a better LCD and 1080p60. The codec is really only important if you are submitting to network broadcast, and a ninja star gets you ProResHQ if you need it. There are people that will tell you that you'll get "hired more" if you have a C300. That really depends on who's doing the hiring. I've never had it come up.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

In favor of the C300, it's weather sealed. You can rent out the C300 (I'd only rent out my equipment if I'm going with the equipment.....it's still the number one rented camera and probably will be until the end of 2015). C300 has broadcast codec straight from the camera (no need for external recorder). C300 price right now better than ever ($6499 - $6999 new.......pre-owned low hour cameras $5000-$5900)! With that said, you can't go wrong purchasing the C100 MKII. I'm expecting a price drop on the C100 MK II by early summer.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

I have the c100 original, and while it's nice to have the ninja option, it can be a pain to drag the ninja around. But after watching this comparison by Gary Huff, I have shot a few things in AVCHD, that I would have previously used the ninja for.

Depends on your shooting style, but as a single person crew, I like to keep it simple - so I might opt for the better internal codec. Either way, they are both great cams, and can pay for themselves reasonably fast - not to mention the ease of use after shooting DSLR.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

Not really. Get a Ninja Star. You cannot record 1080p60 with it, but you can get everything else, and in ProRes LT, 422, or HQ. For mounting the Ninja Star, you really only need a Cinevate Universal Accessory mount, and it adds a miniscule amount of weight to the rig. I almost always shoot with either the Ninja Star (if I want to be compact) or the Shogun (if I want the bigger monitor).

Let's clarify something here. The C300 shoots 50Mbps 4:2:2 in MPEG-2. AVCHD is MPEG-4, so visually, aside from the chroma subsampling, the bitrate is about the same because MPEG-4 is almost twice as efficient of a codec. That means that, when you want to keep your file sizes small and not lose visual quality, you have that option. And since I'm always shooting ProRes, I always get 4:2:2 anyway, and ProRes HQ is a far better codec than the MPEG-2 found in the C300.

Which isn't even accurate. This is just a parroted line that doesn't have much stock in material that is actually captured for broadcast. It was a requirement at the beginning of digital capture for HD broadcast mostly as a "best practices" back when MPEG-2 was the codec. It was to discourage heavy use of cheap HDV cams and gear, which is MPEG-2, and would easily break down into a macroblocked mess after too many generations. In the US, it was primarily Discovery HD Theater leading the way with these requirements (not so much the Discovery Channel, which had one of its biggest shows, Deadliest Catch, being shot on quite a lot of HDV because of how cheap those cameras were to replace).

Discovery HD Theater no longer exists.

Not to say that you shouldn't capture in the highest quality you can, but we have come along way from the early days of MPEG-2 HDV and now you can broadcast whatever you like as long as you deliver in the specs that are asked for, regardless of capture. So let's stop with these empty "for broadcast" points.

C300 will give you the ability to Genlock and jam sync with an external timecode generator and output video over SDI connections (I have an Atomos connect unit for that, have used it a handful of times since December 2012 when I bought the C100 Mark I). It's also a better match for the Recoil v2 from Zacuto for shoulder mount operation since you can use a Z-Finder because the C300's LCD is positioned properly for that, instead of an expensive electronic one that the C100 Mark II would require. The ND filters use buttons instead of a wheel that you have to manually rotate. And, lastly, if you commonly deal with clients who want to specify a camera because they've heard about one or another, they have commonly (in my experience) heard about the C300, but not the C100.

The C100 Mark II is cleaner at higher ISOs, has 1080p60 instead of 720p60, lighter for use on smaller gimbals such as the Ronin M and the Movi M5, and uses cheaper SD card media.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

Thank you all for you helpful advice!

Very interesting! I have been watching a lot of side by side videos of both the c100 and c100 mark ii. It is very evident that the image quality of the mark ii is better in both sharpness, low light, and color representation. With that being said, the original c100 and c300 share the same image sensor? So in essence, the original c100 image quality strongly represents the c300?

So with that being said, bundling the ninja with the c100 mark ii will produce a better image? (not saying you can't use a ninja with the c300, too...) However, if the c100 mark ii has a better image, that being said, the c100 with a ninja may be the winner?




Having the ability to play with Genlock and timecode is a nice option, however, i do not think i will ever find the need to utilize those features.. However, what puzzles me the most is that people will take me more seriously using a c300 oppose to using a c100.


I do really like the placement of the screen on the c300 much better. I like how the nd filters are motorized compared to manual. I like that i don't need to buy an external recorder for a better codec. But, if i will be sacrificing image quality going for the "better camera" i am not sure if this will haunt me if i were to go with the c300. or perhaps, the same if i went with the c100. There are pros and cons to both cameras, like there usually is in the process of buying a new piece of equipment. Are there any features within the menu of the c300 that are not offered in the c100 mark ii? just trying to sort everything out before leaning one way or another.


Thank you guys all again for your help!
mike

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

Yes, pretty much.

Not in a way that you would actually notice.

People will also take you more seriously if you have a nice ride and live in a mansion. It is what it is.

Codec isn't better. Some clients don't like dealing with MXF, and others prefer the ease of using ProRes on a legacy FCP platform. Both of these scenarios call for a Samurai Blade or Shogun on the C300.

If you're worried about being "haunted" by your choice, then perhaps you'd be best sticking with what you have?

If you're down to worrying about differences in menu options between the two, then, definitely recommend you simply stand down from a purchase.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

I guess i am trying to justify why i should go with the c300 opposed to the c100. Whether that means that there are features on the c300 internally that will help benefit my productions or not. I know that i need to move away from my nx5u, as it is not doing much but sitting in its case.. in the price point that i am after, the C series seems to be the only camera that offers the "look" i am aiming for. However, i have been using speed grade a lot as of lately, and would hate to see that AVCHD codec fall apart. It would be nice to have a camera that doesn't require an external recorder, which is why the c300 still stands on mind. However, it really won't be much of a hassle rigging the ninja on board of the c100. One thing i just noticed is that the c100 mark ii offers 35mb/s in MP4. Is this only at 60P to account for the higher bit rate? although its a higher frame rate, it still is not going to do me any good at 4:2:0 though...

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

SDI outputs and jam sync are going to be the two. And in return you trade off 1080p60 for 720p60 and slightly less sensitivity.


Depends on what you are doing in Speed Grade. Power windows? Secondaries? Keying? Just applying a LUT and tweaking the curves isn't going to be enough to break AVCHD.

Again, we're talking about 50Mbps MPEG-2. It's going to fall apart as well, though the chroma subsampling will help. I don't get where this idea comes from that 1996's MPEG-2 (H.222) at 50Mbps is going to be the be-all end-all over H.264, even with the 4:2:2 aspect to it. It's still only 50Mbps and was developed for use in the fixed-lens XF300 series cams. With the Ninja Star on the C100 Mark II, you're getting 4:2:2 at 176Mbps (max 220). That's a huge difference.

Thankfully, Canon has finally joined the 21st century with the XF AVC codec, which is very exciting to me. The C300 Mark II absolutely does not need an external recorder for anything, but the C300's internal codec was a dinosaur even when it was released.

Especially not if you go for the Ninja Star, which is an ideal option.

MP4 is identical to AVCHD except the files are not in the AVCHD directory structure.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

I've used both cameras extensively and produce/shoot for broadcast all the time. And I recently purchased the C100 M2.

The main thing about the 50mb MXF from the C300 isn't so much the quality, but rather the integration into workflows that broadcast networks have established. It's an easy ingest for a media manager. But at this point, with so many different codecs, most places have a system where footage like AVCHD is simply transcoded to their edit codec of choice.

You will ultimately get better image quality with the C100 M2, especially if pairing it with an external 4:2:2 recorder, like a Ninja Star. And it doesn't really add much weight or bulk at all... I mount a recorder onto the threaded mount on the handle with a simple threaded ball mount and it works perfectly fine. And at this point, the codec quality is leagues better (220mb I-Frame 4:2:2, etc.)

The only reason I'd go for the C300 at this point is if you need HD-SDI, Genlock, and Timecode BNC terminals.

But as mentioned, the C100 M2 is just a newer camera, and inherently it gets upgrades that make it better, like 1080p60, Dual Pixel AF, Face AF, better image quality at the same ISO levels, much better LCD, etc. And depending on what recorder you end up using, you end up getting some of those above ports back.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

Most of this discussion seems to sway towards the updated electronics, processor and really tasty Oled display of the C100 Mark 2.

That's what I'd choose. Well that or a second hand C300 because you will be able to pick one up for a song in a couple of months and it's still and will remain a very fine camera.

The other option if you wanted to dip your toes in the 4K world is the XC100 coming out in just over a months time. (no XLR though) I'm planning on buying that to see how 4k fits into my workflow prior to committing myself to selling my C300 and upgrading to the C300 Mark 2.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

myself included, the c100 mark ii sounds like the proper choice. the performance difference with the newly updated electronics seem to be the best route to take. low light abilities at high iso levels is fantastic. however, i still haven't eliminated the c300 yet. I need to be certain that passing up that camera is ultimately the better choice...

4k has been a question i have been asking myself for some time. I am very drawn to the a7s, but there are a lot of qualities that bug me, The gh4 is a nice camera, but i don't think i will ever be in the market for a micro 4/3 sensor. and finally, i don't know how crazy i am about any of the black magic cameras.. the XC100 looks like an appealing camera, but without an interchangeable lens system i can't see myself being happy in the long run. I guess what i am really trying to say is that in the price point am aiming for ($5,000 -$7,000,) there is really no perfect 4k solution and i am better off buying a really nice HD camera. any thoughts?

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

That is correct. The EOS C series (100 and 300 both) give you the 4K->1080 look already, so you only lose the ability to master in 4K without needing to upscale.

This is what an upscale master looks like:

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

That's right, both cameras have 4k image sensors and down sample to 1080. That image looks absolutely amazing! What is the process required to achieve this? Was this shot on the c300? With that being said, having the higher bit rate also helps, I would assume?

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

C100 Mark I to ProRes HQ.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

very impressive results, i can only imagine how that would look with the c100 mark ii!

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

I believe at this point it is best to stick with the c100 mark ii. Down the road an investment of a ninja will complete an outstanding filmmaking package. However, as i wrap up this discussion, i need a recommendation for which lens to buy. I would really hate to buy such a nice camera and be cheap when it comes to which lens to buy:

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486708-USA/Canon_1910B002AA_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_II.html
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120085-REG/sigma_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html
Rokinon 24mm T1.5 Cine http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1078639-REG/rokinon_ds24m_c_ds_24mm_t1_5_cine.html

These are the three that i have chosen, i really am drawn to the canon, but it is stretching my budget...

What are your guys thoughts?

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

The above list is incomplete without knowing what lenses you have already.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

This is my first cinema camera. I do not own any previous lenses. I am upgrading from the sony nx5u, which is a broadcast style camera with a fixed lens.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

Then the answer is none of the above. You need the 24-105 f/4.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

why do you recommend that over the 16-35mm f/2.8L? Better in lower light and wider.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

Mike, 16-35mm is a superwide to wide angle lens, if that the only thing you film, that's fine. But I do imagine that you film in the range of 50 (normal) -100mm (tele) too. If you don't own any lenses before the 24-105mm is a over all good lens. Sure you are right the 16-35 is a faster lens, but that is not everything, you need to reach your object too.
The lenses I got is zoom 24-70 is, 70-200, 120-300 is and non zoom 20, 35 is, 100 is macro. Most of them is F2.8 but that's because I spent a lot of money on lenses...
The 24-105 is a very good start if you don't own any lenses, it goes from wide to tele in one lens and F4 is fast enough for the C100mkII.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

Looking over everything, the 24-105mm looks like my best option. In the end it turns out to be a cheaper package, as B&H bundles that lens with the c100mark ii. I am saving an additional $500 buying it in the bundle. To me, that is a no brainier!

I guess I was a bit hesitant with that lens because I have used it on a 5D and 7D and I was not too impressed with its low light ability. However, the c100 is much better in low light at higher ISO levels. I think that I have a solid starter package!

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

If you end up needing a wider/faster zoom, I'd next go with the 17-55 f/2.8, but if you can only afford one lens at the moment, it's absolutely the 24-105, and nicely bundled as a kit too.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

I also heartily recommend the EF-S 17-55 f2/.8 IS. It is really fantastic on this camera... great starting wide to mid-telephoto, constant 2.8, Image Stabilization, and great optics.

The 24-105 does give you much better telephoto at the cost of 1 stop lower. Picking depends on how you shoot.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

The Canon 18-135 stm is a good cheaper and lighter alternative 'run around lens' to the full frame 24-105. It's significantly wider, the dual pixel af works much quicker and is silent.
the f4 of the 24-105m is actually closer to f5 apparently, and unless you have it set to f4 the aperture ramps through the zoom, Set the 18-135 to 5.6 and it stays that way from 18 to 135. Is not quite as solidly built as the 24-105 and the manual focus is fly by wire but has comparable sharpness and is a great do it all lens when you're in a hurry

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

I see myself doing a lot of work in low light. However, if the 24-105 f4 will still hold up in low light with the c100's ability to maintain a clean image i will feel comfortable with this route. Also, it is hard to beat when the lens comes bundled with the c100 for half the cost it would originally be. As a beginner lens, it would be nice to cover a wide range of focal lengths; making this a versatile lens. But again, my only concern is low light. If that is not going to be much of an issue, then i will stick to this bundle.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

If 24mm on a crop sensor is wide enough, and an f4 aperture is wide enough, it's a very versatile lens, and long enough to pick up closeups at good working distances.

For me on a crop sensor it doesn't work as a primary lens because I frequently have to get a wider angle to cover a room, need to get that 16-18mm to get the wides. But I do sacrifice those closeups...

It's all a compromise, just a matter of finding out what compromise works best for most of *your* shooting.

I'm a big fan of the EF-S 17-55mm, but would probably grab a 24-105mm too if I were buying a new C100 or MkII. It's a great lens for the bundled price, but do think about how wide you need to get!

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

It's worth noting that there is also a new Full Frame EF 24-105 mm STM lens 3.5-5.6 IS. This lens has picked up impressive reviews and the autofocus is both quiet and very quick. It is also lighter than the red banded F4 version.

One interesting thing about this lens is that it was used in the making of the new C300 Mark 2 promotional film 'Trick Shot'. It can be seen on several occasions in the 'Making of' movie that has been also released.

Over the last 2 years Canon have released a fair few EFS STM lenses and they are all really suitable for Cinema Eos Cameras.

I've been using this lens successfully for the last 2 years or so and it's great for covering events where you need the zoom factor and to also be able to snap back into a wide shot without changing lenses.

Yes this is a great lens producing really tasty images but it is also pretty heavy. I've noticed it has superb image stabilisation, again really useful when you just can't , for whatever reason, use a tripod. Great for interviews where you want to change the framing between questions.

My recommendation for anyone starting to build up a set of lenses is to develop a relationship with a good local camera snap and try a load out. And don't feel you have to use Canon 'L' lenses, they were not specifically designed for the far lower definition of video work and there are a lot of other very interesting lenses out there.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

I'll step in and be the guy who says "buy the C300, you'll get hired more." :)

But seriously, if you're working as an indie videographer, there's a pretty good chance you'll get hired more. How much more depends on your market, but given that both cameras cost nearly the same, I'd take the more more likely to get me more work.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

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 ....

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

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.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

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

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

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.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

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.

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.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

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.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

Do you routinely shoot for Eurovision out of Jacksonville?

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

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

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

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........

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
 

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