Yep, those two new Sony F5 and F55 cams sure look GREAT and I'd love one! We don't know pricing yet but rumours (and they are only rumours at the moment) are that the F5 will give the C300 VERY serious competition and of course tramples it on the specs front. I think if I was about to buy a Canon C300 or C500 or 1D-C at the moment it would be wise decision to wait - if I could. Soon it won't just be RED that's repositioning its price offering!

However, C100 is/was definitely always going to be in a lower price bracket no matter what. I've been looking hard for a year already and need it now/can't sit things out any longer.Agreed but I'm looking more at their new codec XAVC which they will be pushing at NAB. It's specifically handles 120P easily and of course 4K which I have no use for now. That's the direction that has caught my eye. Panasonic have their AVCUltra but they're very silent. I need a new cam now as well but don't want to be locked in to the available specs of the C100 for 3years despite the beautiful sensor it has. It sounds like the C100 definitely fits your needs right now and I can't wait to see what you're able to do with it. Best of luck, I'll wait with my aging AF100 for now (sigh)

New ballgame with the Sonys but what is the real price and when will they ship? Still our team could have two C100s with external recorders or a Sony F5.

And then there is the pending resolution of the major issue. How major? If I don't get the right answer we will cancel our orders, and I imagine many of you will. Takes the C100 out of the professional category, and into VG30 territory,

I expect the F5 will be $20 K once you have XLR and proper recording. My interest is in the F55 with a C300 as B cam.

Which major issue?

New ballgame with the Sonys but what is the real price and when will they ship? Still our team could have two C100s with external recorders or a Sony F5.

And then there is the pending resolution of the major issue. How major? If I don't get the right answer we will cancel our orders, and I imagine many of you will. Takes the C100 out of the professional category, and into VG30 territory,

Basically, the F5 is everything we hoped the C300 was going to be and a bunch more.

We've certainly shot but never owned Sony, and aside from a JVC and Panasonic camera, always owned Canons.

After the specs and Canon's imposed limitations, we ultimately ruled out the C100, they just don't compete today as a professional tool, let alone in a year. With it's sensor it should, but they've made the C100 old technology before it's even released. They're offering way less than they need to and that will prove to be a big mistake. Certainly Sony and now Red think so.

Sony has taken a whole different approach, offering much more with the new F cameras than Canon is with their C cameras. It's a bigger, more generous vision/offering of features, codecs, frame rates even the VFs and modular approach.

Canon seems all about limiting their new cameras by comparison, from the hardware to the software and telling their potential customers that the new cameras engines can't support higher frame rates.
Bad vision.

Well said Jim,

And that is from a happy C300 owner.

Shouldn't the comparison be with the C500? It has uncompressed 4:4:4 raw output from 3SDI. The advantage of the C300 is it is here and now. The C100 is going to be priced well below the F5, and it will have uncompressed 4:2:2 out the back. Sony XAVC codec for 4k, one way of looking at it, it's internally recording AVC h.264 for 4k. The C100 is AVC h.264 internally for 2k. Ergonomically, which would you rather hand hold, the C series or the F? If you were kitted already with Canon lenses, that's got to factor into a decision as well.

I think the C100 will be capable of competive images but if they have gone too far in delivering less than their best, they will get their just desserts.

Which major issue?

Yes, this is really giving me great pause! Want to order soon, but...

I have agreed to hold off for a few more days until Canon USA can talk with Canon Japan. Then I will either say what now appears to be a huge mistake on Canon's part, or what was merely a mistake in Canon Tech support's knowledge base,

Well said Jim,
Seconded. Very good points from Jim. There's a lot to take in at the moment, and a lot still to come - especially prices! But Sony really do seem to have listened for once regarding points about ergonomics for one thing, and it's impressive the way they do seem to have thought about a system rather than a single product. But early days.

The ergonomics are the biggest differentiator for me. The C100/300/500 are a new class of camera like a grown-up DSLR. Small & self-contained. The C300 feels really comfortable for me to use. There is a vast difference between the simplicity of a C300 & the ugly fussiness of the FS100/700 covered with tiny little buttons. The new cameras just continue with Sony's own strange ideas about what constitutes good ergonomics on a camera.

The new cameras just continue with Sony's own strange ideas about what constitutes good ergonomics on a camera.
Well, I need to see one in the flesh, but on first impressions the new cameras seem to have answered many of the criticisms about cameras such as the FS100/700 ergonomically. Viewfinder further forward and to the side, sensible shouldersupport thought about, things like that.

OK I'm going to need some advice here.

I've just checked the Canon EU specification page for the C100 which now seems to have details on it - as I remember for a long time all I got was 'not available' for that section so I had to look at the Canon USA spec pages (which as I remember were a bit vague about anything other than NTSC specs at the time). Link to Canon EU C100 Specs here:

Canon EOS C100 - Cinema EOS Cameras - Canon Europe (http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Digital_Cinema/Cinema_EOS_Cameras/EOS_C100/#p-specification2)

Ever since I ditched HDV (which I did as soon as I went professional in 2008) and especially since my stuff rarely gets broadcast/almost always goes to web I've only used progressive for my work. As I live in PAL land typically this is at 1080p25 on the EX3 and Canon 7D (yes I know it's not really that resolution on the 7D!) and more recently 1080p50 AVCHD2 on a little Panasonic TM900 for some cutaway/slow motion shots.

Now, and I don't know if this is related to what Philip is concerned about, but I see 25FP is listed on the specs with a little note stating that this is "recorded as 50i". I DON'T like the idea of anything being recorded as interlaced, AT ALL....

I want and indeed fully expected to see 25p listed - this is not a cheap camera and is supposedly a professional one, right? But I do not. I have a feeling this is the 25FP method that Canon used in some of their consumer camcorders from several years back. I have no idea what it means technically and implications on picture quality but I am now concerned. I need 1080p25, heck 1080p50 AVCHD2 would have been nice too.

Also, what are the implications of this FP thing regarding an external recorder taking 4.2.2 prior to in camera AVCHD compression?

Can someone who knows this stuff inside out please enlighten me please - as I have a C100 on pre-order and now need to fully understand this quickly.

Thanking you in advance.

Just as the C300 uses the MXF recording back end from the XF series it appears that the C100 uses the AVCHD recording back end from the XA10 (reduced cost baby XF100). The XA10 records 25p (PAL) and 30p (NTSC) as PSF (Progressive Segmented Frame). Which means that each progressive frame is divided into 2 fields and recorded as 50i (or 60i). When the files are imported into your NLE it will understand that it must interpret the footage as 25p (or 30p). So basically you don't need to worry as Premiere Pro or FCP will do the right thing.

Phew, thanks Nigel. Just reading Wikipedia and other web pages now to try and understand Progressive Segmented Frames more.

EDIT: Well I've now read a bunch of stuff and the main thing that concerns me is a mention that PSF may not handle chroma information in the same way as true progressive - but that might just be me not fully understanding this yet. There is also an excellent 2011 article by the Pro Digital Group out there that discusses all the things you must know about PSF. That one suggests Adobe CS5.5 Production Premium (what I mainly use now) will attempt to handle the clips as interlaced (and that will reduce quality of course) - unless I specifically direct it not to. I don't know if that changed when I updated to CS 5.5.2. Still reading and trying to get to the bottom of this chroma subsampling thing causing artifacts on coloured objects as mentioned in the Wiki article and in a few other places.

I also link to a thread that discusses this PSF thing regarding the Canon XA10 here on DVinfo.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xa-vixia-series-avchd-camcorders/506187-can-anyone-explain-psf.html

EDIT 2: Also, just found this for us CS 5.5 users.

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/atepper/story/psf8217s_missing_workflow_part_7_adobe_premiere_pro_cs5.5.x/

Phew, thanks Nigel. Just reading Wikipedia and other web pages now to try and understand Progressive Segmented Frames more.

EDIT: Well I've now read a bunch of stuff and the main thing that concerns me is a mention that PSF may not handle chroma information in the same way as true progressive - ..........
With true interlace, odd lines are captured together (1,3,5,7 etc) then even lines are captured 1/50 sec later (2,4,6,8 etc). The odd lines are transmitted as one FIELD, then the even lines as the other field of a frame. Then time for the next frame. This why interlace is so named - odd and even lines are interlaced!

With progressive all the lines get captured together, all at the same time. Easiest thing is simply to store or transmit them sequentially.

But it can be useful to record/transmit or otherwise deal with the progressive signal with equipment designed for interlace. Easily enough done with a framestore - just store a frame, then read out the odd lines one after the other, then the even ones, then on to the next frame. The important point is that the operation is transparently reversible. The only difference between p and psf is the order in which the lines are presented, the information for each line doesn't change.

That's the theory. Unfortunately, practical systems may not always interpret correctly. They MAY wrongly recognise the psf signal as ordinary interlace and do a deinterlace - which will actually change the information within each line, not just do a simple reordering.

You are also correct about possible problems with the chroma - though not in the case of 4:2:2 systems where each line is distinct. It's really down to interlace that 4:2:2 is seen as desirable as it is. Have you ever wondered why it's considered desirable for the chroma res to be twice as high vertically as horizontally? It's down to these sort of reasons, and the (interlace) TV signal not being symmetrical horizontally and vertically. 4:2:2 becomes far less relevant in the progressive world.

Move to 4:2:0 and it all gets a lot more complicated. Some systems cope well, but others misinterpret.

Thank you David. I was hoping you'd chime in and help me sort this out in my head!

One other question. Using 4.2.2 uncompressed out of the HDMI (which we are told is "the same" as out of the C300s SDI) will bypass all of this PsF stuff - or not?

Andy, if you use a good recorder like the Nanoflash it's going to take the 4:2:2 psf output from the C100 hdmi and save it as true progressive anyway. It does the work of taking the split frames and recombines them into whole progressive frames before your nle ever sees it.

The difference from the old days of 24f from the canon xl1/xha1 days is that the sensors themselves began life as interlaced natively, so there was a drop in resolution from row summation just as there is now with native interlace, and your nle had to combine the fields to make a progressive frame.

The C100 sensor is different in that it will be progressively read as a whole frame at one time, then split into two fields (25, 30 fps) and output from the hdmi as 50i/60i, but since it natively originates from a progressive read of the sensor and sampled at 4:2:2, row summation is not needed to smooth alias artifacts as with an interlaced sensor. Each field is exactly half the frame, and the recorder will take care of recombining the two fields perfectly stitched into the whole frame. By the time it gets dropped onto the timeline of the nle, the frames have been recombined perfectly and it will be seen and be as the true progressive it originated as. This is the same way it works with the Sony hdmi/sdi output as well (or the c300). The stream out the sdi interface is 25/30p contained within 50/60i.

OK, now I've got it - thank you! Sorry for the naive questions everyone but I've not needed to REALLY understand this PsF thing until now.

You know I'd sware the original Canon USA spec page (that I viewed just after the C100 was announced) listed 25p amonst the frame rates - but I might have remembered that wrong. I know they originally listed the HDMI out as 4.2.0!

I think it said it "records" to 4:2:0 (to the card) which is not the same as saying what comes out the hdmi. They don't assume that everyone who is using the hdmi will be recording from it, could just be monitoring for example.

The new cameras just continue with Sony's own strange ideas about what constitutes good ergonomics on a camera.

The ergonomics appear excellent to me, although I wasn't able to test the optional shoulder mount which should make a big difference. It is a truely modular camera - it can be stripped right back for tight spaces, Steadicam or 3D, or built up into a well balanced shoulder mount including accessories. Important details like the top handle are rock solid unlike the wobbly one on the C300.

IMO the ergonomics are absolutely first rate.

Although I dislike the C300 ergonomics as I find in is simply too heavy once you add good glass and accessories, the C100 may well sneak under that threshold so I would love to try one. It may make an excellent B/C cam or travel camera.

One other question. Using 4.2.2 uncompressed out of the HDMI (which we are told is "the same" as out of the C300s SDI) will bypass all of this PsF stuff - or not?
From a practical viewpoint, I suspect Tom has already answered it: "Andy, if you use a good recorder like the Nanoflash it's going to take the 4:2:2 psf output from the C100 hdmi and save it as true progressive anyway. It does the work of taking the split frames and recombines them into whole progressive frames before your nle ever sees it. "

Technically, and as background, what should happen is that when a progressive signal is sent as psf, a flag should be set in the stream to tell other equipment that the signal is psf. So a recorder may be set to take in the psf stream, do a line reorder and then record the true progressive signal reconstituted. All this assumes that the original device sets the flag correctly - and the accepting device is capable of recognising and acting on it. And - you've guessed it, this is not always the case. Hence many of the problems.

If you want a bit of background, I found this article: ProVideo Coalition.com: TecnoTur by Allan Tépper (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/atepper/story/record_progressive_422_or_beyond_from_your_hdmi_camera_with_an_external_rec/)

On top of this there are the chroma issues with 4:2:0, which at least you don't have to even think about with 4:2:2.

The obvious question that may be in your mind is "why"? Why make it so complicated, with so much that can go wrong? And it's probably that the HDMI output can drive many different devices, including monitors which won't support a native progressive signal. Hence, if carried over interlace, (psf) such a device will just treat it as interlace and give a result, whilst (hopefully) other devices will just be able to properly resurrect the progressive signal.

Forgetting about HDMI and the need to assure compatibility with monitors, SDI works the same way, the stream goes out as 1080/psf 23.97 or psf 29.97 over 1080/i59.94 in NTSC parlance. As David says, the recorder can recognize through flagging or cadence when psf 23.97 is contained within 1080/i59.94 and lay it down as p23.97 to a mxf file with no problem. The problem for the recorder is when psf 29.97 is contained within 1080/i59.94. To that point psf 29.97 appears the same as regular 1080/i59.94, the recorder being unable to distiguish the difference. To remedy that, the user sets a bit informing the recorder when the 1080/i59.94 being received contains psf 29.97 segmented frames. The user-set bit tells the recorder to store the file as progressive frames.

The main point to take from all the confusion, is that Canon should know how it should be output for external recorders, and there should be no problem capturing perfectly reconstructed, fully progressive frames.

Atomos has indicated that the C100 passes the necessary signals to the Ninja 2, including start and stop as you record,

Tom, David. Thanks again for taking the time to explain all the nuances of this. Much appreciated.

Philip, any news from Canon about your potential issue with the C100 yet?

The ergonomics appear excellent to me, although I wasn't able to test the optional shoulder mount which should make a big difference. It is a truely modular camera - it can be stripped right back for tight spaces, Steadicam or 3D, or built up into a well balanced shoulder mount including accessories. Important details like the top handle are rock solid unlike the wobbly one on the C300.

IMO the ergonomics are absolutely first rate.

Although I dislike the C300 ergonomics as I find in is simply too heavy once you add good glass and accessories, the C100 may well sneak under that threshold so I would love to try one. It may make an excellent B/C cam or travel camera.The F5 'brain' alone weighs 2kg which is nearly 50% more than the 1.4kg of the C300 body. I have predominantly been shooting video with DSLRs for well over three years now so the C300 just feels 'right' in my hands. I never have the top handle attached nor do I use a shoulder rig.

The F5 'brain' alone weighs 2kg which is nearly 50% more than the 1.4kg of the C300 body. I have predominantly been shooting video with DSLRs for well over three years now so the C300 just feels 'right' in my hands. I never have the top handle attached nor do I use a shoulder rig.

I find the C300 light enough when stripped back but I almost always need monitor and XLR inputs I I find it too top heavy with those attached. The handle, LCD and XLRs seem like a bit of an afterthought but if you don't need them I can see how it would work well.

The F5 'brain' alone weighs 2kg which is nearly 50% more than the 1.4kg of the C300 body.
But it's not so much the absolute weight that's important as to how it balances - the moment if you want to use physical terms.

I'm used to shouldermount 2/3" cameras which are typically much more than 2kg, even without lenses, batteries etc. But I can handhold such a camera far longer with far less strain than a far lighter camera which has all the weight in front of the body.

With a shouldermount, it's like wearing a rucksack. With the handycam styling, it's like holding a heavy bag in front of you. The weight doesn't just act down - it acts to give a twisting moment to such as the wrist. Not good.

And, like Mike, the ergonomics of these new cameras look first rate to me. That's not something I could say about the F3 when that launched.

It has been more than a couple of days. Have you heard anything from canon regarding the issue?
I'm sure I'm not alone in the intrigue as to what this "issue" actually is.

I have agreed to hold off for a few more days until Canon USA can talk with Canon Japan. Then I will either say what now appears to be a huge mistake on Canon's part, or what was merely a mistake in Canon Tech support's knowledge base,

It has been more than a couple of days. Have you heard anything from canon regarding the issue?
I'm sure I'm not alone in the intrigue as to what this "issue" actually is.

+1 -- same here

Here is what happened. Canon support USA told me that the ONLY gamma curve adjustments were very gross adjustments over the high, low, and midtone of the RGB channels. That's all. No knees, nothing. Unacceptably crippled.

I could not believe it. So I phoned another agent and she insisted that she had the specs in front of her, and that was all the adjustments that were possible.

So, I contacted Masaru (Mike) Kuwabara, supervisor of marketing at Canon USA. He agreed to contact Canon Japan, That was last week.

Today, I received the following letter from him.

Regarding the differences of CP profile between C100 and C300 are as follow.

1, Wide Dynamic Range
* C100: Newly added
* C300: N/A

2, White Balance G Gain
* C100: N/A
* C300: Equipped

All the other CP profile settings are identical.

So, the first specifications were either wrong or Canon changed its mind, the release of the C100 has been held up. This G channel cannot be adjusted, and this might, or might not, be a problem since the C300 G channel is too strong for my taste on many gamma profiles. You can adjust for the Balance between G and RB by elevating R and B, but the total strength of the very strong G channel will still be there. No way to tame it. Just adding to the other two channels could possibily take them too high. We will have to see. No way to really know now. I am optimistic,

At least they did not remove all the adjustments, just this one. And they added the gross adjustments that were presented as the only gamma adjustments

It appears to me that Canon has made a delibrate decision to let you achieve good results with the C100, but only with more difficulty than with the C300.

This camera still appears to be a bargain, but the days of cynical crippling of cameras in the name of market segmentation may be fading under the pressure of new manufacturers.

However, Mike gave exceptional service in resolving this question. Canon is positioning the C100 as part of its professional cinema line, albeit a camera labeled as a video camera. In any case, you should feel very very good about the level of support that Canon is offering, a level of support that you can base a business upon.

If you got my previous post by email mail update you did not get extensive revisions I did to the previous post.

Canon had primarily planned the C100 for the DSLR crowd to use this as a stepping stone into their cinema line. Canon had never expected that there would be so much interest from professionals for the C100. So attributing motives like deliberate clipping of functions is not right.

There would be a firmware update next year and among other things there would be ability to auto focus with the new STM line of lenses. I am sure Canon will be all ears to take up suggestions for improving this camera further.

OK thanks Philip.

Let me add a feature request for any C100 firmware update bundle that comes in 2013.

1080p50/60 AVCHD2 at 28Mbps - as seen an many cams already, even on many sub £1000 camcorders!

I dont care if I have to pay a modest fee to have this feature (as I undestand the codec might be owned by Panasonic and Sony) but it really is unacceptable that a professional cam with a "Cinema badge" lacks some kind of frame rate options for slow motion in the current market. Unacceptable.

No, it won't stop me buying a C100, although I was bitterly disappointed about this when the cam was announced. However, I know MANY others have ruled it out precisely because of this. Choices in frame rates are an essential tool. Even the Canon DSLRs do 720p50/60 frame rates. I imagine the wedding videography crowd (a very large sector that the C100 is targetted at) will shun the C100 as this lack of a slow motion frame rate severely limits its uses.

So, if you're listening Canon....

I imagine the wedding videography crowd (a very large sector that the C100 is targetted at) will shun the C100 as this lack of a slow motion frame rate severely limits its usesWe shoot weddings & have never used 50p on any of our cameras. Admittedly it's only 720@50p on 5D3/C300/XF105 but I don't think that even if we had 1080@50p that we would suddenly start shooting everything in 50p just on the off chance that we would want to slow it down in post. Twixtor & similar do a good enough job working with 25p. I have in fact never shot anything at 50p except by way of experiment. I am always a bit bemused as to why it's such an important point to some as it seems rather like clean HDMI that everyone screams for on DSLRs as if everyone is going to bolt a nanoFlash to their DSLR rather than the convenience of cards.

I'm not even certain that the C100 will be taken up by the wedding crowd as it's a bit pricey and while it has some features of a proper camcorder there are others like manual focusing limited zoom range that will certainly put off those who are not already using DSLRs. It's also a hell of a lot more expensive than a DSLR. It's double the price of a 5D3 & nearly three times the price of the soon to be shipping full frame 6D. What the wedding crowd & many other users want is a large sensor camera with a 10x power zoom & auto everything functions but such a camera does not & will never exist.

The Sony EA-50 is a large sensor camera that seems to tick the interest off lot of wedding video people at about half the cost of the C100 but the EA-50 also has a power zoom lens thrown in.

When I talked to Mike at the Hollywood Canon C100 presentation he was shocked that I do not shoot on DSLRs, and shocked that we had used C300s on several projects. The reason Canon put out color grading in the promo video that hid the DR of the C100 was that they wanted it to look like it was shot on a DSLR, crushed blacks and blown highlights. When several people in the audience criticized the demo video, saying that if they wanted that look they would just purchase a much cheaper DSLR, the Canon people seemed to be very surprised that the look of the video was a negative thng to people contemplating purchasing the camera, As far as I could tell all of the people at the presentation were reaching down to consider this camera, not moving up as Canon intended.

However, this is part of the market segmentation that the Japanese camera comanies are pushing. DSLRs hurt their business model and they want to push the DSLR crowd into more expensive cameras with video optimization, like the C100. That was the total purpose of this camera, not as an inexpensive C300 as it is becoming.

So, I don't look for new feature upgrades from Canon. At the show they firmly denied that the C100 internals were capable of shooting 50/60p. Interesting since they also admitted that the internals are basically the encoder from the XA10 that does shoot 60p if I remember right. And they said the sensor could not be read fast enough, yet this sensor is the core of the C500., a 4K camera.

The C100 is a bastard child that will never be officially recognized for its true lineage and breeding, and will be officially prevented from its full inheritance. They put it in the Cinema line and called it a video camera. There is no desire to unleash it. At least so far, but then they had no desire to unleash the 5D MKii, yet it happened.

On the good side, they are currently shooting better demo videos but it Is not clear if they will be released much before delivery of the first C100s. Let's hope they shot these demos in ways that show, not hide, the full potential of the C100.

The Sony EA-50 is a large sensor camera that seems to tick the interest off lot of wedding video people at about half the cost of the C100 but the EA-50 also has a power zoom lens thrown in.The EA-50 is a shoulder mount version of the VG20 consumer camcorder hat uses the sensor from the NX-5 which deliveres soft video that also suffers from aliasing & moire. It's also yet another camcorder that Sony have shipped without ND filters. As for the power zoom while it's a decent range 18-300mm the aperture range at F3.5-6.3 is terrible. That's the problem as the sensor gets larger you need larger expensive optics for wide aperture. Even if they made an 18-300mm zoom lens with F/2.8 or F/4 constant aperture it would be enormous & unaffordable.

1080p50/60 AVCHD2 at 28Mbps - as seen an many cams already, even on many sub £1000 camcorders!

I dont care if I have to pay a modest fee to have this feature (as I undestand the codec might be owned by Panasonic and Sony) but it really is unacceptable that a professional cam with a "Cinema badge" lacks some kind of frame rate options for slow motion in the current market. Unacceptable.
Two things are being confused here - slo-mo and a 1080p/50 mode. They are two totally different things.

The point about 1080p/50 and AVC/HD at the 28Mbs mode is that it is intended for shooting at 50 fps *AND* subsequent replay at 50fps. So no slow motion. It's intended to give a highest resolution mode (1080), progressive scan, and 50 fps - so "smooth" motion as opposed to "jerky" or "film-look".

At the risk of stating the obvious, you get a slow motion effect if you shoot at a higher frame rate than the replay frame rate. I'm more familiar with EX codec cameras than AVC-HD, and what happens there (in S&Q mode). The main point is that for replay you always end up with a standard 35Mbs XDCAM EX signal at the set system frame rate. We'll assume that's set to 25fps here.

So if you want 2x slo-mo, the system is 25fps and you select S&Q of 50fps. On recording, the data recorded to card will be high (about 70Mbs), but on replay you get a standard 35Mbs stream - and in this case 2x slo-mo. Point is that you are not tied to 2x - select a record rate of (say) 40fps and a recording rate of 35x 40/25 = 56Mbs will happen. Playback rate will still be 35Mbs.

As for the power zoom while it's a decent range 18-300mm the aperture range at F3.5-6.3 is terrible.
That may be true, but it will only be a problem if you compare two cameras of the same inherent sensitivity.

In theory, the bigger the sensor, the better the sensitivity of the camera if all else is equal. So if you double the sensitivity (say 500 to 1000 ASA) whilst keeping the signal/noise constant, you will get the same low light performance at f2.8 with the 500ASA camera as f4 with the 1000ASA.

If you really go into it, the main determining fact becomes the diameter of the front element. Assuming other factors remain the same.

In practice, a lot may not stay the same. Single chip versus three chip, and pixel skipping ways of reading the sensor being an obvious two. And the latter will definitely affect any "designed for stills use" sensor, compared to one designed for video.

David, I routinely use 1080p50 from my Panasonic TM900 in a 1080p25 timeline in CS 5.5 and the beauty of it is that it allows me to get high quality, razor sharp slow motion (on applying a 50% speed reduction to that clip of course), if I so wish - since everthing I personally output is currently 25p. Its a lovely, flexible and quick feature when desired/needed. Even my EX3 can't do 50p in 1080, only 720.

Since Canon have "avoided" putting the XF broadcast codec into the C100 and have gone with AVCHD - lets not go down that discussion path again everyone! - all I am saying is that there is an opportunity here in a very competitive segment of the market for Canon to tip the balance more in their favour at very little development cost.

I consider it an important feature even if others like Nigel do not. Should they choose, Canon could enable a firmware update to AVCHD2 in the future that adds something that most of the competition in this price segment are offering, 50/60p framerates (for whatever playback uses the shooter wants them for).

That will only happen if enough people ask for it - and even then is highly unlikely to happen/I am not counting on it - but its the age old saying "if you don't ask you don't get". I want maximum flexibility and functionality from this camera. It would be wonderful to get a pleasant surprise (just like the 5DMkiii owners will be getting next year with the clean HDMI output firmware revision, even if that will do nothing to the actual resolution of course).

But for sure, I heard several people at the CVP/Canon launch event in London recently who told me they will not be buying it because of the lack of 1080p50, and I think they were all wedding shooters. Even if Nigel does not use 50p in his style of filming, there are many out there that would. (for the record, the other main gripe, apart from the high price of course, was the EVF - but that cannot be fixed by a simple firmware update!!!!)

It will be interesting to hear if others share my opinion, or not?

Let's hope Zacuto will soon release a Z Finder for the C100, I cannot image using the EVF for focusing, only framing in an emergency. It has me waiverng about reccomending canceling our team's orders.

I do share Andy Wilkinson's opinion about 1080/p50/p60. There are no disadvantages to using it, yet plenty of benefits.

The point is that it's clearly reasonably straightforward to develop a large aperture zoom lens for a small sensor (even then they are not constant aperture). The lens on a 1/3" sensor Canon XF305 is 18X (29.3 - 527.4mm 35mm equivalent) F/1.6-F/2.8. We are never going to see even an 18X APS-C lens with an aperture of F/1.6-F/2.8 let alone a full frame one.

I do share Andy Wilkinson's opinion about 1080/p50/p60. There are no disadvantages to using it, yet plenty of benefits.I agree that there is no disadvantage to it but its absence isn't a deal breaker for me. I must admit that I hadn't immediately spotted the absence of even 1280x720 50p/60p but the XA10 doesn't have it either & that is where Canon took the recording back end from for the C100 just as they took the recording backend from the XF100/XF300 for the C300.

1920x1080 50p/60p has been a rarity on professional cameras so there are few wedding shooters who could be using it so perhaps the guys that Andy met were looking to upgrade from 50i while still preserving that smooth motion video look.

A user elsewhere did a comparison between 1080i60 and 720p60 (both conformed to 24p) with his C300 and posted the results to vimeo. I thought some of you might find it interesting.

Here's the vimeo link:
C300 SlowMo Test on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/50341592#at=0)

price in UK

went from

3775+vat to 4165+vat

I guess the first price was for the pre-orders.

Since the C100 announcement at the end of August, the lowest pre-order price I ever saw the cam offered for was £3,699 ex VAT (last weekend with H Preston Media) and I've been watching the pre-order price at all the reputable UK dealers closely. VAT is 20% in the UK currently, for those that don't know.

I see that in the last 24-48 hours some UK dealers have raised their prices back to somewhere near (or in one case £5 above) the price the C100 was offered at originally, typically then and now at around £4,162 ex VAT (which is a shade under £5K including VAT) - but since my company is VAT registered I only really care about the ex VAT price.

Some who were brave enough to pre-order from the right dealer may have got a good price :-) assuming the cam fits your specific needs and you see value in its best features like I do.

My guess (and hope!) is this price hike means a shipment of C100 cameras is destined to arrive in the UK very shortly. Indeed one UK dealer (H Preston Media again) is stating on their website that the C100 will be available from a specific date in mid-November.

On another topic, there are rumours that we will see a new official Canon C100 demo video within a week - hopefully one that enables an assessment of the quality that I expect this cam will be capable of!

Brian C Weed reports from Createasphere that C100 demo videos are near release.

Yes, they are currently editing a narrative piece & a doc style piece. We are hoping to show one of them at our C100 debut event we are having at Canon Hollywood on Dec 1st.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Yes, they are currently editing a narrative piece & a doc style piece. We are hoping to show one of them at our C100 debut event we are having at Canon Hollywood on Dec 1st.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Awesome! When do expect the C100 to be available?