I do mostly low light events and deliver both long and short form edits (long form with HMC150s)

Lugging two camera systems and all their bits and peices around is getting stressfull and a PITA.

The DSLR type camera is where I want to be for all my work but using it for a long form shoot is worrying due to all the shortfalls that come with DSLR shooting mainly the record time and audio. I know there are solutuions but would prefer not to have to solve anything from the get-go.

The C100 as one camera and the mk3 as the second is my original idea but I am worried after reading comments from another user (I think Nigel Barker) that mixing the two cameras (albeit a c300) isnt a good match as the C300\100 image is so much better \ different.

Maybe I would be better getting a 6D and all the kit needed instead to have more consistant footage? After purchasing that lot it wouldnt come to much less than buying a C100.

Any thoughts?

I've been tossing and turning over the same sorts of questions. Plus other questions: for instance, how badly do I really need a new camera now? Is it better to wait a generation and see how people respond to the Blackmagic camera? Presumably the next generation of Canon cameras will have to fix at least some of the things that people customarily complain about, like limited slow motion options, 8-bit recording, and price tag. And, once the clean HDMI is enabled on the Mk3, will using an external recorder allow you to bypass the 30minute recording time (I've got no idea; anyone know?)?

On the Mk3 vs C100 question, assuming you're definitely going to buy one or the other, here's some thoughts:

-- What you're paying the extra $4000 for is better sound quality and image quality (sharpness, dynamic range), and convenience (eg ND filters, recording time, battery life, onscreen indicators).
-- You're worried about carrying around two systems, but won't you likely be in the same situation with a Mk3+C100? Different batteries. Probably different cards (unless you're shooting to SDHC only). Even if you're just shooting on SDHC, could you simply take a card out of one camera and put it into the other camera if you had to? Presumably they're formatted differently. Maybe the main thing you gain over an HMC, though, is that the lenses can be shared more easily.
-- Personally, I'm not too worried about cutting. Looking at Nigel's videos, there are shots I think I can tell are taken with the C300, mainly for reasons of sharpness, but it's not a sore-thumb, night-and-day difference for me. Perhaps I don't see all the work Nigel's put into grading them! And if I have trouble distinguishing them for sure, I doubt any real life client will really notice... This is for online. I'm sure the difference will be more obvious in other delivery formats... On the other hand, companies I've worked for have not infrequently cut together Ex3 footage with DSLR footage, and the clients never complain!
-- Broadcast-ability is one thing on my mind. In Australia, I doubt the specs for acquisition are as stringent as the BBC or Discovery. But I think most broadcasting work (thinking of freelance camera jobs) require more of you than DSLRs. So, C100 or C300 seems to open up more potential revenue.
-- I regard the smaller sensor of the C100/C300 as a plus if I also have a larger-sensor camera. Means I can get more distance out of my lenses when I want to.

I don't know how you'd weigh all of this up. For me, this weighs in the direction of a C100, since it opens up capabilities I didn't already have, and the difference in price I think is worth it. But I'm more undecided on the question of whether I should buy a new camera at all at this point in time, or wait a year or two.

Some people say that you shouldn't buy a new camera till you need one as opposed to want one. But I don't think the want/need line is that clear-cut -- for instance, recording times do drive me mad with a Mk3, and create the potential to miss a shot, but, given that I can work around them, does that make longer recording times a want or a need?

We left the C300 at home last weekend & shot a wedding with three 5D3s & an XF105. We will be doing the same this weekend for the last wedding of the season. The images out of the C300 are just so much better that they look out of place. We could use it as the wide safety camera with the XLRs but the XF105 does that job superbly & it would be such a waste of the C300. When I can shoot with one camera I will use the C300 but it's less work in post to use matching cameras & frankly the image quality form the 5D3s is good enough for our clients.

YOu almost had me convinced Adrian..until Nigel confirmed my fears again!

It would be great just to get TWO C100s but that gets seriously expensive.

Nigel, I had a look at some of your videos and as Adrian suggests, I couldnt really spot any obvious diferences between shots. Is it more pronounded on DVD \ Blu-ray?

Perhaps we are just more sensitive to the difference in look as we do know which shots were from which camera. It is more evident for Blu-Ray on a 60" plasma rather than Vimeo. It's both the higher resolution & the wider dynamic range with no blown highlights that make the C300 footage easy to spot for me. It's more a problem of making the 5D footage look bad which it isn't really just not as good as the C300.

A big bonus with the C300 footage is that you can pull stills off the timeline & print up quite large photographs (the 1/50 shutter means that motion blur may be a problem though). You could propose to the couple that they don't need to hire a photographer as you can provide equivalent reportage coverage.

You could propose to the couple that they don't need to hire a photographer as you can provide equivalent reportage coverage.

That's quite another can of worms.

Another thing on my mind about this... what are the transfer speeds like from an SD as opposed to a CF?

I'm not technically-minded at all, but SD seems considerably slower to me. Maybe 2 to 4 times slower when I upload cards to my Nexto drive! Not sure of exact times. I'm sure comparative speed depends on hardware. But even in best case scenario, isn't SD going to be a lot slower than CF?

If you're on a time limit, this is surely another thing to bear in mind for a Mk3 vs C100 decision.

(Not to mention that F5 and F55 might now affect the pricings of everything...)

It was true historically that Compact Flash was much faster than SD but things have changed recently. SanDisk Extreme Pro CF are 90MB/s whereas SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC are not only slightly faster at 95MB/s but are half the price of the CF cards.

Have to add the thought that I've now talked myself out of a C100 and have gone with getting another Mk3!

Main considerations were:

-- Mk3 resolution, recording time, low light were good enough, and those are the main things that worry me
-- could get a Mk3 now, and use it for weddings next weekend, rather than having to wait
-- price savings, which for me are considerable. Used Mk3 is now around AU$2,800, vs around AU$7000 for brand-new C100. Add to that cost of new batteries, more SD cards, and a C100-fitting Z-finder, and I think maybe the price is closer to $8500.
-- less of a pain to match shots in post (per Nigel's suggestions)
-- uncompressed HDMI firmware update expected in April next year for the Mk3, meaning higher colour depth and bitrate if I need it, as well as longer recording times
-- transfer speeds. On paper, my SD cards say 95Mb/s and my CF cards 60Mb/s, but the equivalent amount of data does take me at least three times as long to transfer from SD with my current hardware setup! Not sure why exactly...
-- obsolescence. I figure a C100 will get older, and depreciate faster, than a Mk3. Canon has to step up its video game to compete with Sony's offerings. A year from now the video landscape will look completely different. But even ten years from now... maybe 50 years from now... a Mk3 will still be capable of decent photos compared to what else is out there. I've recently had photos from a 15-year-old digital camera published in textbooks.

maybe 50 years from now... a Mk3 will still be capable of decent photos compared to what else is out there.

That's because it's a photocamera.

obsolescence. I figure a C100 will get older, and depreciate faster, than a Mk3

You are worried about a camera being obsolescence while it has not even hit the streets yet?

I don't think you can compare the c100 to the 5dIII, the last one is still a photocamera with videofunctions, the first one is designed to be a real videocamera.

> You are worried about a camera being obsolescence while it has not even hit the streets yet?

Yes. :) Is that irrational? "Much more satisfactory camera next year" isn't the overriding factor in my buying another Mk3 now instead of waiting for a C100 (pricetag is probably the most important!), but it's not a completely insignificant factor...

"You can have one hot dog now. But if you wait a year, you can have 1.5 hot dogs."
Or: "You can have a hot dog now. But if you wait a year, you can have it at half price."

-- I think it's arguably rational to wait a year. Just depends how hungry you are.

It's true that there will always be a bigger or cheaper hot dog around the corner. But your hunger levels will keep rising in the meantime, so there's a point at which you're going to say "Stuff it" and buy one.

It's like buying a Iphone, before you manage to charge the battery they have a new version ready, twice as thin, twice as fast and even more expensive :)
I"m happy I don't have to worry about that kind of things, I just see what I expect, then what my budget allows and then see what's available now and buy based on any user experience I can find online. I see people often pre-order a new camera before it hits the streets and then go guessing in this forum about what it might or could do, never understood that. But it's thanks to these very early adopters I get to choose a better camera. :)

Hi Noa

Very relevant point too!! I learnt the hard way with the Pansonic AC-130's They were totally unsuitable for weddings had lots of issues and the moment they came out I just had to have them. It's great that some people just have to have the latest and greatest but if we have a little patience they act as the testers for us and show up all the issues (and good stuff too, of course) That way we can make a much better and informed decision.

The other point is do you really need a new camera?? Will it take your business forward in huge leaps and bounds and pay for itself in a matter of months OR do you just want one cos everyone else has one??

I think the manufacturers rub their hands with glee when a new model is released because they know they will get a huge amount of pre-orders...shucks that's like paying for your new car before you get it and hoping it will great....even if it's not that great, the male ego says "I was one of the first to have one"!!

Nowdays I sit tight and wait for the sob stories to roll in ..if there are none then it's worth another look!

Chris

Preordering something that is only showcased by a manufacturer is always a risk, its like standing in line at a Apple store at the first day something new is released. By then the marketing department allready has done their job right. I don't like the fact of finding issues when I bhought something that was not mentioned before, a bit like the autofocus issue on your 130's. The manufacturer knows that for sure but they won't mention and the users only find out the hard way. But therefore it's always better to wait untill something new has been fieldtested so you can decide if any flaws are ok for you to work around.

It's like buying a Iphone, before you manage to charge the battery they have a new version ready, twice as thin, twice as fast and even more expensive :)or six months ago buying what Apple called the New iPad & discovering a couple of weeks ago that it is now the Old iPad.

A bit surprised that the 6D didn't get a vote in this discussion. I imagine the extra $1000 would come in handy at some point.

To be honest, it just wasn't on my radar; I suppose because the camera news blogs I follow don't really talk about it.

In hindsight... You're right! it does look like a better video buy to me than a Mk3.

I have problems with SD cards, but I think that's just peculiarities of my setup.

Absence of headphone jack really doesn't fuss me; I never use the jack on the Mk3. If I really care about sound, it gets recorded separately.

A bit surprised that the 6D didn't get a vote in this discussion. I imagine the extra $1000 would come in handy at some point.

To be honest, it just wasn't on my radar; I suppose because the camera news blogs I follow don't really talk about it.

In hindsight... You're right! it does look like a better video buy to me than a Mk3.

I have problems with SD cards, but I think that's just peculiarities of my setup.

Absence of headphone jack really doesn't fuss me; I never use the jack on the Mk3. If I really care about sound, it gets recorded separately.The 6D is Canon's new bargain priced full frame camera. Nobody has used one as they aren't shipping yet (CVP expect them 10th December). I suspect that Canon were forced to announce earlier than intended because Nikon announced & are even shipping their own new bargain priced full frame camera the D600.

The most important feature that the 6D lacks is the super new improved AF of the 5D3. Hopefully it will have the same amazing low light performance & moire free video of the 5D3 although it doesn't appear to use the same sensor so who knows? Here is a moderately informative review albeit without any sample images Canon EOS 6D Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-6d)

Revisiting this old thread (in which I think I've made several inaccurate statements, and, as usual, several quite silly statements, but anyway)...

I'm jealous of Art and Tim's C100 footage. I definitely wish Santa would put a C100 in my stocking. I not infrequently type "canon eos c100" into eBay or keep a watch on the marketplace (I think they've sold for $5,000 and $5,500 there).

But whenever I've seriously considered the matter, the conclusion I keep coming to is that, for me, in my particular situation, it doesn't make money sense to invest in a C100 (I currently shoot mainly weddings, with two Mk3s and two Mk2s and two camera operators, shooting mainly on zoom lenses). If I really need another camera (I sort of do, I sort of don't), it would be another Mk3.

Here's the thinking.

C100 cost savings:
-- data storage -- more efficient than a Mk3. From memory (I might well be wrong), C100 fits about 6 hours onto two 32gb cards; Mk3 fits four hours; Mk2 fits three hours.
-- built in wide dynamic range profile could mean less time/money spent grading

Cost increases from a C100:

-- more different types of batteries and battery chargers (and more junk to carry around)
-- possible extra cost in trying to match footage
-- the elephant -- the actual cost of purchase.

And, really, that's all that the financial argument, in my case, amounts to. A lot of expense for no appreciable savings. The money could more wisely be spent on lenses for image quality improvement, or an extra computer to speed up post production (BluRay rendering times are murder), or on advertising.

The difference in image quality from a Mk3 (eg sharpness, dynamic range, built in NDs to avoid higher shutter look, better lowlight) would not translate to a difference in income from weddings, partly because what sells your work is what people view online, and it's not straightforward to tell the difference. If I really wanted to up my image quality, switching from zooms to primes would make a bigger difference to me than a C100 sensor.

The difference in functionality (long recording time, ability to check focus while recording, etc) are things that elbow grease can compensate for. No real financial impact.

If I need improved quality for a particular project, then it would be Mk3 + external recorder, or Mk3 raw hack, or rent a camera...

Of course, everyone who reads this post will be in a different situation. Your mileage will definitely vary.

Edit: 6D I no longer think about, incidentally. Seems to be some compromise on image quality vs Mk3. For the difference in price, I'd much prefer a Mk3.

how do you find the mk3 intercuts with the mk2 Adrian?

If I really wanted to up my image quality, switching from zooms to primes would make a bigger difference to me than a C100 sensor.
Are you sure about that? I did a test below comparing the 5D Mark III with a Canon 100mm f/2.8 and Canon 135mm f/2.8 (one of Canon's sharpest lenses), and compared it with the C100 with various lenses (primes and zooms). I found the dullest lens I put on the C100, which was the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 version I (not II), was still sharper than the 5D Mark III with the Canon 135mm. That's speaking only in terms of sharpness.

Canon C100, 5D Mark III, & 60D Tests w/various Canon & Nikon Lenses on Vimeo

Eric, I'm not sure about my claim! I find it hard to compare sharpness in your test because of the way it's cut, because you're shooting different objects, and because you dared to use real-world situations instead of concentric circles. But I should say that 135mm on a MkIII in your video does appear sharper to me than the 70-200 on the C100, or at least close enough that I can't easily tell (just looking at the priest and the girl's eyes). And also that the 70-200 MkI is supposed to be photography's second sharpest zoom (the sharpest being the MkII).

You've made me go and do some research into lens sharpness, which has just left me even more confused -- resolution depending on aperture and distance from centre of sensor and focal length, perceived sharpness being a combination of resolution and contrast, etc. End of the day: I'm still inclined to believe that lens matters more than sensor, but you've raised a doubt in my mind. Need more tests!

Ger, this is just my opinion -- Mk2 intercuts perfectly with Mk3 except under when it starts to get dark, where Mk3 just looks so much better. Less noisy, more saturated. But even then, they cut fine as long as you have enough light on your main subject.

Here's a recent 5-minute clip (did zero attempt at trying to match colours). Password: "password". The very last shot and very first shots were Mk2s, and all the steadicam shots through the whole clip were Mk3 with a 16-35 lens. I think you can spot the Mk2 shots in some of the general dance footage, because of noise and underexposure, but that the difference otherwise is not so straightforward.

I think the difference between lenses is more obvious than the difference between cameras. For instance, when the family are congratulating each other outside the church, that's a Mk2 with a 70-200, and I think it's so much sharper when compared with the 16-35 steadicam shots.

Private Video on Vimeo

For instance, when the family are congratulating each other outside the church, that's a Mk2 with a 70-200, and I think it's so much sharper when compared with the 16-35 steadicam shots.
Particularly for wide shots (not to be confused with close shots with a wide angle lens), I would argue for the camera over the lens. On close face shots, like in the samples in my test video, the difference in sharpness is not as noticeable on a 5D vs a C100. The C100 holds detail in wide shots much better than the 5D, where the 5D image really starts to fall apart and look soft, no matter the lens. I think the 5D is incapable of creating wide shots with a lot of detail (unless you use the RAW hack), while it is capable of providing sharp close shots with good lenses and good lighting.

I find the girl with the 70-200 to be slightly sharper than the priest, mainly looking at the eye brows which have more detail in them. The priests eyes may appear sharper mainly because they are better lit, where the girl's eyes have a good deal of shadows in them which makes them harder to decipher. If you compare the closer comparison, the shot before the priest, of the girl in the same light with the 5D III vs the girl in the same light with the C100, I think the different is more noticeable. It's easier to tell the difference if you open two tabs with the video and switch between them. There's a lot more detail in her hair as well, even in the C100 shot at f/2.8. And of course, here we're talking about the difference between the dullest lens on the C100 vs the sharpest lens on the 5D III; put the 135 on the C100 and then the difference between cameras would be much more noticeable.

I've seen a lot of test videos online comparing the 5D to the C100 with wide shots, and it always looks like the 5D is out of focus, but it's really just that the 5D never handled wide shots well. I think it is mainly because the codec compresses the detail too much, which is why wide shots in RAW hold a lot of detail. This is also why a lot of people who own a single C100 or C300 and a 5D will in a two camera interview use the 5D for the tight shot of the face and the C100 as the wider shot of the interview.

Consider these videos...

This one uses the Zeiss 15mm, a $3000 wide angle lens, with the 5D Mark II.

Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm meets "Luftbrückendenkmal Frankfurt am Main" on Vimeo

And here, the C100 with a $450 Rokinon Cine Lens.

Testing Rokinon 14mm Cine Lens on C100 on Vimeo

Certainly not a great way to compare cameras since we don't know the compression settings used in those videos and they're shot by different people in different locations, etc., but my point is that as far as wide shots go the C100 can get wide shots with lots of detail while the 5D cannot (as far as I know) without a RAW hack.


Another thing to consider with the C100 is, as you mentioned reading, that better apertures will increase sharpness. All but one of the tests in the C100 video I did were at f/5.6 (one test was at f/2.8), shooting at 850 ISO which is the native ISO in Canon Log on the C100. The native ISO of the 5D III is ISO 160. So for an interview setup, with the lighting that I own (I could always buy higher powered lights, but that costs considerable amounts of money, and blinds the interviewee more), I'm forced to shoot at f/2.0-2.8 on a 5D if I want to stay at the native ISO (which I generally do). On the C100, with the native ISO at 850, I can shoot at f/5.6 and get better results from the lenses. Add to that, generally cheaper lenses (and good zooms) struggle more when wide open, but are more comparable to expensive primes when stopped down to a more ideal aperture.


I'd also take note that some people say that you can't notice the difference in sharpness between the cameras when it gets compressed online. I think this depends on how you compress the videos. If you don't upload and upgrade your video on Vimeo to 1080p (from 720p), and if you don't upload at a high data rate (say 40,000-60,000 Mbps instead of 5,000), then the difference between cameras will be much less noticeable.

I just had the tossup between a 5dm3 and C100 to replace my HMC40 and to go with my 550D. The C100 won and just purchased it today. For it it was all about the XLR and ability to shoot all day. 5d may be in the future as a B Cam, but just not today.

Thanks for that mk2 vs mk3 in a nutshell Adrian.
For me with weddings its dslrs all the way.
for the simple reason that people act so much more natural around a stills camera than a video camera.
But this is nothing new to any of us at this stage.