NAB is drawing to a close. The three ring circus has once again delivered. But hey, even though I started a savings pot for an AJA Cion, almost put down a deposit for an Ursa, spent time working out the economics of investing in a Sony A7S with Shogun, once again listened to GH4 officianadoes and tried to get excited about JVC Kenwood, I've had enough morning-after coffee to be really pleases with what we've currently got.

AJA's Cion is PL only, and now we hear that EF mount is a third party opportunity (it's not going to happen due to flange-back). PL lenses may suddenly get a little bit cheaper, but not Samyang cheap. We invested in good glass - good photo glass, and no - an $8k camera will not be bought by someone who rents lenses.

Black Magic's Ursa needs a round of applause for its chutzpah. Weight. No ND (like Cion). Sheer size. It selects its market very well. But remember that this uses C-Fast2 cards, and they're currently eye-wateringly expensive - $1.2k for 20 mins of ProRes or 6 mins of raw recording.

Sony's A7S looked a little like a miniature Darth Vader DSLR, and its audio bridge is a little awkward, then you add the Atomos Shogun which is a third party product that actually makes the A7S deliver, and it's all a bit big and wobbly. I'm sure the pictures will be lovely, but the kit assembly isn't exactly Run & Gun friendly.

Panasonic's GH4 is actually looking quite sane now. It's a pity that any Canon/Nikkor user has to invest in a whole new set of glass to make it all work nicely, but the YAGH is just a little too cumbersome - the power requirements make it tie with the slightly Heath Robinson A7S configuration - which, now that I come to think of it, wins because of the Metabones Speed Booster.

Then there's the boutiques - Digital Bolex, BM Studio cameras, et al. 200ISO cameras. Moving on. JVC Kenwood? Confusing signals - MFT mount onto S35 sensor, 'me too' ergonomics. I couldn't get excited.

And so we think about the complete non-news C100. Pfft. Nothing.

It still makes great images, it has great ergonomics, it has ND, it has brilliant focus tricks with the DPAF, the Atomos Ninja Blade lifts it to a whole new level, it does all its trickery onto $20 SDHC cards, it's like a medium format DSLR for handheld use, it just freakin' works. It earns us money.

I really don't think the C100 has anything to worry about for the next 12 months, and like the EX1 will probably punch above its weight for a while yet.

Yep, nothing really drew me in. the a7s looks the most intriguing, and probably the only thing i'll keep an eye on. shogun is too big for my needs, when they/someone else makes a 5" version i'll be interested. also the zacuto evf looks nice if they keep the prices competitive to the alphatron/cineroid market

Good post Matt. Couldn't agree more. As Darren notes, the Sony a7s is the most promising development - but I'm not keen on the ergonomics at all, personally. C100 and my Ninja Blade is about as cumbersome as I want it to get.

My prediction is we won't see a C300 replacement/upgrade announcement until around November 2014 (it will be a 3 year old model by then). C100 replacement/upgrade 6-12 months after that. Canon seem to do these things every 3 years (but then the Tsunami knocked them really bad, so if anything that typical cycle may well slip a little further).

In the meantime I have some incredible tools in my kit bag that even 5-7 years ago I could only of dreamed of - so will just carry on using them and making some money...and be happy! :-)

I agree that the C100 is still going to be delivering the goods for quite a while longer yet. I haven't seen anything from the Blackmagics that I feel is superior enough to make me give up the form factor, and now we have the Ninja Star to take up little space and still provide ProRes recording (though the robustness of that unit remains to be seen).

I sent mine off before I left for Vegas for Dual Pixel AF, and looking forward to how that will help me with the shooting scenarios I will use it for, primarily awkwardly positioned shots where I can't pull focus or be barely able to make out the screen.

Thanks Matt. That is a very solid assessment of the vendor circus that is NAB. In the meantime, I'm waiting for FedEx to deliver my oh so antiquated C100 back from being upgraded. I'm happy that progress is made in the industry but am totally underwhelmed at being told that my last year state of the art is just so much SD. Not. I'll plug in my Odyssey or Ninja and just keep on producing wonderful looking footage.

NAB is drawing to a close. The three ring circus has once again delivered. But hey, even though I started a savings pot for an AJA Cion, almost put down a deposit for an Ursa, spent time working out the economics of investing in a Sony A7S with Shogun, once again listened to GH4 officianadoes and tried to get excited about JVC Kenwood, I've had enough morning-after coffee to be really pleases with what we've currently got.

It still makes great images, it has great ergonomics, it has ND, it has brilliant focus tricks with the DPAF, the Atomos Ninja Blade lifts it to a whole new level, it does all its trickery onto $20 SDHC cards, it's like a medium format DSLR for handheld use, it just freakin' works. It earns us money.

I really don't think the C100 has anything to worry about for the next 12 months, and like the EX1 will probably punch above its weight for a while yet.

the Atomos Ninja Blade lifts it to a whole new level

I found it funny where you see add on recorders as cumbersome on other camera's yet great with the c100 :) It's true most new camera's require some sort of rigging or you need to add accessories to make it more complete where the c100 is more of a complete package, but I think you need to compare price with "needed" features, the gh4 in it's bare form is a fraction of the c100 cost yet can shoot 4k internally and while outputting 4k has no immediate use yet it does have some big advantages when you want to crop in a 1080p project. The sony a7s needs an external recorder for 4k so you need to get a rig as well but those combined should be around the c100 price but then you will get 4k and a new level of clean high iso shooting. The main advantages of both camera's I just mentioned is the fact that you could shoot without all those extra's and get a very small formfactor, like it fits in my jacket pocket kind of small, and still get good looking footage with it

The question is not what camera will be better, it's only what camera works best for you, they are only tools, you focus on the content first and then choose the tool you need to help you provide that content. For some that will be the c100, for other the gh4 or whatever other model, I think too much people still believe that a certain new camera will make them better filmmakers, unfortunately they don't.

Yeah, after holding off to see what NAB brought out, I went ahead and ordered my PMW-300. 4K is nice and all, but XDCAM is still the most requested format out here. And I don't need any external recorders.

I found it funny where you see add on recorders as cumbersome on other camera's yet great with the c100 :)

Or more to the point, the joy of seeing its nice looking pictures on a decent screen, the ability to play back the last shot with sound (bloody hell, Canon - what were you thinking?), letting the talent see themselves and work out hand-waving room. Over on 'the other forum' Ben Giles has been showing off his NB on an Edelkrone EVF bracket, which looks like a very logical and neat solution for the C100.

I think too much people still believe that a certain new camera will make them better filmmakers, unfortunately they don't.

Alas yes. Or to invest in the latest camera hype in the hope of branching into new sorts of work.

I for instance would not buy a camera that can't do 1080p 50p, it is not crucial for my type of shooting but I would hate to go back to a 25p only camera, I also would not need a 4K camera right now but it sure would come in handy on some shots, I do need good low light performance and my current camera's do allright but that new sony a7s low light demo shots look very tempting.

I do like where some cameramanufacturers are going with their new models, like Sony, their rx10 ticks a lot of boxes when it comes to videofunctionality, just providing for a build in nd filter, zebra's etc is just great if you are coming from first gen video dslr's, I"m sure their a7s will be very popular as well. Panasonic is also giving dslr users more what they really need.

With Canon I see they wait much longer to develop new stuff but they tend to make something more complete which doesn't have to be replaced every year but they do price accordingly. They tend to have some ridiculous prizesdifferences, like between the c100 and 300, just for some minor but important differences, if you want something a bit better you pay a high premium.

Ah Matt, as ever a voice of common sense. Personally I could not give a stuff about NAB and the latest offerings, yes, some nice baubles, yet nothing much that will make me more money, or more productive. Of course the C100 is not perfect, however for me it does the job and I suspect will suffice for many years to come. Of course I should qualify my remarks by the type of work I do: i.e. non broadcast, corporate, not-for-profits - 99% web video, interviews, semi docos and event recording. For this, the c100 combined with either
an EX1 or a GH3 gets the results I need. 4K phhh...not on the radar, my clients couldn't care less.

My clients aren't bothered about 4K yet either, and the longer I can be 'not bothered' about it, the easier life is here at Action Towers.

For what I do, corporate, doco interviews and events, I love the C100 for its versatility. OK, there's one or two things I'd like adding to it, but generally, it hits the spot for everything I do, and same as Al says, I'll just keep on using it to make wonderful images and as Andy says, keep making money.

Hi to all, seems like we have some c100 pros here so I want to take advantage with some questions. I just picked up my new c100 last week (I already brought it to Canon for the AF upgrade). I hope these questions don't make me sound too ignorant......

Can someone explain the different frame rates that this camera has (60i, pf30, pf24, 24p) what on earth is the difference between pf24 and 24p?

I shoot only weddings. Having said that, does it not seem practical to shoot everything in 60i? For reasons such as slow motion, and doing quick pans, etc. My eyes don't see that "filmic" beauty in shooting 24p that everyone talks about. When I set the camera in 24p I get that strobe effect even if I'm slowly panning. To be honest, I don't do much panning but what happens when I shoot the bride and groom moving around or walking or dancing at the reception, won't this screw the editors up when they try and slow mo it? Is it just me that doesn't grasp the concept of shooting like film?

Also, I'm curious to hear from wedding shooters as to what picture profiles you guys use. For me, so far it's a toss up between Wide DR and EOS standard. Any thoughts on these?

Thanks in advance to all for your help!

Matt, it sounds like we've been drinking the same coffee.

Until I can get a C100 quality camera that does 4K/50p (or higher) on to rationally priced media that also uses all my current investment in glass then why change?

The GH4 looks interesting with appropriate adapters, but we really don't know enough about it yet. The sample footage looks great, but zoom in to a 1920x1080 crop and I was majorly disappointed.

I'm holding off the Ninja Blade until everything is fixed, though playing with it at BVE convinced me it's probably a worthwhile upgrade over Ninja 2. OTOH, it may make more sense to wait and get a 4K capable recorder first time instead of buying twice.

I'd like to bet the 7D2 or 5D4 will be Canon's intro in to the low end 4K arena, but I really don't want to go back to DSLR unless it also has all the bells and whistles, like zebras, waveform, good audio. They certainly won't have NDs and knowing Canon's history they'll be crippled just enough to keep their marketing guys happy. If the 7D2 isn't 4K then I'd have to wonder about Canon's thinking going forward

Random thought: Is 4k through the C100 hdmi port possible? I've read the C100 has a 4k sensor so just wondering if Canon can unlock 4k via firmware? The new 4k recorder from Atomos would make a good purchase...

Tbh 4k is not important to me either. The clean 1080p from my C100 is perfect for my business at the moment. :)

I'd also be super interested in whether Canon can unlock 4k via some firmware changes. I'm betting they probably won't, as they probably could have shipped it with 4k already but didn't want to cannibalize c500 sales.

But it'd be nice to know if they could. The Magic Lantern guys have outright refused to touch it for legal reasons, which again leads me to believe it's possible.

And yeah, 4k isn't important to me either, but there are lots of hiring producers out there demanding 4k, whether they actually need it or not.

You really think canon would unlock 4k with a firmware update on the c100 :) Ain't going to happen, just look at what possibilities the canon 5d and dslr below that have thx to the magic lantern guys, did canon ever provide any of those improvements themselves? exactly...

I'm happy with my C100's, image quality is great, I don't need better low light it's pretty amazing as is & best of all is it's a no fuss camera. I don't want to waste my time rendering a 4K image to 1080P never mind tryong to solve the aliasing issues with downscaling like that. The GH4 looks like a worthy contender but I'm not sacrificing my comfort, I want focus zoom, dual slot recording & ND filter.

Regarding this 'will Canon engage 4K in its Cx00 Cinema EOS line' debate, there's some interesting reading between the lines in this interview:

NAB 2014: NewsShooter Canon on Vimeo

The C100 has the 4K sensor, but it's not for 4K. It's magic is created by downsampling the 4K to a really good HD signal, comparable to a 3 chip camera and to most eyes, negating the issues of a Bayer Pattern sensor. To use it as a 4K camera would be to halve or even quarter its quality as then each pixel is either a red, a green or a blue site and we get that sort of image that doesn't quite have the detail and bite we'd expect.

The C100 was made for HD. It's running at the top end of its capabilities, there is no Magic Lantern to look forward to, there never will be. To do better than the C100, you'll have to wait for new hardware, and the Canon chap has that sort of look in the eye as he says 'Canon have been somewhat conservative' that says 'Hey, we're Canon, we care very much about the end user, we build for the longer term, we do amazing things and then take a back seat for a bit, knowing what we have will do.'

This is the antithesis of Black Magic. BM are screwing with the base DNA of cameras, they are absolutely fearless in trying out new designs, chuck them into the river and see what swims. It's exciting, it's breathtaking, but as a camera owner who relies on earning money by making nice images in a cost effective way, I find BM's concept of cost effective and 'product investment' doesn't quite fit mine.

Canon really shook things up with the XL1 and hit their stride with its necessary update the XL2. Sony tried to do the right thing with the FS100, and then hit their stride with the FS700 (PD150-170, DSR500-570). BM could do us a favour by doing some little refinements to their current line before deciding to go up a whole new path. What was wrong with the BMCC? Audio, control, image artifacts. How about fixing them first? Why make the Ursa and the studio camera whilst the BMPCC still had black-dot problems?

Canon are going to move at what appears to be a glacial pace, but they tend to 'pupate' now and again. Are they at the END of one product cycle, or at the BEGINNING of the next cycle? Apple, Sony and othe rmanufacturers have a 'tick, tock' cycle - a big leap forward, followed by a recapitulation and improvement, then another leap forward.

It appears Canon have a 'tick, tock, tack' cycle - I fear that we've had the 'tick', there will be a 'tock' next year which will be what we wanted in the first place, followed a little later by a 'tack' which is what we all dreamed about today, but didn't quite make it until its too late. Thinking along the lines of XL1, XL2, XLH1.

So, no movable AF green square with the C100. No improvement in the AVCHD codec. No split audio. No audio on 'last scene playback' - they did it all in hardware and it can't be changed.

So, no movable AF green square with the C100. No improvement in the AVCHD codec. No split audio. No audio on 'last scene playback' - they did it all in hardware and it can't be changed.

I actually think the audio is a non-issue. Splitting stereo to left & right in post takes no effort, I prefer one file actually & no audio playback on 'last scene playback' doesn't bother me either.

But to be fair, the audio to two channels is all about having your safety Channel 2 at -18dB less than the main *at recording time*, so when your interviewee harrumphs, barks, laughs, coughs or whatever, you still have something half decent rather than an ugly splat. Yes, there's a limiter, but that's just a 'rubber sheet' rather than 'coping with the inevitable'.

It's an absolute industry standard procedure, it's particularly relevant to the C100 shooter who will probably not be blessed with a soundie, and it's just a silly thing NOT to do. It's as if we're seeing a retrograde step in camera design.

As for 'last file playback' - sod it all, I got a Ninja! (and a little speaker set). The number of times I get asked to play back the take, zip around the different takes... Sheesh, if only we had Shot Duration on the Ninja, I'd be a very happy bunny. That's the last little irritant.

Is the C100 sensor not supposed to be the same as the 300 and 500 and the 500 gets 4K from it?

John.

But to be fair, the audio to two channels is all about having your safety Channel 2 at -18dB less than the main *at recording time*, so when your interviewee harrumphs, barks, laughs, coughs or whatever, you still have something half decent rather than an ugly splat. Yes, there's a limiter, but that's just a 'rubber sheet' rather than 'coping with the inevitable'.

Not even the XF305 does this though. It's been a Canon thing, as both Sony and Panasonic have had it. I'm not aware of any Canon, fixed lens or no, that has this feature.

Is the C100 sensor not supposed to be the same as the 300 and 500 and the 500 gets 4K from it?

The C500 basically bypasses the Digic DV III processing chip entirely to output 4K. Meaning you get a non-debayered C-Log only 4K image.

i've lobbied canon to stagger the resolution offerings, since you just have 4k, 1080, and 1080

give the c300 3k, and the c100 2.5k

would be great, but can the hardware even handle it is the more important question, but more important yet is whether canon would even want to

give the c300 3k, and the c100 2.5.

This will never happen. First, both the C100 and the C300 use the Digic DV III processing chip to process the video (like how the Panasonic Venus engine processes the video in the GH3/4). This chip was found in the older XF series camcorders and is limited to 1080 and the typical framerates of 720p60, 1080p24, 1080p30, and 1080i60 (which is also why you won't see 1080p60 in the C100).

To get 3K out of the C300, you will have to bypass the Digic DV III chipset and send a raw 3K signal out of the SDI port. Considering the C300 only has HD-SDI coming out of it, that would mean a compressed, non-compatible stream like the FS700 has. This is why the C500 removes the grip and adds 2 3G-SDI ports (for a compatible 4K raw stream). Even then it requires a recorder that can translate the Canon Raw signal.

The C100 will also not get 2.5k for that exact same reason. It would require a hardware upgrade on both cameras to replace the Digic DV III chipset (and I don't know if a Digic DV IV chipset even exists, probably next year I would imagine) and it doesn't even have SDI out, only HDMI, thus further removing itself from a compatible standard.

The only possible thing that could be added to the C100 is 720p60, a standard supported by AVCHD, Digic DV III and the HDMI port. Everything else is wishful thinking that doesn't take into account how these cameras take the photons hitting the sensor and turn it into a digital image.

So even if Canon wanted to give us this, it would be a folly of a business decision to even try given the logistics involved and the price they would have to charge.

I thought this thread was about being happy with what the c100 does provide, not about what one would like it could provide :)

The C100 has the 4K sensor, but it's not for 4K. It's magic is created by downsampling the 4K to a really good HD signal, comparable to a 3 chip camera and to most eyes, negating the issues of a Bayer Pattern sensor. To use it as a 4K camera would be to halve or even quarter its quality as then each pixel is either a red, a green or a blue site and we get that sort of image that doesn't quite have the detail and bite we'd expect.


What's interesting about this is, and I don't know about you guys, but I so often hear producers demand a 4k camera, without knowing at all whether it's right for the project or even how good the final image will look, and refuse to budge.

It would be great just to have the capability, knowing that it may not be important at all but at least it gets my foot in the door. Then on these jobs, either I can say "Hey, you want to ignore my advice and shoot 4k, that's your prerogative and I still get my paycheck" OR if the producer's more reasonable, it gets me the job and I can THEN say "By the way, the thing about 4k is you really probably don't need or want it. I can totally do it, but here's why we shouldn't"

The easy answer seems to be, if they want a 4k camera rent a 4k camera... but again, and I don't know about you guys, I'm seeing more and more producers hiring owner/operators, without wanting to rent. And I can't really justify owning all those cameras. I really like the c100, but even having the option, even if it's not the best option, seems like it would go a long way.

IF it's possible. Which no one is really sure if it is. I won't cry if it isn't, and I'm well aware there's almost no chance it'll ever happen anyway, but it makes for interesting discussion.

I tell people that my C100 is a 4K camera, you just don't get 4K out of it. It does the hard work in post of downrezzing to 1080 for you up front.

All of my work with the Red Epic has been for 1080 master.

I've used the C100 and like it well enough, and agree there's no reason for anyone to poo-poo it due to the newer cameras that emerge every year... it's simply a good camera. But let's look at the new offerings and how they might compare in real-world use:

First, URSA and CION, etc... no, not really in the same league for a multitude of reasons. I'll skip them.

More intriguing are the A7S and GH4. Both have a greater range of available lenses via adapters (plus SpeedBoosters if that's your fancy). GH4 can't easily utilize EF lenses yet, but Nikons and others are no problem. Both can actually use 3rd party adapters like HolyManta and Vizilex to effectively integrate ND filters, but using those sacrifices auto lens functionality. Both can be considered as having detatchable, well-integrated XLR solutions available - just like the C100, which includes it in the cost. Both have significantly better EVFs and screens than the C100. Both offer 1080p60 (or p96 on the GH4) and higher bitrate internal recording. A7S offers the option of full-frame or S35 sensor aesthetic; GH4 offers the slightly easier-focusing m43 depth as well as an integrated teleconversion crop mode (and also 'S35' aesthetic if SpeedBooster is used). A7S/XLR or GH4/YAGH with something like a PowerBase70 battery would offer equal-or-better battery life at a roughly equivalent weight to the C100. And of course the GH4 and A7S can also shoot really nice stills. They're less-featured in some ways, but greatly featured in many others.

So even supposing you don't even approach the 4K modes on either 'hybrid' camera model, just assessing them as 1080p cameras, you can really and truly get much of same capability, PLUS some, in a smaller packable size for less money now. You can add 4K shooting later (or right off the bat, internally, with GH4). If the question really comes down to ergonomics, I can have a really darned nifty side handle custom-designed for ~$1500.

More is now available for less. That's just the way stuff goes.

None of this takes away from the C100... it's a dandy camera and will be working well into the latter half of this decade. Proof-of-concept, I'm still soldiering on with a surprisingly not dead AF100, which still gets and executes plenty of work. We AF100 users have had plenty of experience in apology and self-affirmation of our cameras as newer and better tools have emerged and supplanted it as the top camera trend of the year. But all the cameras still work.

Take a load off... yeah, there are better cameras than your C100 now at the same or less price. It happens. None of it really affects your capabilities one damned bit. Keep using it in total confidence.

It's no secret that many lower-priced cameras can achieve nearly the same functionality as the c100, but one of the assets for the c100 is that it's all already there. Can you take another camera and MAKE it work like the c100? Sure. Or you can just use the c100.

It's simply a case of right tool for the job. For their specific work, some may well prefer to take their dslr or what have you and rig it up, install magic lantern, get some adapters, add accessories and get something similar to the c100. I'm not downplaying that at all, I can imagine MANY instances where that's definitely the best way to get the job done. That's fine if that route works best for them. For many others, it's nice to just have the camera, pick it up and go and it's already got everything we need.

But you can do exactly that with the GH4 and A7S... attaching their XLR units is no more taxing than attaching the C100's and lens adapters are just as simple as any other lens change. They're ready to go and don't need a hack, recorder, or extra monitor/EVF to make them useable. Slap it on a tripod, very small shoulder brace, or freehand using the EVF and shoot away - just like the C100. The external recorder is only necessary if you want 4:2:2 10-bit (or 4K on the A7S) and there are compact, non-V-mount-like battery solutions for the GH4 (like the PowerBase 70).

Not too much info on the JVC 4K m43/S35 camera yet, but it appears to be very well self-contained, is said to have a windowed mode for using m43-native glass, and then can use the full S35 sensor with almost ANY lens on an inexpensive (or expensive) adapter - Leica M/R/39,OM,FD,NikF/G,ALPA,CY,PL, anything. JVC being new in this market segment, who knows exactly what will come of that.

Conversely, there's no way whatsoever for the C100 to match some of these cameras' capabilities.

Again for clarity, I'm in no way disparaging the C100... I agree that it's a fine, capable, self-contained tool that any owner should be proud to have and will be a valuable tool and a "best option" for many jobs for a long time to come... heck, the old HVX200 is still amongst the "best options" for a number of jobs. But sometimes new and better options do emerge.

Frankly if a year went by and I saw nothing whatsoever that improved on what I already had, I'd be somewhat sad for the industry and its lack of progress and development.

But you can do exactly that with the GH4 and A7S... attaching their XLR units is no more taxing than attaching the C100's

Highly disagree on that. The C100 is a handle with XLR inputs that attaches via a single, locking cable. The GH4 requires the base that has *two* connections, then requires DC power in, now we're talking AB/V-Mount batteries and rails. The A7s does have a much better solution for this, but the GH4 isn't even close.

and lens adapters are just as simple as any other lens change.

Unless you have EF lenses. A7s much better in this regard still, but I have had poor results with the Metabones EF to NEX adapter.

Highly disagree on that. The C100 is a handle with XLR inputs that attaches via a single, locking cable. The GH4 requires the base that has *two* connections, then requires DC power in, now we're talking AB/V-Mount batteries and rails. The A7s does have a much better solution for this, but the GH4 isn't even close.Debatable. Wouldn't they have the same number of connections (C100 - audio cable and hot shoe/GH4: locking HDMI and camera mount screw)? Most camera bags I have could easily swallow a fully-built GH4/YAGH/PB70 unit. The DC power in is the only real issue there, but Switronix's PowerBase-70 is a good non-rail/AB/V power solution. Will run the camera all day, still all weighs in about the same as the C100, and I kind of prefer having the weight slung underneath as opposed to suspended overhead or dangling out front. I've used a DSLR with a PowerBase handheld, it handles well, far better than appearances might lead on.

But again, if hand-held ergonomics is the only qualm, ~$1500 can get a fellow a heck of a nice ready-to-rock support rig - something you'd need for any length of shoulder-shooting on a C-camera anyway.

Unless you have EF lenses. A7s much better in this regard still, but I have had poor results with the Metabones EF to NEX adapter. no real surprise that the Canon camera is best at using Canon lenses, but at least it's possible to use EF lenses on the other cameras if forced for whatever reason. The C100 can't use E or m43 systems' lenses at all (or FD, Leica M, or PL... but then frankly, who's going to use PL glass on any of these cameras routinely?). The small, packable size of those m43 lenses can be a distinct advantage in many situations.

Will run the camera all day, still all weighs in about the same as the C100, and I kind of prefer having the weight slung underneath as opposed to suspended overhead or dangling out front. I've used a DSLR with a PowerBase handheld, it handles well, far better than appearances might lead on.

Have you ever shot with the C100? Because there is far more to the story than just weight. The ergonomics are far superior to any DSLR-form factor I have *ever* used. The ergonomics are also far superior to, say, the Sony FS100/700 (I have shot with that camera and it produces good imagery, but the use of it in a typical shooting scenario is not pleasing).

But again, if hand-held ergonomics is the only qualm, ~$1500 can get a fellow a heck of a nice ready-to-rock support rig - something you'd need for any length of shoulder-shooting on a C-camera anyway.

The C100 is far easier to handhold without a rig than any DSLR kit as well. Especially with the Zacuto C100 Z-Finder.

Yes, I have. I've also shot with the GH3, Canon DSLRs, and the FS100/700 amongst many many other cameras from PD150's to VariCams. The C100/300 are very good. The GH3 (even with battery grip - about the same size as the YAGH) is also good. Almost everything is better than Canon DSLR's and the FS100/700 (OK, maybe not BM cams).

As good as the C100/300 are (and they are exceptionally good handheld for short shots), I don't shoot extended shoulder-level work without some sort of support on either of them. They're wonderful cameras, but to suggest that they have no limitations in their form is incorrect.

Well of course it does, I haven't found a camera yet that doesn't have some limitations.

But you're suggesting all the accessories and peripherals you need to make the dslr's work like a c100. It can be done, sure. But for a lot of projects it's more beneficial to pick up the camera and go. Some times I want to just pick up the camera and hit the record button. That's what the c100 gives me. I don't need a ton of accessories, workarounds and stopgaps just to get it going at peak capacity.

No camera is perfect. In many instances the dslr's up to and including, I'm sure, the Gh4 have many great uses and can be the best tool for many jobs.

For many other jobs, the c100 is the best. You seem intent on telling everyone how much all the new cameras make the c100 obsolete, while conceding that sure it can still be used... I disagree. I think for many projects it's not just an acceptable choice, but the best choice. For many others, it isn't.

But you're suggesting all the accessories and peripherals you need to make the dslr's work like a c100. It can be done, sure. But for a lot of projects it's more beneficial to pick up the camera and go. Some times I want to just pick up the camera and hit the record button. That's what the c100 gives me. I don't need a ton of accessories, workarounds and stopgaps just to get it going at peak capacity.

...but the point was that if you only need to record 8-bit 1080p, neither of these 'DSLR's' NEEDS more accessorization than maybe their XLR modules (just like the C100) and a lens (with or without an adapter - VND, Speedbooster, or whatever the desired look necessitates). Nothing more than the C100... not even an LCD loupe because their EVFs are very very useable as-is. No 'stopgaps,' 'workarounds,' or assorted faff we've associated with actual DSLR's for the past 6 years. They just come out of the pack working, with all sorts of full-on video camera functionality - just like the C100. Deployed like that, they're smaller, nimbler, but functionally very very similar. I think that's exciting in a totally non-detracting-from-the-C100 way. The C100 is not obsolete any more than my AF100 is obsolete, but new, affordable, interesting tools do indeed emerge as time goes on.

So yes, BE HAPPY, C100 owners still have an awesome camera, and BE HAPPY, there's new capable toys to play with as well!

Not sure why this discussion has gone to the DSLR-ogs. I think it's fair to say no class of production equipment has had more limitations for video users to put up with than the DSLR. The happy outcome from this scourge has been that Sony and Canon have responded to the deafening choir of retching from those forced to use them and know better how a camera should operate. Watermelon and clouds have nearly identical water content. Understanding the differences between things, not the similarities between them is far more illuminating and results in much greater understanding.

One thing that often seems to get forgotten on this forum is cost. There is a big difference between the price of a C100 and a GH4. I get the impression some people on here have a big fat wallet (not meaning anyone in this thread).

The good thing in my view is that now we are at the point where there are very good cameras out there for all budgets. From a GH3 at £1000, to a C100 at £4000, to the £10,000+ models.

So whatever tools you use BE HAPPY and shoot a good story.

One thing that often seems to get forgotten on this forum is cost. There is a big difference between the price of a C100 and a GH4. I get the impression some people on here have a big fat wallet (not meaning anyone in this thread).

Not sure what that "big fat wallet" has to do with anything. If you want a business, you spend money to make that business happen, whether it's paying for permits or buying the gear you need. Some of us aren't hobbyists.

A GH4 is $1700 and the YAGH to add XLR inputs is $2000. Then you need, at the very least, the Powerbase-70 to power the YAGH, which is an additional $300. So for the kit to compete with the C100, we are looking at $4000. The C100 is only $1000 more, and I prefer its shooting configuration. It's ready to go out of the box without needing to mount the YAGH and then the Switronix battery, making the camera a towering mess of ridiculousness.

That's easily worth an extra thousand to me. Not to mention the fact that it has a robust picture profile engine (for achieving a close to final look within camera), easily one of the absolute best low-light cameras, Dual Pixel AF, built-in ND filters (that easily adds an additional $600 if you go with screw-on ND filters that are worth having), ect.

What are you guys actually trying to proof? :) I can take my 1000 dollar gh3 out of the bag and have it ready for shooting on a paid job, without any accessories, it supports my workflow in that way but I"m sure that won't be the case for many other shooters who have other demands. All camera"s have their strengths and weaknesses, what is a weakness for one might not be for another depending on your needs so if the c100 works for you, then be happy :)

What are you guys actually trying to proof? :)

Well, it's always good to debate pros and cons, not to convince the other person, but so that someone who may just be lurking can see point and counterpoint in a way that may help them make a decision one way or the other.

Why does it bug you?

I"m not sure what this thread is actually about, is it to praise the c100 and that you don't need any other camera because the c100 still has it all or is it to discuss other possible options, beside the c100 and discuss what they can provide what the c100 can't? Or is it to discuss what's not good about other camera's? :) If anyone can explain what the purpose is I might be able to join in again.

So far, I think that Kevin McRoberts made some valid remarks.

I"m not sure what this thread is actually about, is it to praise the c100 and that you don't need any other camera because the c100 still has it all or is it to discuss other possible options, beside the c100 and discuss what they can provide what the c100 can't?

I think a thread that is all praise is simply boring, and if it provides a jumping off point for people to insert their own opinions about options that are the same price point or cheaper, ect. then that's a good thing.

I started this thread in response to the hype from NAB - lots of new cameras, but when the cold hard light of day hits them, is there anything to make us ditch the C100, with all its faults?

C100 users and potential owners need to petition Canon so that they fix the faults in the C100 before they go off and make a new one. When they make a new one, they shouldn't assume they did well on the first one.

Black Magic took their Cinema and Production cameras, and made them into a 10Kg bear to meet the howls of protest we raised in forums such as these.

It would be really nice if Canon accepted that their PSF doesn't work very well, and they should do unto edit software what they did unto Atomos, and worked together for the common good. Whilst they're at it, they can bloody well fix the asinine and stupid way they do white balance ('let's look at the whole frame and assume that we're filling it with an engineering chart' rather than 'find something that peaks close to equal in R, G & B, and if not, is there anything that looks like skin tone, in the centre 15-30% area'). Whilst they're at it, they can fix the audio issue - we need one input and two levels sometimes - they can sort out the interlaced chroma and they should (though I now know they can't) have audio in the 'last shot playback' function. Sheesh, that's specifically to ensure we got the audio properly, and they don't even do it via headphones.

Oh look, I'm writing in crayon again. Sorry.

All the new cameras sub-$10k will bring with them new issues, new problems, new challenges, new bugs. C100 is a stable platform, but it's still got issues. Let's stop trading 'old fashioned' insults at C100, get the bugs squashed, move on.

I fear Canon think we love the C100/C300 so much. No, we like it, but it does need fixing before Canon moves on. Canon should know this, I hope we can remind them.

Nice one Matt.

The two things that bug me most are the PSF issue (surely everyone hates this - right?) and the fact I can only punch in to 2x. My eyes are getting older and I'd love to go to 5x and 10x like I can on the DSLRs (which I hate using now).

Of course, Canon's next models should have 50p/60p as well as fixing the PSF. Please, pretty please Canon.

I just shot some stuff about a guy running marathons and I really could have done with 60p in order to get 'better' progressive slo-mo. Oh well.

Glad to see others understand the great benefit of critical reviews for both other readers and for manufacturers to improve products.

I fear Canon think we love the C100/C300 so much. No, we like it, but it does need fixing before Canon moves on. Canon should know this, I hope we can remind them.

Nicely put Matt. I also fear this and that they don't listen to users anyway.

I'm not sure we'll see many more improvements in terms of firmware for the C100 at this stage. I hope I'm wrong.

The two things that bug me most are the PSF issue (surely everyone hates this - right?)

It doesn't bother me terribly as a shooter, but I am seeing *a lot* of C100 footage recently that has been deinterlaced and not had it's pulldown removed like it should have been, and thus looks extremely soft. This leads to a lot of negative opinion about the C100's image quality (which should look closer to the level of detail found in 1080p sourced from 4-5K Red footage...if you're not seeing that, then you're not doing it right). When I deliver to clients, I am either shooting with the 24p option (native 24p in AVCHD), or 30p and using ClipWrap on the files to automatically add the pulldown flags like are supposed to be there, or using the Atomos NInja-2/Blade and having it record 24p/30p native with the pulldown already applied.

Of course, Canon's next models should have 50p/60p as well as fixing the PSF.

You won't get 1080p60 from any in the current lineup (save for the C500 which has the option to bypass the Digic DV III processor), but there is no reason why Canon can't give us 720p60 in the C100. I think at this point it's not going to really cannibalize any sales of the C300 and would only make C100 owners *very* happy. It's not going to be substantially better looking than deinterlacing 60i for the slowmo, but it does make post easier.

I'm not sure we'll see many more improvements in terms of firmware for the C100 at this stage. I hope I'm wrong.

I think we have one more C100 firmware update left before Canon fully switches over to C200 development (which I expect will be out in about a year and a half). Hopefully they will make all native 24p, 25p, 30p framerates, add 720p60, and let you move the Dual Pixel AF targeting box. I don't expect a dual audio record from a single channel option, mostly because that's probably something they will (hopefully) do in the next iteration, and none of their previous XF camera series (new 205 notwithstanding) does it either.

C100 users and potential owners need to petition Canon so that they fix the faults in the C100 before they go off and make a new one. When they make a new one, they shouldn't assume they did well on the first one.

As much as i would like to hope that they would listen, It's hard to see canon as listening to anyone but their own analysis and data. I mean, the 'big' firmware update that we got that did add the very needed movable focus assist, also included the 80,000iso option. my first thought was: "who the heck was asking them for better iso than it already has?"

As always as consumers, it's the safest bet to say that our requests to camera-makers isn't very likely to get taken into consideration because they are of course businesses, and they quite reasonably are catering to the hundreds if not thousands or hundreds of thousands of buyers/users of any particular camera/line of cameras, so a few dozen folks submitting feature requests/etc... aren't likely to have a big impact on them.

It took the ridiculous success of the 5D2 to lead to the development of C series (my opinion, debatable fact)
and whatever they're working on now im sure is taking into consideration a metric ton of research and data which maybe, just maybe, includes a tiny fraction of what they hear from folks like us.

As always, buy a camera for what it is, not what you want it to be, and you'll be as this thread title suggests. I'm with Matt; post NAB i've yet to see something that i'd like to replace my C100 with.