Richard, you were helpful in my decision to get the C100 instead of the GH4...... I'm just testing you to make sure yer making the right decision, I shall cease from any further discussion knowing you are making the right choice.

If you find yourself in Santa Fe sometime stop by and say hello.

I'm just testing you to make sure yer making the right decision

You are taking that brand loyalty thing much too seriously, all these camera's are just tools, it doesn't matter if you go the sony, canon, panasonic or whatever brand route, you just choose the tools that work best for your kind of production and budget.

That's a nice list of new gear Richard, I have the rx10 and consumerversion of the x70, the ax100. My favourite camera by far is the rx10, I still don't like it's too slow zoom and the fact that we Europeans still get to deal with the 30 minute recording limit but it's the best camera I have used that bridges the gap between dslr and a videocamera in terms of functionality and image quality.

You are taking that brand loyalty thing much too seriously, all these camera's are just tools, it doesn't matter if you go the sony, canon, panasonic or whatever brand route, you just choose the tools that work best for your kind of production and budget.

Noa, tell me something I don't already know! Brand loyalty has more to to with familiarity than anything else. For instance I would never change from Apple to a PC for obvious reasons. However, I do want a Pany XL100 someday.

When you are invested in the amount of gear Richard has it is a big deal, as Richard himself alluded to.

I have no idea what kind of video Richard does...... hobby, professional, flowers going in and out of focus, weddings, action thrillers etc.

My point was it seems like a hell of a lot of gear to trade off for the convenience of one camera that basically does everything at your finger tips, all for a codec that no one will notice a difference in except pixel peepers. At the same time pixel peeping is the name of the game here, what else is there to talk about.

I just can't think of a real video camera that offers as much as the C100 mk II, for $5500.00.......call that brand loyalty if you like, I call it the facts!

I"m actually also curious what type of productions Richard does and because he talks about renting a fs7 I"m sure he's not the average homevideo shooter, there is always a a lot of talk about gear but it's always much nicer to see what people actually do with it.

I call it the facts!

Of course it's a fact because it works for you, but it doesn't work for Richard so for him it's a fact that his camera choices work better for him.

Happy Thanksgiving

Michael - For the last time.... I will be fine.

Noa - For video it is all voluntary work (except for personal travel and outdoor adventure videos). I have been fortunate in life, and wish to give back. I started out just recording events (church, schools, charitable organzations) with one camcorder. That grew to multi-cam shoots, where I would rent additional XF100's and XA20's with other volunteers helping. At first, I hired out the editing, but I have been working with FCP-X to be able to do all the editing myself. I now have a "Darth Vader flower pot" (Late 2013 Mac Pro) with external Thunderbolt2 RAID array drive enclosures. The volunteer video projects are now starting to include planned and prepared shorts, typically less than 5 minutes each, to be shown during church services or during organization meetings to either summarize something, or to make people aware of something important, or to move people to do something. Telling a story, as they say. This is in addition to just recording events.

For stills, I do volunteer shooting (again, for church, schools, youth sports, charitable organizations) and I donate all of the prints and flash drives. I also do "fine art" shooting, often landscapes. Finally, I do personal shooting and video, often including travel and outdoor adventure. Heli-hiking in Canada this past summer, as one example.

The Sony RX10 is a "sleeper" and now has an updated 50 Mbps XAVC codec. The Sony RX 100 iii is a "sleeper" for video. The early reports on the X70 camcorder are positive, and the Sony A7s is stunning now (for HD). I will skip buying a Ninja now, because I don't need it, and save up to buy a Shogun instead. I believe my new gear lineup will adapt to the future quite well.

Happy Thanksgiving

Michael - For the last time.... I will be fine.

Happy thanksgiving to you as well. Yes, I wasn't trying to talk to out of it, just explaining to Noa my reasoning for the discussion.

Ofcourse it's a fact because it works for you, but it doesn't work for Richard so for him it's a fact that his camera choices work better for him. It only looks like you are the only person that keeps finding that hard to believe :)

Well, you are talking DSLR's that shoot some video I'm talking actual video cameras. I do think I'm safe saying for the money the C100 mk II is the best of it's kind on the market right now. What's close the FS-100?

I respect Richard's needs and choices. It's just that during the last few weeks Richard was one of the biggest proponents of the C100 mk II. Now he's not, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it..... I'm fine with it.

In some ways when people talk about getting new cameras here, I tend to live out the drama personally though them.... a voyeur of sorts, a glimpse into their reasoning..... in the end, I learn form it as if I bought it myself.

Really who doesn't enjoy hearing about someone's new camera purchases?

This is the C100 with some improvements. As C100 owners/operators, there is plenty to discuss, especially the topic of whether or not these improvements are worth of upgrading to (they are).

Frankly, I think the C100 Mark II makes this camera nearly perfect as a 1080p cam. You get slo-mo, a truly articulating LCD screen AND EVF, better internal recording options, Vectorscope and so on. The only concern is whether you want 4K or the 1080p derived from 4K look without having to spend time downconverting all the footage manually.

Gary, you're right on target! If anyone is a C100 owner, the C100 MK II is a no brainer (it just makes sense). They'll be plenty of opportunities for multiple 4K cameras in the near future. I recently sold my C100 and plan to upgrade to the MK II next month! Simple work flows with this camera and none of my clients have complained about any of the images coming from the C100.

To everyone, enjoy the holidays with your families and keep shooting with WHATEVER camera works for you!

Most important, keep the topics about the products and not the personPerfectly stated, Troy!

Though my c100 has more than paid for itself, I'm delusionally optimistic and hoping for the codec and frame rate firmware update...

I made a short comparison between C100 M1 and C100 M2.
There are three parts - short movie (95pct M2 and 5pct M1), comparison from movie and comparison from other places.

Canon C100 M2 test (wih C100 M1) on Vimeo

Thanks to canon.cz and also thanks to my friend Vladimir for assistance.

/ at 1:04 is flickering from the reverse motion /

Thanks for the comparison. I have to say I like the images coming out of the MKI more than the MKII......

Thanks for the comparison. I have to say I like the images coming out of the MKI more than the MKII......

Probably wouldn't be able to say that if the camera wasn't labelled. Plus, I don't see what lenses were used on either. That can make a difference too if they are not identical.

All informations are at video, lenses, etc.

I used exactly the same setting, all menus, CP, color temperature was set with kelvin (the same), the same iris, very close focal length, etc. (only log gamma has on both cameras shifted color matrix: R-G is -21, it is only one change - my old trick .-) , but also this info is at video at the end).

Some differences are only at evening when light quick fall off (at the end of movie), the time for change one camera to other was about 5min for one sekvence of footage. But differences go on at another day, so some result is visible (M2 little tend to pink on faces, but has better noise - monochromatic with wdr and log gamma, and has less black and little average colors - for me).

M1 has more hard black with the same setting, but "EVF + autofocus (or push autofocus)" on M2 is killer combination for one which don't like manual focus if you have no time.

My first impression is 50:50, some features are better on M1 and others on M2, would be nice to see more real videos from M2.

Thanks for the comparison. I have to say I like the images coming out of the MKI more than the MKII......

Thanks.

The basic question about colors on C100 M2 is about DIGIC DV4 - the same procesor is used at G30 and we really see a lot of "pink" colors at many videos - a very good sample is here (look for cyan color at sky):
Canon LEGRIA HF G30, First Test - YouTube

Another basic question (about cons) is about color processing - is there same averaging of colors? Average colors mean a little flat resolution in colors (it is about surfaces, not about edges) - in the opposite to luma resolution which is better on M2 (you can probably see this on face color test at the end of test or on calendar part - on the wall is visible more details with M2 and wdr or log gamma).

All other is about pros.

I recommend to download the orig file.

The fact that both cameras have different exposures going on means that it is hard to glean anything useful from this test.

Hi,
all the test have both cameras exactly the same exposure

- only at the end of "movie" exposure differ, but not too much (but you can see the original at second part of test, the church at the end of evening - we started shooting at 2:00pm and end was at 5:00pm, where last twenty minutes light quickly fall off - it was about two shots from the test where exposure may a little differ - there was very could and I can't remember the last two shots .-)) , thanks Canon that C100 has no metadata about exposure...).

Two elderly women have given us wine to drink, this saved us.

I hope that this help .-) .

Hi,all the test have both cameras exactly the same exposure

Did you use the waveform monitor?

I like your question, have a nice day :) .

The same setting all menus, CP (gamma curves, black levels, saturation, NR, color matrix), the same kelvin and...

...the same exposure of the CMOS chip = the same ND, shutter speed, iris and iso = the same amount of the light on the CMOS chip and the same processing, but different result due to different procesor. This show you differences between both cameras.

Yes, I also used WF monitor, but only as basic information about exposure.

---

But this is not an exact test and at movie part (at exterior) can be some small differences (for example at focal lenght), it's a real life and not payed testing (good news is that interiors are exactly the same and show a very similar result). One interesting thing is that new OLED display has big contrast but not the same as pictures have, but I think that longer usage solve this. My three days (and two nights .-) ) with C100 M2 was too short.

Yes, I also used WF monitor, but only as basic information about exposure.

That's an odd way to put it...the waveform monitor IS your exposure information. Everything else is just guesswork.

Really :-) ? Can you more explain how you mean that info about WF monitor (for comparison M1 and M2 which has the same CMOS chip)?

My concept of this test is:
the same light, the same exposure (the same lens, iris, ND, shutter speed) of (the same) CMOS chip on both cameras, then the same signal processing (gamma curve, ISO, WB with kelvin, CP setting) but on different camera processors - on WF monitor you will see the result - differences of (identical) signal processing between DV3 and DV4 processor (and also on WF you will see the "basic info" about unwanted signal clipping, you don't need any other info during shooting in this type of comparison test).

I made comparison of two cameras with the same chip and different signal processor and not a test of a new camera. I hope that you will understand to this fact. I'm not interested in "the same output", but really in "the same input" which show me differences at signal processing.

Really hope that you will start thinking about this clear concept of my test.

Thanks for your suggestions.

In WDR the waveform monitor seems to ride in the middle, I thought this because it seems slightly flatter than say the 5D3. It took me a while to understand this after I got the C100.

When I look at the WFM on my Atomos Blade and hit the Auto iris button and check the exposure meter on the LCD the Blades WFM is spiking. When I adjust the image to the WFM and bring down the highs it shows the image to be under exposed on the LCD meter. I have since learned to pay little attention to the WFM in camera and on the Blade (same thing really).

Even after adjusting the exposure to the meter on the LCD screen and using the Auto Iris button. The image in post always needs some exposure tweaking because it still seems under exposed...

The waveform monitor IS your exposure. Learn it, love it. Everything else is just misleading.

That's an odd way to put it...the waveform monitor IS your exposure information. Everything else is just guesswork.

The waveform monitor IS your exposure. Learn it, love it. Everything else is just misleading.

No it's not. I used the WFM and the footage was unusable, ever since I made that mistake I've used the exposure meter in the LCD and and verified it with the auto iris button, and it's been fine.

The waveform monitor IS your exposure.

No it's not.

Well, to be fair -- maybe it's not for you, Michael, but it is for *a lot* of other people.

Well, to be fair -- maybe it's not for you, Michael, but it is for *a lot* of other people.

Chris, with all due respect you have been very adimante about the WFM being the only true measure of exposure, but so far I've only heard vague statements from you. Please enlighten me!

You know...... either it works or it doesn't. Why would the exposure on the C100 be so different between the WFM and the exposure meter in the LCD? Why would the auto iris button, and the exposure meter tell me the shot is perfectly exposed and the WFM show the whites are way over a 100%?

Why is it when I look at the WFM and get the whites just below a 100% transfer the footage into FCPX and it's so underexposed I can't use it?

If there is something I'm doing wrong I would like to know about it.

Wow, Michael, your experiences are so different from mine I'm sort of wondering what is going on. That your WFM shows your whites just under 100 but your footage is underexposed makes me wonder what it is that you were shooting? Certainly a scene where the room is in dark shadows, but a window is bright, might lead a WFM to show something that, if you brought the highlight down, would crush the exposure. Also, to pull my whites down into range, in a bright sunlit situation, I will change the camera picture profiles to get a wide DR to work from. Even then, I might need to add light to the shot to fill in a shadows

But a clue to me is that you are using your auto Iris and exposure meter in the LCD. I don't ever use auto anything if I can help it. Not sure why you would trust the auto iris? Not being flippant here, just asking because I never even think to engage it.

The exposure meter and the LCD are something I only use for general guidance, and getting me in the ballpark of exposure. Once there, I rely on the WFM to dial in my final exposure, so I don't blow out the highlights or crush the shadows. It's never failed to get me decent exposure in the situations I face, which granted might be quite different than yours. Learning to use it has helped me immensely.

Have you tried hooking an external monitor to the camera and matching what you see on it to the LCD? That might give you a lot more confidence in knowing the difference. Also there are LCD tuning parameters that might help you dial it into a better look to the final product.

Ultimately, doing a bunch of tests like that is what has helped me do a better job with the C100 and the xf305. hope that helps. It's been a super camera for me. Very few complaints that haven't been adfdressed in the upgrade. I hope Canon gives us a trade in policy to move to it.

Thanks Al for the great comments. Yes, ever since I got the C100 I have wondered about this. I've even posted this here and on another blog but got no responses. I have the Atomos Blade with a very nice detailed monitor the very first time I used the C100 I adjusted the exposure on the waveform monitor shot for a while the realized the LCD meter said it was very under exposed.

I checked the accuracy of the Blade against the actual camera and they were both spot on. When I'm running around with the C100 I'll just use the auto iris button because it gets the exposure right in the ball park within seconds, so I've come to rely on it for run and gun stuff.

I'm not complaining about the camera because I've learned how to get fast exposure, and the auto iris button is my favorite button.

In reading Shanes review of the C100 he said the exposure needs to be pretty much right on 1.5 stops under is about the limit before the image falls apart. So I really can't trust my eyes when I'm shooting out doors, so I must look at the numbers, I guess that even applies to indoors as well.

I so far have only shot in WDR. The image to my eyes as well as the scopes in FCPX tell me even after adjusting for correct exposure, the luma exposure in FCPX is rather conservative and the blacks need to be pulled down and the whites need to go up a hair or two.

So I don't know what to say......

Michael,
I primarily use the Waveform monitor to expose. To learn how to use the waveform monitor here is a video courtesy Canon Canon EOS C100 Tutorial Series - Waveform Monitor, Gammas, and Custom Pictures - YouTube

Best,
Sabyasachi

I like to use a WFM, but not for comparison test :-).

I made exposure ( also with WFM help .-) ) on the C100 M1, then on the M2 I made an identical setting from iris to iso or CP), there I didn't need WFM for nothing except clipping.

That's all and I will hope that somebody will understand to difference between test and comparison test :-).

Thanks for that video Sabyasachi, I watched those Canon videos for a month before I got the C100. However it still doesn't make sense for me.

Last time I used the WFM was two months ago when I first got the camera, and had a confusing experience with it and screwed up a two hour long video, and never trusted it again. Since then I've simply trusted the exposure meter and auto iris button. I posted my problem here a while ago, but got no interest in a response.

Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly? I get the highs below 100% and the blacks above zero...... is this correct? Or do I try and just get the grey's at 60% and not worry about peaking?

Or perhaps I totally confusing the WFM in the camera, with a luma color correction WFM in FCPX? Or do they work the same.

Should I be concerned with a few highlight spikes going over 100% or is that only a concern for broadcast safe levels?

Also, the obvious question is if the exposure meter, and the auto iris are in complete agreement, what would be the difference in using those as a reference as opposed to the WFM?

I would greatly appreciate any help with this!

I like to use a WFM, but not for comparison test :-).

I made exposure ( also with WFM help .-) ) on the C100 M1, then on the M2 I made an identical setting from iris to iso or CP), there I didn't need WFM for nothing except clipping.

That's all and I will hope that somebody will understand to difference between test and comparison test :-).

Is this a case where all roads lead to Rome? the WFM highway, or the exposure meter highway, or the autobahn iris button? Or will each road lead to a different destination?

I've only been shooting with the c100 for a couple of months, but shot video extensively for 5 years on the 5d2, and the XLH1 before that. The last thing I would trust for exposure is the auto iris button, especially if I have time for something else. I have used it when going from outside to inside to get me back in the ballpark. And the waveforms are relatively new, so I've yet to really be able to get quick results just with them. I personally leave my zebras and peaking on and use the zebras for highlights for run and gun.

I have a series of interviews coming up and just picked up a new light kit, so I will be learn the waveforms more. I have heard the skin tones (caucasian) are good at around 60-70%.

I have come to trust my eyes too much... why not learn the tools and use them if you have the time to.

[On the start of this debate about WFM is your misunderstanding about reason why is not important to use the WFM for exposure on the second camera in the case of comparison test.

You started this debate and you had a lot of about this - still without understanding.
Try to change something, not to go ahead in one direction.

This test is for me and people which are interested in C100 M2 - if you are not interested in this camera may be better to start another thread about WFM, I will suggest this to you.

This test is not perfect, but there are more shades than black and white - all is the best or all is wrong. Try another better if you don't like this one. This was made in free time, this was not paid work.

I still hope .-) .

I have been following this thread and from the sidelines I "think" I can see what Pavel is trying to say and as English I assume is not his first language it is not coming across as it is meant to be.

1. This is a "Comparison" between Mk 1 & Mk 2 C100
2. So, Pavel has set up both cameras with the "same settings" to see the Difference between the two cameras. Seems like a good idea to give a "comparison" of the cameras.

The WFM comments are all valid in their own right and I use them all the time but!!!! This thread is a comparison only so unfortunately it has missed the point.

Note to Pavel, Thank you for your test and feedback.

Ken, I came from the 5D3 as well, I've always relied on the exposure meter in the LCD. There is no way I could trust me eyes looking at the LCD screen on the 5D3 especially outside in sun light.

Regardless of what tools you use on camera the real test is once you have it in post and check for luma.

If the exposure meter and auto iris are so inaccurate as many here seem to claim (not my experience) why are they even on the camera to begin with?

Moritz Janisch from Fenchel & Janisch mentions the usefulness of the auto iris button here in this review. He goes on the say he was shooting out doors and misjudged the exposure checked the auto iris and found he was 5 stops off, and praises the usefulness of that button.

Canon EOS C100: Camera Review - YouTube

An exposure meter or auto iris can be either almost accurate or completely inaccurate as it looks at the exposure level on the whole screen and takes an average reading based on that to tell you or the camera what your exposure has to be, however, the camera doesn't know what to expose for. Let's say you have a very strong backlight and you are shooting a person. Autoiris will tell the camera to underexpose a lot to compensate for the backlight while your intention would be expose the person in front of you right so you need to overexpose which will blow out the background but correctly expose the person. Your camera doesn't know that, also what your camera "thinks" the correct exposure might be is something the canon engineers have dialed in and that can deviate from what it should be, some small sony camera for instance are known to overexpose in a bit in automode which you need to compensate with the ev function.

The WFM otoh gives you a correct reading of what is going on with your exposure, you only need to learn how to read it and how to use it to your advantage. On my gh4 I use a combination of the zebra's and histogram to judge my exposure which works great when I shoot with the standard presets but I have noticed that the flatter I shoot the more misleading the histogram can become but that's because I don't know how to interpret it correcly so in those cases I rely more on the zebra's, call it laziness on my part but one day I invest more time in understanding the histogram better as I know it will help me expose my shots better.

I also agree with Ken though I never would trust the auto iris for correct exposure, it will only help you to guess what the camera thinks it could be, that will work out fine most of the time but can end up guessing it totally wrong as well depending on what you want to have exposed right.

He goes on the say he was shooting out doors and misjudged the exposure checked the auto iris and found he was 5 stops off, and praises the usefulness of that button.

He actually says the c100 screen is not that bright to judge exposure when shooting outside and if you are not sure or can't see the zebra's to just hit the auto exposure button so the camera will expose for you. The example shot he shows shooting right at the sun with a close up from the leaves is a good example when the auto iris will get it wrong, the camera will underexpose that shot until you will get a black silhouette from those leaves but maybe you don't want that, maybe you do want to expose those leaves more and let the sun blow out more in the background so again, the camera doesn't know what you want to expose right, it just looks at the overall exposure.

Also when he says he was shooting with nd6 at f4 and the camera says it has to be f13 it only tells me he doesn't know the basics for exposing a shot right.

He actually says the c100 screen is not that bright to judge exposure when shooting outside and if you are not sure or can't see the zebra's to just hit the auto exposure button so the camera will expose for you. The example shot he shows shooting right at the sun with a close up from the leaves is a good example when the auto iris will get it wrong, the camera will underexpose that shot until you will get a black silhouette from those leaves but maybe you don't want that, maybe you do want to expose those leaves more and let the sun blow out more in the background so again, the camera doesn't know what you want to expose right, it just looks at the overall exposure.

Also when he says he was shooting with nd6 at f4 and the camera says it has to be f13 it only tells me he doesn't know the basics for exposing a shot right.

Well, first off Noa he wasn't shooting "right at the sun" he was shooting at some high rise buildings with the sky in the back ground.

When you are outside running and gunning it, personally I rely on the auto iris button to get it right, like he said it's hard to see the LCD screen.... and yes, I know the difference between blowing out the highs or exposing for the subject, if I'm pointing the camera at the sky (not the sun) but even a cloudy sky I don't rely on the auto iris button..... I wing it!

Most of the guys who I talked to with 5D's about exposure recommend to use the exposure meter to get it in the ball bark..... at least that way you have a good reference point.

BTW, Janisch I'm sure knows how to expose correctly, your comment was uncalled for. He had his camera set to 6 stops of ND at f4, he was giving an example of how the camera can give you the correct settings for the correct exposure, by pressing a convenient button.

Since you don't have a C100 I can tell you that you really don't know what the exposure will be until you start flipping through the ND filters and f stops....... the auto iris button will tell you in a second where you need to be, you have incredible latitude, and it's a fast why to find your footing.

Well, first off Noa he wasn't shooting "right at the sun"

He was shooting right into the sun at that leaves shot when he was talking about the autoris button, I just gave that as an example.

Since you don't have a C100 I can tell you that you really don't know what the exposure will be until you start flipping through the ND filters and f stops....... the auto iris button will tell you in a second where you need to be, you have incredible latitude, and it's a fast why to find your footing.

You don't need to have a c100 to know how exposure works, I"m actually surprised canon added this button onto their cine camera line as this function is usually found back on small consumercams for a reason, they probably added it knowing also people that don't understand exposure would buy this camera so they at least have a quick way to get it right, approximately.

On the 5D3 you have different exposure settings, like spot metering etc. so you can with the right settings rely pretty much on the exposure meter..... but, I never used it. However I have read that some people feel the exposure meter is slightly over exposed on the 5D3, so yea, you can fine tune it, and I use zebras and well the histogram to check it.

According the Shane Hurlbut you have about a stop and a half safety zone in underexposing on the C100, and if I remember correctly less than that for over exposure. So, I guess exposure is more of a matter of taste and interpretation than an exact science?

As I said before, I did have a disastrous experience when I first shot with the C100 and used the WFM only, maybe I need to go back and take another look at that. All this said and done, the real result is seen in post and that's all that matters, for me, so far so good, relying on the tools I've mentioned I use.

One burning question I do have is....... on WFM how do you deal with the spikes that go over 100% those obviously are over exposed highlights, is it a judgement call, or do you bring everything down below 100%?

One burning question I do have is....... on WFM how do you deal with the spikes that go over 100% those obviously are over exposed highlights, is it a judgement call, or do you bring everything down below 100%?

That depends on what you are exposing, those spikes could represent a blown out window in the back of an interior shot but if you are not interested to see what's outside that window you could leave that overexposed as long as what you are shooting inside is correctly exposed. But that's not important, the autoirisbutton will know what to do in such a case. :)

Noa, at exactly 10:05 in the video he goes into the settings at 6nd, and f4, then explains he pushed the auto iris button and it told him he was off....... Please don't mislead we can all see this in the video. You did this in order to suggest he doesn't know how to correctly expose..... it was a cheap shot.

If you need the auto iris to tell you your exposure is wrong you don't know how to set your exposure right, period.
edit: I"ll rephrase that because otherwise you think I"m referring to you again: If he needs the auto iris to tell him his exposure is wrong he doesn't know how to set the exposure right, period.


Of course you probably know more than the developers and engineers at Canon as to just how useless the auto iris button is, as well as the exposure meter, and of course anyone who touches that button is immediately labeled a rank amateur who knows nothing whatsoever about exposure including Janisch but, spent $5500.00 on a cinema camera.

I use the auto iris on my sony handicams, they have a use in certain situations and I know exactly when not to use it. It's my opinion that if you are serious about shooting a film, autoiris is a feature you should not be using.

I'm sorry to say that what the guy says in the video about the exposure starting at 09:40 just makes no sense, he basically says that because of the not so good lcd : "if you are out in the sunlight and you don't know if you are under- or over exposed and if you don't really see the zebra then it makes sense to use the push auto iris button, the exposure will be adjusted automatically and if you underexposed it will actually correct the exposure"

So here he actually says, no need to look at the lcd, the zebra's, the wfm, just point the camera to whatever you want to shoot and press the auto iris button and you will be ok.

With all due respect, if I hear this, I can't take the guy seriously.

Since you don't have a C100 I can tell you that you really don't know what the exposure will be until you start flipping through the ND filters and f stops....... the auto iris button will tell you in a second where you need to be, you have incredible latitude, and it's a fast why to find your footing.

Wrong, the auto-iris button will give you a f-stop based on a average reading of what it sees in the entire frame, not on what you are actually trying to expose.

I don't want the camera telling me what f-stop I want to be using as that affects the dof, I decide at what f-stop I will be shooting and that doesn't change and then I set the appropriate iso and use variable nd-filter and with help of the zebra's and the histogram I determine when my exposure is right.

The autoiris button does have it's uses like I said before, which is why Canon might have included it, and that's in highly unpredictable and fast changing lightsituations while "running and gunning", then the auto-iris will help you to keep the exposure where it thinks it should be and faster then you can change it manually which might be the difference in getting or not getting a particular shot, but that only will work if the conditions are right, it just as easy can go the wrong way and the high dynamic range won't save your butt in such a case.

Doesn't anybody use lightmeters anymore? A quick button press from the incident meter hanging around my neck is all I need.

I very rarely see photogs use that at a wedding but it's not something that is commonly used for video eventhough it gives the most accurate reading, I guess if you have the time to set up your shots there no reason not to use it.