Hello Everyone,

I know that there was a similar post about this topic, however, i am coming from a completely different camera than Dave, in his post: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-cinema-eos-camera-systems/527725-c100-c300.html

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

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



Thank you,
Mike

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

What will i benefit by buying the c300 opposed to the c100, or perhaps the other way around? low light, dynamic range differences? Thank you,
Mike In favor of the C300, it's weather sealed. You can rent out the C300 (I'd only rent out my equipment if I'm going with the equipment.....it's still the number one rented camera and probably will be until the end of 2015). C300 has broadcast codec straight from the camera (no need for external recorder). C300 price right now better than ever ($6499 - $6999 new.......pre-owned low hour cameras $5000-$5900)! With that said, you can't go wrong purchasing the C100 MKII. I'm expecting a price drop on the C100 MK II by early summer.

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

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

Canon EOS C100 AVCHD and ProRes 4:2:2 HQ Comparison on Vimeo

I know that the c100 also shoots avchd, but i can eliminate that with the ninja of course, which will call for a bigger rig.

Not really. Get a Ninja Star. You cannot record 1080p60 with it, but you can get everything else, and in ProRes LT, 422, or HQ. For mounting the Ninja Star, you really only need a Cinevate Universal Accessory (http://shop.texasmediasystems.com/Cinevate-Universal-Accessory-Mount-14-20--CIRAAS000030_p_6353.html) mount, and it adds a miniscule amount of weight to the rig. I almost always shoot with either the Ninja Star (if I want to be compact) or the Shogun (if I want the bigger monitor).

Right out of the box, the c300 shoots 50mb/s 4:2:2

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

The codec is really only important if you are submitting to network broadcast

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

Discovery HD Theater no longer exists.

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

What will i benefit by buying the c300 opposed to the c100, or perhaps the other way around?

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

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

Thank you all for you helpful advice!

As a C300 owner since day one, I don't see a lot of advantages of the original c300 over the mark ii version of the C100. The C100mkii simply a more mature design and set of features, it's lighter, has better lowlight , has better image processing, a better LCD and 1080p60.

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



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

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



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

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


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


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


Thank you guys all again for your help!
mike

So in essence, the original c100 image quality strongly represents the c300?

Yes, pretty much.

So with that being said, bundling the ninja with the c100 mark ii will produce a better image?

Not in a way that you would actually notice.

However, what puzzles me the most is that people will take me more seriously using a c300 oppose to using a c100.

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

I like that i don't need to buy an external recorder for a better codec.

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

But, if i will be sacrificing image quality going for the "better camera" i am not sure if this will haunt me if i were to go with the c300.

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

Are there any features within the menu of the c300 that are not offered in the c100 mark ii

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

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

Whether that means that there are features on the c300 internally that will help benefit my productions or not.

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


However, i have been using speed grade a lot as of lately, and would hate to see that AVCHD codec fall apart.

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

It would be nice to have a camera that doesn't require an external recorder, which is why the c300 still stands on mind.

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

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

However, it really won't be much of a hassle rigging the ninja on board of the c100.

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

One thing i just noticed is that the c100 mark ii offers 35mb/s in MP4. Is this only at 60P to account for the higher bit rate? although its a higher frame rate, it still is not going to do me any good at 4:2:0 though...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what i am really trying to say is that in the price point am aiming for ($5,000 -$7,000,) there is really no perfect 4k solution and i am better off buying a really nice HD camera. any thoughts?

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

This is what an upscale master looks like:

4K Upscale

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

This is what an upscale master looks like:

4K Upscale (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHAEZfwxap0)

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

Was this shot on the c300? With that being said, having the higher bit rate also helps, I would assume?

C100 Mark I to ProRes HQ.

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

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

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens 1910B002 B&H Photo Video

Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF 401-101 B&H Photo

Rokinon 24mm T1.5 Cine Rokinon 24mm T1.5 Cine DS Lens for Canon EF Mount DS24M-C B&H


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

What are your guys thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are people that will tell you that you'll get "hired more" if you have a C300. That really depends on who's doing the hiring. I've never had it come up.

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

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

I've also had clients ask if I have a C300, and then go quiet when I told them it was a C100.

I'm now also in the same boat, wondering whether to upgrade to a C300 or a C100 MK2, and then add a ninja star for the times when I really need it.

Sounds like the image from the C100 MK2 is superior, as is the slow motion recording.

Ho hum ....

I've also had clients ask if I have a C300, and then go quiet when I told them it was a C100.

I'm now also in the same boat, wondering whether to upgrade to a C300 or a C100 MK2, and then add a ninja star for the times when I really need it.

Sounds like the image from the C100 MK2 is superior, as is the slow motion recording.

From the sound of things and looking at test films, the c100 mark ii is amazing. I thought right away when i saw the price drop of the c300 that i was going to buy it. But after hearing other members opinions and paying attention to what those have posted online, it is very evident that the c100 mark ii is much better in low light, sharper, and of course, 60P is a great feature to have. However, i thought i was set on the c300 because of the codec. but what i found is that the c300 is awful with green screen. I don't know if 50 mb/s was too low of a bit rate still and a ninja will far exceed if used on a c100 mark ii. but i think at this point i am more concerned with image quality than clientele, but that is just me.

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

I wonder which camera has the lowest rolling shutter. Both do 1080p60, so that indicates the same floor. The C100 MkII's new sensor might be faster though.

This doesn't matter for tripod/stabilized shooting, but can be important for handheld.

This doesn't matter for tripod/stabilized shooting, but can be important for handheld.

If you're whipping the camera around fast enough to actually show off skew and jello then you're probably doing it wrong, especially with 24p.

Even without rolling shutter, you still have judder.

I've also had clients ask if I have a C300, and then go quiet when I told them it was a C100.

That's why the Ninja is an important element of the kit. Most clients prefer ProRes to XF codec in the MXF container, and that eliminates the C300's internal codec advantage too because it's far better.

The EBU recently revised their broadcast guidelines:

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r118.pdf


On pg. 10, they list the "tier" of the cameras. Tier HD 2L and above (mainstream HD broadcast programs, above TV news) in H.264 AVC is now 4:2:2 interlaced OR 4:2:0 Progressive.
I'm not sure if the C100 Mk II can qualify as HD 2L and above. Maybe someone else can figure out the codecs.

And if I were picking between the C100 Mk II or a C300, I'd go for the C100. It'd fit my shooting style. I've used the C300 and I always thought it was a heavy, clumsy camera for hand holding.

Do you routinely shoot for Eurovision out of Jacksonville?

Do you routinely shoot for Eurovision out of Jacksonville?

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

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
Wow 'em with your reel...not your camera.

True Statement Barry! Having the right camera gets you half way there........

From the sound of things and looking at test films, the c100 mark ii is amazing. I thought right away when i saw the price drop of the c300 that i was going to buy it. But after hearing other members opinions and paying attention to what those have posted online, it is very evident that the c100 mark ii is much better in low light, sharper, and of course, 60P is a great feature to have. However, i thought i was set on the c300 because of the codec. but what i found is that the c300 is awful with green screen. I don't know if 50 mb/s was too low of a bit rate still and a ninja will far exceed if used on a c100 mark ii. but i think at this point i am more concerned with image quality than clientele, but that is just me.
The low light difference between the two is minimal at best, if not, the same.......but still the best in class!

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com

If you're whipping the camera around fast enough to actually show off skew and jello then you're probably doing it wrong, especially with 24p.

Even without rolling shutter, you still have judder.

There's some truth in that; however, there are cases where rolling shutter matters.

Examples are run 'n gun handheld work when a stabilizer or tripod aren't practical. Even with a monopod, I find that I'm sensitive to the jello from relatively small vibrations. Of course, one can use a plug-in to remove rolling shutter, but this costs time.

Regarding 24p, whip pans are acceptable as they are disorienting enough that they overwhelm the judder. Unfortunately, this is a worst case for rolling shutter skew. Rolling shutter removal plug ins aren't practical in this case, unless you pre-plan for lots of cropping.

Another viable 24p case is where you track a main subject (which will have no judder) while allowing the background (which the audience ignores) to judder. An example might be a camera on a tripod filming a person on a fast moving train. With rolling shutter, telephone poles outside of the window will bend, which draws attention to the background that we want them to ignore.

Finally, there is the stylized hyper-action case with a fast shutter and handheld camera, like in the Bourne series of films. In this case, we want the frenzy of judder, but we want it crisp, rather than rubbery.

These might or might not be important for the OP, but for some situations, low rolling shutter can be very important, even at 24p.

Wow 'em with your reel...not your camera.
My reel make them call me, but the first question they ask is not even about the price, they all want to know what camera i shoot with. And I agree, this is wrong, and i would love to refuse the client that puts hardware first and my knowledge and experience last, but i don't make any rules, i just follow :)

My reel make them call me, but the first question they ask is not even about the price, they all want to know what camera i shoot with.

Ditto. In the end, for quite a number of people, the reel just gets them to the point where they want to call you to find out how much gear they can get for the lowest price.

Re: C100 mark ii or C300?
Wow 'em with your reel...not your camera.

True Statement Barry! Having the right camera gets you half way there........

So what do you do if a new client approaches you, you show them your reel with exactly what they are looking for, then they ask which camera do you have, then they tell you specifically, "We want someone with the C300"? This happened to me a few months ago, new client from Massachusetts, they ended up hiring someone who owned the C300, even though they loved what I showed them that I shot on the C100. If was buying today, I would buy the C300 today, even though I think the C100 MKII is a better camera. You cannot change producers minds when they get a model number or brand in their head. The C300 will be "the standard" mid to low end pro camera for another year or so. Then they will start asking for the C300 MKII.

If you shoot for yourself or are a hobbyist, C100 MKII all of the way. But if you shoot for producers, you are going to get asked for the C300. I usually rent but this guys budget precluded that.

So what do you do if a new client approaches you, you show them your reel with exactly what they are looking for, then they ask which camera do you have, then they tell you specifically, "We want someone with the C300"? This happened to me a few months ago, new client from Massachusetts, they ended up hiring someone who owned the C300, even though they loved what I showed them that I shot on the C100. If was buying today, I would buy the C300 today, even though I think the C100 MKII is a better camera. You cannot change producers minds when they get a model number or brand in their head. The C300 will be "the standard" mid to low end pro camera for another year or so. Then they will start asking for the C300 MKII.

If you shoot for yourself or are a hobbyist, C100 MKII all of the way. But if you shoot for producers, you are going to get asked for the C300. I usually rent but this guys budget precluded that.

I think my response here was simply an affirmation of what the OP had said in the previous comment about his priorities (quality over clientele) and also in reference to my original comment...which was that A) today, the c100 mark ii, is a more modern camera with a few important features that the C300 doesn't have, and that especially when paired with a recorder it is certainly the equal of the C300 in almost every way, and that B) the only real reason to by a C300 is "if" you might get hired more because you have it. So, yes, I totally agree with you on this.

However, my reality is, as an owner of a C300 since the day of it's release, I've really never had anyone ask what camera I own, nor have I lost work because I didn't have something "better". I was simply suggesting that the experiences some have had with producers preferring a certain camera, while valid, may not necessarily be everyone's experience.

I also truly believe that the work you provide is what matters most to producers and their clients, certainly the clients that I'm interested in working for.

Today, if I was given the choice between these two similarly priced cameras, I would definitely pick the new C100, and given my client base (smaller market and regional commercials, documentaries, and corporate films) I don't think I'd have a problem explaining that, with a recorder, the new C100 mark ii is everything and more than what the older C300 camera is. The 1080p60 alone is worth everything in my segment. Again, that would be if anyone asked.

However, I, personally, will be doing neither of these things, as I'll most likely purchase a C300 mark II as soon as it's available. I liked what I saw in the canon booth at NAB, and I'll be buying that camera because it's the one I want....not the one some hypothetical producer might want (because most of the hypothetical producers I know want a RED, not a C300, anyway :-)

Barry

. . . However, my reality is, as an owner of a C300 since the day of it's release, I've really never had anyone ask what camera I own, nor have I lost work because I didn't have something "better". I was simply suggesting that the experiences some have had with producers preferring a certain camera, while valid, may not necessarily be everyone's experience.

I also truly believe that the work you provide is what matters most to producers and their clients, certainly the clients that I'm interested in working for.

Today, if I was given the choice between these two similarly priced cameras, I would definitely pick the new C100, and given my client base (smaller market and regional commercials, documentaries, and corporate films) I don't think I'd have a problem explaining that, with a recorder, the new C100 mark ii is everything and more than what the older C300 camera is. The 1080p60 alone is worth everything in my segment. Again, that would be if anyone asked.
Barry

Couldn't agree more. As the owner/director of a small production company our clients are more interested in the end result and I've never been asked what camera I'm using. I almost exclusively work on our own productions and don't have a lot of experience of the freelance marketplace at the moment.

However I feel it's vital to keep up with the technology which is why I'll be working out how to finance the C300 Mark 2. I've been absolutely knocked out with the C300, with the beauty and feel of the pictures. And a lot of that comes from the Canon Log production process, of having an image you can really dig into in post production. But that in no way is unique to the Canon cameras, everyone seems to offer some form of log mode and I wouldn't say that the C300 or C100 Mk2 are better cameras, just happen to like the Canon philosophy of not releasing products or firmware until it's passed stringent quality controls.

My understanding of freelance camera operators is that they are hired for their skills both empathic and technical and not for what camera they own. Sometimes this comes together and a lot of C300 owner operators will have done very well over the last few years. But the field has opened up now, especially with the Sony FS7, and it will be hard choice to decide which camera will get hired out more.

So what do you do if a new client approaches you, you show them your reel with exactly what they are looking for, then they ask which camera do you have, then they tell you specifically, "We want someone with the C300"? This happened to me a few months ago, new client from Massachusetts, they ended up hiring someone who owned the C300, even though they loved what I showed them that I shot on the C100.

Both Barry and Mark have added some excellent points to this statement, but I had a slightly different tact I wanted to answer this with. Not owning a Red Epic, a Canon 5D Mark III, a Blackmagic Production Camera, and a Sony EX3 have all cost me potential gigs after the client contacted me based on my demo reel. So is the answer to simply make sure to own all of those? For me, personally, I've decided to pick what I think is the best value for my money and not worry about those clients shopping for the "best" gear at the best price instead of the individual who can do the job properly.

Being out in the boonies I'm pretty disconnected from a lot of the tech changes going on en el Norte.

I have read that the C100 Mk2 will be outdated within a year or so due to lack of 4k. The FS7 seems like the popular camera at the moment, but is costs twice as much with all the needed accessories ... Sounds like it's not meant to shoot straight out of the box, and it's more work to get beautiful images (compared to the canon c-series).

I work for news channels largely. Do you guys really think the world is moony to 4k that quickly?

I met a team in the Amazon filing 4k for a BBC natural history unit doc. I understand their need to future proof, but that's a totally different story.

PS - I tried to check out the FS7 when I was working in Mexico City over Xmas, but it wasn't in stock anywhere.

I work for news channels largely. Do you guys really think the world is moony to 4k that quickly?

I'm curious to know where a sudden influx of cash would come from in order to move the broadcast world to 4K within the next year. It would require a total overhaul of all the gear and equipment that was purchased for the transition to digital/HD simply for a resolution boost. And all the encoding gear would have to be changed too, because H.265 is the only viable codec for compressing 4K content into a space that can fit within the digital broadcast signal which is currently occupied by what I believe is MPEG-2 HD.

There are people here who will tell you that 4K is best for reframing/cropping in post and future-proofing, but if you're reframing and re-cropping then you are mastering in 1080, and how would that stand for the future-proofing idea (because any and all of those shots would either have to be undone for 4K mastering or upscaled).

On top of that, here is the video I keep posting that is of a C100 Mark I upscaled to 4K. Is there any issue with doing this? Where would 4K originated content excel over this?

4K Upscale