Two quick questions. I have been a Canon user for many years I have owned the Canon XL1, XL1s, XL2 and now the XF300 (so I have a ton of CF cards), which I have had for 5 years. I am thinking of moving up to a Canon EOS for the lenses. So my question is, which would give me the best image (I do not need 4K), the Canon C300 or the C100 Mark 2 w/dual pixel CMOS AF? Also, what Canon L series lens would give me the equivalent 527 mm that the Canon XF300 has? Thank you, Bob

I don't know about direct comparisons of IQ, but the DPAF is really, really good! In my book it's the first professionally useful AF system, period, though opinions differ.

One thing I do know about IQ - *either* of these cams will provide good quality.

527/1.6=330mm, that would be the Canon 100-400mm L lens, Mk 1 or 2. (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Canon&sts=ma&N=4291570227&Ntt=Canon+100-400mm)

A highly regarded lens for sports & wildlife. There are Tamron and two Sigma 150-600mm super-teles as well, for a bit less money. I've used the Tamron on a Canon DSLR with good results, but not on a C100 yet. Haven't gotten to figuring out the lens weight issue - it's a bit much to hang off the lens mount. Probably better to mount the lens to the tripod and let the camera hang off it, better still to figure out some lens support system.

The C100 Mark II has better IQ. To match the tele end would require roughly a 375mm lens on the C100.

I don't know about direct comparisons of IQ, but the DPAF is really, really good! In my book it's the first professionally useful AF system, period, though opinions differ.

One thing I do know about IQ - *either* of these cams will provide good quality.

527/1.6=330mm, that would be the Canon 100-400mm L lens, Mk 1 or 2. (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Canon&sts=ma&N=4291570227&Ntt=Canon+100-400mm)

A highly regarded lens for sports & wildlife. There are Tamron and two Sigma 150-600mm super-teles as well, for a bit less money. I've used the Tamron on a Canon DSLR with good results, but not on a C100 yet. Haven't gotten to figuring out the lens weight issue - it's a bit much to hang off the lens mount. Probably better to mount the lens to the tripod and let the camera hang off it, better still to figure out some lens support system.

My answer my appear like splitting hairs. 1.6 factor is for APS-C sized DSLR sensors. The sensor used in the cinema series is S-35 and slightly larger than the APS-C. The Canon XF Utility says that my C300 sensor has 1.53 factor. So for equivalent of 527 mm in XF305, one needs to use a 344.44mm lens in the EOS Cinema series cameras (727/1.53=344.44). C100 shares a similar sized sensor so the calculation is also similar.

As far as lens support system is concerned, I have used 100-400 as well as 70-200 f2.8 II with 2xIII TC hanging from the front of the C300 and it has worked fine. Shooting is not a problem. However, while carrying that in such condition in really bumpy rides there can be additional stress on the lens mount.

If Bob is asking opinion about the older C300 vs C100 II, then it should also be noted that the C100 Mark II has 1080 50/60p whereas the older C300 doesn't have that slow motion in Full HD.

The AF of the C300 Mark II is very nice.

Thanks for that useful info!

How have you liked the 100-400? Is it the Mark 1 or Mark 2?

HI Bob

I'm,like you not in need for 4K.
I use the 100mkII and is really happy with it. for my long lens shooting I got a Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS and if needed a put on a x2 exdender, that gives me a 600/4 (or 960mm with the x1.6) with stabilization.

the price of the Sigma whent up alot when they made the new one 2-3 years ago... I got the old one.

Thank you all for the information, it looks like the C100 MKII has better IQ than the old C300. I am also looking at the Canon 100-400 L IS II as well as the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS. I am still looking into this camera so any other information would be appreciated. Bob

Thanks for that useful info!

How have you liked the 100-400? Is it the Mark 1 or Mark 2?
I have the old 100-400. It is good. The Mark II is a bit sharper because of newer optics. However, I didn't buy the Mark II, as I don't need both the versions. I haven't put efforts to sell it yet.

I also have the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II lens and it works well with the 2xIII TCs. So I often shoot with the 70-200 2.8 II with 2xIII TC and zooming it from 140mm to 400mm is easier than the push pull version of the 100-400. I do a lot of old style zooming in. The new 100-400 II doesn't have the push pull style anymore.

On two occasions, I was forced to use the 100-400 old one with a 1.4x TC and it is soft. Won't advise that.

HI Bob

I'm,like you not in need for 4K.
I use the 100mkII and is really happy with it. for my long lens shooting I got a Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS and if needed a put on a x2 exdender, that gives me a 600/4 (or 960mm with the x1.6) with stabilization.

the price of the Sigma whent up alot when they made the new one 2-3 years ago... I got the old one.

Marcus,
120-300 f2.8 when coupled with a 2x TC, it becomes 240-600 f5.6 and not f4. If you use a 1.4x then it will become 168-420 f4

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

I had the older 100-400. Didn't like the push-pull so I sold it. Thinking of the Sigma 300 - 600 as a replacement. I prefer to use my follow focus to zoom, since the AF is quite good.