Canon EOS C100

[Brian Drysdale]

The BBC might with an external recorder like the Nanoflash, similar to the FS100 or AF100. Of course, as mentioned, it could fit in with the percentage SD content they allow.

[David Heath]

I posted about the standards required by the BBC (via the EBU) in another thread - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/photo-hd...ml#post1750845

Most important to note though is that the EBU (or BBC) doesn't now simply "pass" or "fail" cameras - they rate them on a tiering system. It's all in two documents, Tech 3335 describes the measuring process - but it's the sister document R118 that describes how to interpret those results - and which defines the rules! See EBU TECHNICAL - News - Are your cameras tiered enough for HD?

For unrestricted use, the camera would have to fit into Tier 1 or Tier 2L, and I'm afraid the use of AVC-HD would restrict it to Tier 3, no matter how good the front end would be.

Add an external recorder and that is no longer an issue, and based on the C300 results I strongly suspect it would then be seen as good enough to be considered Tier 2L. Good news, though it couldn't be definitely said until it's been tested.

I foresee a large number of C100s being sold as a package with a nanoFlash...... :-)

[Andy Wilkinson]

That's exactly my rationale too! C100 + Recorder = C300 picture quality at a much reduced price :-)

For those that are interested I've put a detailed rationale of why I pre-ordered the C100 here. Personally, I think demand for the C100 will be huge so I wanted to get on a UK suppliers pre-order list very quickly!

CanonC100

Over many months I've looked really hard at the FS700 etc. but in the end I've voted with my wallet for the Canon.

The article is still work in progress - and I know we all have different needs and wants from a camera, as well as budgets - but it might be useful to someone who is about to make a purchase decision.

[Lee Mullen]

Why are the BBC so pedantic yet when you watch some documentary or news coverage the resolution is a disgrace as if shot on an old Hi8 camcorder??

[Brian Drysdale]

News has always had lower technical requirements than programmes due to the diffilcuilties of the tight schedule, keeping costs down and needing portable equipment. 24 hour news coverage has only increased these pressures. The important thing is getting pictures by any means and these days that can include using the internet. Although I gather that can have issues of it's own, including bandwidth.

Most of the BBC documentaries have been SD until very recently and the standards for those are lower than HD. Now, with everything now going digital with highly compressed HD channels, they want to minimize the artifacts in the transmission chain on their flagship HD channel.Given the much lower costs and the range of compact cameras that can now meet these standards, I suspect the argument against lowering them doesn';t really hold water any more.

There are cable channels which will accept lower spec HD material, so you need to check their requirements..

[Nicholas de Kock]

I understand the importance of using high quality codec's however why is everyone always going on about if a camera is BBC approved? How many of us will ever get the opportunity to show work on BBC? Seriously. I'm disappointed with Canon the C100 is over priced, the FS700 seems like a better deal.

[Glen Vandermolen]

Andy, excellent write-up in your blog. You've pretty much nailed it as far as the need for the C100.

I an the owner of an FS100, and while this has been a great camera for me, I'm seriously looking at the C100. I was able to handle a C300 a friend of mine rented. I was very impressed with the build quality and ergonomics. It felt so sturdy and solid. And the images were fantastic! As much as I like the images from the FS100, the C300's images blew me away.
If the C100 can come close to the C300's attributes, it should be a winner - provided the price is right. Since it will be smaller and lighter - only a half-pound heavier than the 5D, from what I've read - it should be great for run-and-gun and solo shooting.

And to be honest, I just love the way the C100 looks. It makes me want to grab it, put the viewfinder to my eye, and start shooting. Hardly a logical reason to buy a camera, but oh, well.

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Nicholas de Kock

I understand the importance of using high quality codec's however why is everyone always going on about if a camera is BBC approved? How many of us will ever get the opportunity to show work on BBC? Seriously. I'm disappointed with Canon the C100 is over priced, the FS700 seems like a better deal.

I guess because the EBU/BBC standards are the guide for what's permissible for broadcast quality video. If your camera is good enough for the EBU, it's good enough for anybody.

Here in the US, I'm not at all concerned with what the EBU demands, but many of our European members might see this as a real objective. Maybe they will get an opportunity to shoot for the BBC, who knows? Having a camera that passes their minimum guidelines sure would help.

The US also has broadcast standards that networks demand. I can tell you that very few will allow programs to be shot entirely on an AVCHD codec. It's possible, and there are shows shot entirely on good ol' HDV, but the usual minimum is a 50mbps codec.

As far as the C100 being overpriced, that depends on each individual, and if they think the camera is worth the asking price. Is the FS700 a better deal? Again, that depends on your needs. For some, it is. But I agree, the FS700 offers a heck of a lot for the price.

[Brett Sherman]

I have to admit as someone who just got a C300, there's a lot I find to envy about the C100. Lighter and more compact, less setup to start shooting, LCD is always there. I do like having the XF Codec, but once the C100 is out it will be interesting to see if there truly is a huge advantage to the XF. If I had to choose and they were both available, I might go with the C100 (and the cost doesn't even come out of my pocket). Now if I had to pay for it, I'd definitely get the C100. Heck, I might consider selling the C300 and buying two C100s once available.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Brett Sherman

Heck, I might consider selling the C300 and buying two C100s once available.

That thought has gone through my mind too.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

Andy, excellent write-up in your blog. You've pretty much nailed it as far as the need for the C100.

Thanks Glen. Just getting it straight in my head before I break the news to my wife...."What, ANOTHER CAMERA!" ;-)

[Robin Davies-Rollinson]

Ha Ha Andy! Join the club. There's never an easy way to tell them!
Keeping up with the latest technology doesn't seem to mean the same to them somehow...

[Andy Wilkinson]

Canon Europe are exhibiting at IBC in Amsterdam which starts in a few days time.

I wonder if they'll have a C100 (or two...) on the stand? (I would imagine they would, but maybe it's just too recent an announcement). If the C100 is on show and any "DVInfoers" are going please get as many pictures etc. and info as you can, though I doubt that they'll let you stick a SDHC card in one to record AVCHD clips to take away - but you never know!

Cheers!

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Brett Sherman

I have to admit as someone who just got a C300, there's a lot I find to envy about the C100. Lighter and more compact, less setup to start shooting, LCD is always there. I do like having the XF Codec, but once the C100 is out it will be interesting to see if there truly is a huge advantage to the XF. If I had to choose and they were both available, I might go with the C100 (and the cost doesn't even come out of my pocket). Now if I had to pay for it, I'd definitely get the C100. Heck, I might consider selling the C300 and buying two C100s once available.

Beyond the codec, one other thing to keep in mind is that the C100 has a smaller, coarser EVF, and it can't be repositioned ergonomically like the C300's. That could be quite a drawback, as the C300 EVF is a treat to use.

And you lose 720/60p, which is really quite usable on the C300.

I would agree though, that the C100 is a much better value proposition, and if I hadn't already bought the C300 it would be tough to justify the additional cost.

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Josh Dahlberg

Beyond the codec, one other thing to keep in mind is that the C100 has a smaller, coarser EVF, and it can't be repositioned ergonomically like the C300's. That could be quite a drawback, as the C300 EVF is a treat to use.
.

This does concern me. I'm spoiled by the FS100 and EX3's large viewfinder. The C100's looks pretty small.

Checking the stats, the C100's EVF is only .24"! Wow, that's tiny. I've been working with an NX5U and it has a .45" EVF. I thought that was pretty small.
I mostly shoot using the EVF.