60D vs C100 Pictures

Nicholas de Kock · July 7th, 2013, 03:05 PM

In the wedding industry your price is not related to the gear you use but the feeling you create, the story you can tell & how good you are at selling yourself. I didn't buy a C100 to raise my prices I bought into them because I wanted a professional redundant tool to tell my stories. I'm amazed how far we've come & I'm looking forward to what's coming.

Al Gardner · July 7th, 2013, 06:58 PM

It still would seem if you invested this much money into a camera that you would have at least made some connection to making MORE money with it in the same space.
You can tell a good story and create a good feel with lesser cameras.

Isn't there some tipping point that connects how much money you spend on your tools and how much you charge?

Granted I would take it a person without the talent to tell stories and excite is not going to spend this much money on a camera anyway.

If this were not the case it's almost like saying brides and grooms and their family's cant tell the difference in a C100 and a T2I anyway? Is that the case?

Dan McGuckin · July 7th, 2013, 10:41 PM

I bought it for the ease of us, and the dependability that it brought to the game. Dual slot recording, ND filters, etc, no comparison from a DSLR, and a DSLR is my B-Cam.
I would defiantly say use one before you give any kind of judgement on how it relates to a wedding scene.

Al Gardner · July 8th, 2013, 12:29 AM

Certainly not judging the camera, just the premise.

As I said you would think there was a tipping point where the cost of your tools demands more money.

I guess the question is will there still be guys out there with T2I's or whatever that are raking in more dough.

It appears there could be 2 business models at work here. One based on how much you can put out and another based on how much you can take in?

No offense I just find it a bit strange.

Nicholas de Kock · July 8th, 2013, 01:53 AM

The C100 is not an expensive camera, I paid a lot more for my Sony EX1 back in the day. Frankly I just got fedup with crappy DSLR video quality & horrible workarounds to achive basic video functions. The corporate clients are also getting annoyed with DSLR many now requesting that they not be used. You get paid more in the sense that you get more opportunities & a higher quality client. No self respecting professional will continue filming on a T4i when they have the funds for a pro tool. DSLR is an amazing launchpad to get anyone started, gone are the days of creativity being limited by our bank accounts. Those screen grabs speak for themselves.

Nigel Barker · July 14th, 2013, 12:20 PM

The C100 is amazing in low light but so is the 5D3 & you can buy two of those for the price of a C100. When you want matching cameras that is a consideration. When I was using a C300 the image was just so much better than the 5D2/5D3 that it was all but impossible to match them up so my option was to replace the 5Ds with C100/C300s or go with all 5Ds. As we do stills as well the decision was obvious. The ability to pull stills off the timeline of a C100/C300 is vastly over-rated as while it possible & the image resolution is very good indeed the problem is that you are generally not composing images n the same way with stills & video - with stills you are looking to freeze a moment in time whereas with video you are looking at movement.

James Manford · July 14th, 2013, 05:52 PM

There will always be the cheap camera brigade raking in more money ... because they can talk the talk and convince new brides. What they provide is another story.

If your spending this much money on a camera ... It has to do two things in my book.

A. Make your life easier when it comes to carrying out the job in hand.
B. Bring some sort of production value to your work.

Which in this comparison it clearly does both.

Al Gardner · July 14th, 2013, 10:54 PM

This was kind of what I was eluding to all along.

***If your spending this much money on a camera ... It has to do two things in my book.

A. Make your life easier when it comes to carrying out the job in hand.(individually subjective)
B. Bring some sort of production value to your work. (subjective again if clients won't pay more for it)

I would have thought there would be a
C. Bigger better paying clients?

Without that the guy making more money with lesser equipment cost is the smarter business person, and quite possibly the most talented.

Bernard Lau · July 14th, 2013, 11:21 PM

Got my C100, yet to test out it between my 7D and 60D.
But from my initial play, low light and sharpness definitely blows the DSLRs out the water.
And the ergonomics! Though, wish it was the same file system... or is AVCHD a better overall codec?

I'm just won't know how things go until I work on my first SDE with the C100. Hopefully it won't slow me down. :-)

Oh, and why do we upgrade?
It's a personal choice really. Some people will stick with the same camera for 10 years and just use tripods, if they can maintain the same amount of clientele, then good on them on a their profit to expense ratio. Others will invest in new equipment and sliders, stabilizer rigs and jibs etc to enhance their craft.

Of course, the camera doesn't make the shooter. I probably can still shoot the same with my 10+ year old Sony FX1. :-D

James Manford · July 15th, 2013, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Gardner

This was kind of what I was eluding to all along.

***If your spending this much money on a camera ... It has to do two things in my book.

A. Make your life easier when it comes to carrying out the job in hand.(individually subjective)
B. Bring some sort of production value to your work. (subjective again if clients won't pay more for it)

I would have thought there would be a
C. Bigger better paying clients?

Without that the guy making more money with lesser equipment cost is the smarter business person, and quite possibly the most talented.

Yeah but Al ...

If his stress levels are reduced as he's more confident in his cameras abilities. Surely that's worth the extra cost alone? For me it is anyway ...

I can take on more risk when it comes to being creative. Rather than sticking to the boring fail safe routine.

Don't have to necessarily start charging the client more.

James Manford · July 15th, 2013, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Lau

Got my C100, yet to test out it between my 7D and 60D.
But from my initial play, low light and sharpness definitely blows the DSLRs out the water.
And the ergonomics! Though, wish it was the same file system... or is AVCHD a better overall codec?

I'm just won't know how things go until I work on my first SDE with the C100. Hopefully it won't slow me down. :-)

Oh, and why do we upgrade?
It's a personal choice really. Some people will stick with the same camera for 10 years and just use tripods, if they can maintain the same amount of clientele, then good on them on a their profit to expense ratio. Others will invest in new equipment and sliders, stabilizer rigs and jibs etc to enhance their craft.

Of course, the camera doesn't make the shooter. I probably can still shoot the same with my 10+ year old Sony FX1. :-D

I would bet 10 quid that those customers are referrals from previous clients.

To generate new business now, or start in the game, you need to be on the same level as others in terms of what you deliver which means rigz, jigz, low light, LED light and all the other technological advancements. You can't stick to your 10 year old camera and routine expecting to break in to an already saturated market.

Al Gardner · July 15th, 2013, 08:40 AM

Well, I'm not saying it's a bad choice that's for sure. I work in a different arena.
I know that a lot of you guys shoot with multiple cameras. I think that's where the cost to earnings ratio goes up a bit.

Anyway this is new stuff. I will continue to watch how this pans out.

But don't estimate the old cameras. I know 2 photographers in my area who have just recently and reluctantly gone digital. They are both high end and booked solid every year. And compared to their colleagues their prices are extremely high.

Talent will beat equipment every time, and salesmanship will beat talent and equipment.

July 7th, 2013, 03:05 PM	#16
Nicholas de Kock Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: KLD, South Africa Posts: 983	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures In the wedding industry your price is not related to the gear you use but the feeling you create, the story you can tell & how good you are at selling yourself. I didn't buy a C100 to raise my prices I bought into them because I wanted a professional redundant tool to tell my stories. I'm amazed how far we've come & I'm looking forward to what's coming.

July 7th, 2013, 06:58 PM	#17
Al Gardner Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Diego CA. and New Orleans, Loiuisana Posts: 355	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures It still would seem if you invested this much money into a camera that you would have at least made some connection to making MORE money with it in the same space. You can tell a good story and create a good feel with lesser cameras. Isn't there some tipping point that connects how much money you spend on your tools and how much you charge? Granted I would take it a person without the talent to tell stories and excite is not going to spend this much money on a camera anyway. If this were not the case it's almost like saying brides and grooms and their family's cant tell the difference in a C100 and a T2I anyway? Is that the case?

July 7th, 2013, 10:41 PM	#18
Dan McGuckin Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Charleston, SC Posts: 71	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures I bought it for the ease of us, and the dependability that it brought to the game. Dual slot recording, ND filters, etc, no comparison from a DSLR, and a DSLR is my B-Cam. I would defiantly say use one before you give any kind of judgement on how it relates to a wedding scene.

July 8th, 2013, 12:29 AM	#19
Al Gardner Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Diego CA. and New Orleans, Loiuisana Posts: 355	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Certainly not judging the camera, just the premise. As I said you would think there was a tipping point where the cost of your tools demands more money. I guess the question is will there still be guys out there with T2I's or whatever that are raking in more dough. It appears there could be 2 business models at work here. One based on how much you can put out and another based on how much you can take in? No offense I just find it a bit strange.

July 8th, 2013, 01:53 AM	#20
Nicholas de Kock Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: KLD, South Africa Posts: 983	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures The C100 is not an expensive camera, I paid a lot more for my Sony EX1 back in the day. Frankly I just got fedup with crappy DSLR video quality & horrible workarounds to achive basic video functions. The corporate clients are also getting annoyed with DSLR many now requesting that they not be used. You get paid more in the sense that you get more opportunities & a higher quality client. No self respecting professional will continue filming on a T4i when they have the funds for a pro tool. DSLR is an amazing launchpad to get anyone started, gone are the days of creativity being limited by our bank accounts. Those screen grabs speak for themselves.

July 14th, 2013, 12:20 PM	#21
Nigel Barker Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Posts: 3,531	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures The C100 is amazing in low light but so is the 5D3 & you can buy two of those for the price of a C100. When you want matching cameras that is a consideration. When I was using a C300 the image was just so much better than the 5D2/5D3 that it was all but impossible to match them up so my option was to replace the 5Ds with C100/C300s or go with all 5Ds. As we do stills as well the decision was obvious. The ability to pull stills off the timeline of a C100/C300 is vastly over-rated as while it possible & the image resolution is very good indeed the problem is that you are generally not composing images n the same way with stills & video - with stills you are looking to freeze a moment in time whereas with video you are looking at movement.

July 14th, 2013, 05:52 PM	#22
James Manford Trustee Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,393	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures There will always be the cheap camera brigade raking in more money ... because they can talk the talk and convince new brides. What they provide is another story. If your spending this much money on a camera ... It has to do two things in my book. A. Make your life easier when it comes to carrying out the job in hand. B. Bring some sort of production value to your work. Which in this comparison it clearly does both.

July 14th, 2013, 10:54 PM	#23
Al Gardner Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Diego CA. and New Orleans, Loiuisana Posts: 355	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures This was kind of what I was eluding to all along. ***If your spending this much money on a camera ... It has to do two things in my book. A. Make your life easier when it comes to carrying out the job in hand.(individually subjective) B. Bring some sort of production value to your work. (subjective again if clients won't pay more for it) I would have thought there would be a C. Bigger better paying clients? Without that the guy making more money with lesser equipment cost is the smarter business person, and quite possibly the most talented.

July 14th, 2013, 11:21 PM	#24
Bernard Lau Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 56	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Got my C100, yet to test out it between my 7D and 60D. But from my initial play, low light and sharpness definitely blows the DSLRs out the water. And the ergonomics! Though, wish it was the same file system... or is AVCHD a better overall codec? I'm just won't know how things go until I work on my first SDE with the C100. Hopefully it won't slow me down. :-) Oh, and why do we upgrade? It's a personal choice really. Some people will stick with the same camera for 10 years and just use tripods, if they can maintain the same amount of clientele, then good on them on a their profit to expense ratio. Others will invest in new equipment and sliders, stabilizer rigs and jibs etc to enhance their craft. Of course, the camera doesn't make the shooter. I probably can still shoot the same with my 10+ year old Sony FX1. :-D __________________ Facebook & Twitter me with "bernardlaufilms" www.bernardlau.com.au \| www.weddingvideosydney.org.au

July 15th, 2013, 08:40 AM	#27
Al Gardner Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Diego CA. and New Orleans, Loiuisana Posts: 355	Re: 60D vs C100 Pictures Well, I'm not saying it's a bad choice that's for sure. I work in a different arena. I know that a lot of you guys shoot with multiple cameras. I think that's where the cost to earnings ratio goes up a bit. Anyway this is new stuff. I will continue to watch how this pans out. But don't estimate the old cameras. I know 2 photographers in my area who have just recently and reluctantly gone digital. They are both high end and booked solid every year. And compared to their colleagues their prices are extremely high. Talent will beat equipment every time, and salesmanship will beat talent and equipment.