c100 users enlighten me from the 60d

Bob Drummond · December 13th, 2013, 02:52 PM

As I believe Edgar's comparison illustrates, the C100 has better video quality than the crop-sensor Canon DSLRs. But as the cost is roughly 10 times more than the DSLRs, shouldn't the question be: is the C100's picture 10 times better? Certainly not. They look pretty similar to the layman, and I think up until ISO 400, they inter-cut very well.

Once you get to the 6D or the 5D3, the high-iso quality is certainly competitive with the C100.

Now, as stated, the C100 has a lot of professional features that DSLRs lack (dual slot recording, built-in ND, peaking, waveform, etc). Are THOSE worth an extra $5000? Maybe. I think they are to me.

Matt Davis · December 13th, 2013, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Drummond

as the cost is roughly 10 times more than the DSLRs, shouldn't the question be: is the C100's picture 10 times better?

BOGGLE!

Now, I have a T2i/550D which is, truth be told, a tenth of the cost NOW of the C100. But in its $450 state, it's unable to do sound, it can't really do proper focus without a Z-Finder or other substitute, and has all the multitude of DSLR defects that stack up so quickly.

So please - hang on a moment. The C100 image may or may not be 10x better for 10x the cost of the raw unit, but let us temper justice with mercy. Add a good loupe/magnifier, some hardware to make it usable, the cost of an audio solution. 10x? Not any more.

And actually, my clients (okay, they're agencies) DO see a difference. Thank goodness. Even this morning I had a client emphasise that they don't want a DSLR shooter, they want better than that. Like the difference between a Z1 shooter and an EX1 shooter. LOL!

My biggest issue is with multi-camera - DSLR shooters are bringing 3 bodies to a 1 camera job. They crop the two unmanned cameras, or accept their problems with being unmanned. I think the results - whilst dynamic - are amateurish, with out of focus cutaways, bad framing and so on. But the perception from the client is 'value'. 3 not-quite-in-focus shots with low resolution and peculiar framing, vs shooting one really nice shot, and a sequence of cutaways and noddies. The agencies are pushing 'value' rather than 'quality' - 'twas ever thus.

Danny O'Neill · December 13th, 2013, 04:40 PM

Are you planning on mixing with DSLR footage?

If so then the 5x cost for a 2x image improvement becomes an even worse ratio as you will need to downgrade your c100 footage to match your DSLR.

I personally feel it's better to keep your entire fleet of cameras at the same level to keep your footage consistent than trying to mix and match.

Your investment could be moot and give you no better footage to show off. But hey, no more overheating or 12 minute limit.

Bob Drummond · December 14th, 2013, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Davis

BOGGLE!

Now, I have a T2i/550D which is, truth be told, a tenth of the cost NOW of the C100. But in its $450 state, it's unable to do sound, it can't really do proper focus without a Z-Finder or other substitute, and has all the multitude of DSLR defects that stack up so quickly.

So please - hang on a moment. The C100 image may or may not be 10x better for 10x the cost of the raw unit, but let us temper justice with mercy. Add a good loupe/magnifier, some hardware to make it usable, the cost of an audio solution. 10x? Not any more.

And actually, my clients (okay, they're agencies) DO see a difference. Thank goodness. Even this morning I had a client emphasise that they don't want a DSLR shooter, they want better than that. Like the difference between a Z1 shooter and an EX1 shooter. LOL!

My biggest issue is with multi-camera - DSLR shooters are bringing 3 bodies to a 1 camera job. They crop the two unmanned cameras, or accept their problems with being unmanned. I think the results - whilst dynamic - are amateurish, with out of focus cutaways, bad framing and so on. But the perception from the client is 'value'. 3 not-quite-in-focus shots with low resolution and peculiar framing, vs shooting one really nice shot, and a sequence of cutaways and noddies. The agencies are pushing 'value' rather than 'quality' - 'twas ever thus.

I believe you're making my point for me, Matt. As I said, yes, the C100 is "better" than a DSLR, as it should be at 10x the cost. Is the picture alone worth the 10x more cost? No. All things considered, including the professional features that DSLR's lack, is it still worth 10x more? Maybe. YMMV.

Pat Reddy · December 15th, 2013, 08:58 AM

Of course this is a matter of opinion, but for me and perhaps many of those who own the C-100, the picture quality is absolutely worth the cost of the camera. A good smart phone will get you 50% to 75% of what you want in terms of 1080p image quality from a DSLR or the C-100. There is not a linear relationship between cost and image quality in this context. You are always going to pay a premium for increasingly smaller increments in image quality as you advance up the camera food chain.

Having said that, the footage shot with my DSLRs does not come close, in my opinion, to that of the C-100. Whether it is it worth it for an individual shooter really depends on their requirements.

Is the image quality of the $80K Sony F900R a 100 times better than a DSLR? I don't think this is a reasonable way to frame a comparison.

December 13th, 2013, 02:52 PM	#31
Bob Drummond Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 161	Re: c100 users enlighten me from the 60d As I believe Edgar's comparison illustrates, the C100 has better video quality than the crop-sensor Canon DSLRs. But as the cost is roughly 10 times more than the DSLRs, shouldn't the question be: is the C100's picture 10 times better? Certainly not. They look pretty similar to the layman, and I think up until ISO 400, they inter-cut very well. Once you get to the 6D or the 5D3, the high-iso quality is certainly competitive with the C100. Now, as stated, the C100 has a lot of professional features that DSLRs lack (dual slot recording, built-in ND, peaking, waveform, etc). Are THOSE worth an extra $5000? Maybe. I think they are to me.

December 13th, 2013, 04:40 PM	#33
Danny O'Neill Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Northampton, UK Posts: 915	Re: c100 users enlighten me from the 60d Are you planning on mixing with DSLR footage? If so then the 5x cost for a 2x image improvement becomes an even worse ratio as you will need to downgrade your c100 footage to match your DSLR. I personally feel it's better to keep your entire fleet of cameras at the same level to keep your footage consistent than trying to mix and match. Your investment could be moot and give you no better footage to show off. But hey, no more overheating or 12 minute limit. __________________ mintyslippers.com

December 15th, 2013, 08:58 AM	#35
Pat Reddy Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 288	Re: c100 users enlighten me from the 60d Of course this is a matter of opinion, but for me and perhaps many of those who own the C-100, the picture quality is absolutely worth the cost of the camera. A good smart phone will get you 50% to 75% of what you want in terms of 1080p image quality from a DSLR or the C-100. There is not a linear relationship between cost and image quality in this context. You are always going to pay a premium for increasingly smaller increments in image quality as you advance up the camera food chain. Having said that, the footage shot with my DSLRs does not come close, in my opinion, to that of the C-100. Whether it is it worth it for an individual shooter really depends on their requirements. Is the image quality of the $80K Sony F900R a 100 times better than a DSLR? I don't think this is a reasonable way to frame a comparison.