C100: Be happy!

[Kevin McRoberts]

But you can do exactly that with the GH4 and A7S... attaching their XLR units is no more taxing than attaching the C100's and lens adapters are just as simple as any other lens change. They're ready to go and don't need a hack, recorder, or extra monitor/EVF to make them useable. Slap it on a tripod, very small shoulder brace, or freehand using the EVF and shoot away - just like the C100. The external recorder is only necessary if you want 4:2:2 10-bit (or 4K on the A7S) and there are compact, non-V-mount-like battery solutions for the GH4 (like the PowerBase 70).

Not too much info on the JVC 4K m43/S35 camera yet, but it appears to be very well self-contained, is said to have a windowed mode for using m43-native glass, and then can use the full S35 sensor with almost ANY lens on an inexpensive (or expensive) adapter - Leica M/R/39,OM,FD,NikF/G,ALPA,CY,PL, anything. JVC being new in this market segment, who knows exactly what will come of that.

Conversely, there's no way whatsoever for the C100 to match some of these cameras' capabilities.

Again for clarity, I'm in no way disparaging the C100... I agree that it's a fine, capable, self-contained tool that any owner should be proud to have and will be a valuable tool and a "best option" for many jobs for a long time to come... heck, the old HVX200 is still amongst the "best options" for a number of jobs. But sometimes new and better options do emerge.

Frankly if a year went by and I saw nothing whatsoever that improved on what I already had, I'd be somewhat sad for the industry and its lack of progress and development.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Kevin McRoberts

But you can do exactly that with the GH4 and A7S... attaching their XLR units is no more taxing than attaching the C100's

Highly disagree on that. The C100 is a handle with XLR inputs that attaches via a single, locking cable. The GH4 requires the base that has *two* connections, then requires DC power in, now we're talking AB/V-Mount batteries and rails. The A7s does have a much better solution for this, but the GH4 isn't even close.

and lens adapters are just as simple as any other lens change.

Unless you have EF lenses. A7s much better in this regard still, but I have had poor results with the Metabones EF to NEX adapter.

[Kevin McRoberts]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

Highly disagree on that. The C100 is a handle with XLR inputs that attaches via a single, locking cable. The GH4 requires the base that has *two* connections, then requires DC power in, now we're talking AB/V-Mount batteries and rails. The A7s does have a much better solution for this, but the GH4 isn't even close.

Debatable. Wouldn't they have the same number of connections (C100 - audio cable and hot shoe/GH4: locking HDMI and camera mount screw)? Most camera bags I have could easily swallow a fully-built GH4/YAGH/PB70 unit. The DC power in is the only real issue there, but Switronix's PowerBase-70 is a good non-rail/AB/V power solution. Will run the camera all day, still all weighs in about the same as the C100, and I kind of prefer having the weight slung underneath as opposed to suspended overhead or dangling out front. I've used a DSLR with a PowerBase handheld, it handles well, far better than appearances might lead on.

But again, if hand-held ergonomics is the only qualm, ~$1500 can get a fellow a heck of a nice ready-to-rock support rig - something you'd need for any length of shoulder-shooting on a C-camera anyway.

Unless you have EF lenses. A7s much better in this regard still, but I have had poor results with the Metabones EF to NEX adapter.

no real surprise that the Canon camera is best at using Canon lenses, but at least it's possible to use EF lenses on the other cameras if forced for whatever reason. The C100 can't use E or m43 systems' lenses at all (or FD, Leica M, or PL... but then frankly, who's going to use PL glass on any of these cameras routinely?). The small, packable size of those m43 lenses can be a distinct advantage in many situations.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Kevin McRoberts

Will run the camera all day, still all weighs in about the same as the C100, and I kind of prefer having the weight slung underneath as opposed to suspended overhead or dangling out front. I've used a DSLR with a PowerBase handheld, it handles well, far better than appearances might lead on.

Have you ever shot with the C100? Because there is far more to the story than just weight. The ergonomics are far superior to any DSLR-form factor I have *ever* used. The ergonomics are also far superior to, say, the Sony FS100/700 (I have shot with that camera and it produces good imagery, but the use of it in a typical shooting scenario is not pleasing).

But again, if hand-held ergonomics is the only qualm, ~$1500 can get a fellow a heck of a nice ready-to-rock support rig - something you'd need for any length of shoulder-shooting on a C-camera anyway.

The C100 is far easier to handhold without a rig than any DSLR kit as well. Especially with the Zacuto C100 Z-Finder.

[Kevin McRoberts]

Yes, I have. I've also shot with the GH3, Canon DSLRs, and the FS100/700 amongst many many other cameras from PD150's to VariCams. The C100/300 are very good. The GH3 (even with battery grip - about the same size as the YAGH) is also good. Almost everything is better than Canon DSLR's and the FS100/700 (OK, maybe not BM cams).

As good as the C100/300 are (and they are exceptionally good handheld for short shots), I don't shoot extended shoulder-level work without some sort of support on either of them. They're wonderful cameras, but to suggest that they have no limitations in their form is incorrect.

[Alex Payne]

Well of course it does, I haven't found a camera yet that doesn't have some limitations.

But you're suggesting all the accessories and peripherals you need to make the dslr's work like a c100. It can be done, sure. But for a lot of projects it's more beneficial to pick up the camera and go. Some times I want to just pick up the camera and hit the record button. That's what the c100 gives me. I don't need a ton of accessories, workarounds and stopgaps just to get it going at peak capacity.

No camera is perfect. In many instances the dslr's up to and including, I'm sure, the Gh4 have many great uses and can be the best tool for many jobs.

For many other jobs, the c100 is the best. You seem intent on telling everyone how much all the new cameras make the c100 obsolete, while conceding that sure it can still be used... I disagree. I think for many projects it's not just an acceptable choice, but the best choice. For many others, it isn't.

[Kevin McRoberts]

Originally Posted by Alex Payne

But you're suggesting all the accessories and peripherals you need to make the dslr's work like a c100. It can be done, sure. But for a lot of projects it's more beneficial to pick up the camera and go. Some times I want to just pick up the camera and hit the record button. That's what the c100 gives me. I don't need a ton of accessories, workarounds and stopgaps just to get it going at peak capacity.

...but the point was that if you only need to record 8-bit 1080p, neither of these 'DSLR's' NEEDS more accessorization than maybe their XLR modules (just like the C100) and a lens (with or without an adapter - VND, Speedbooster, or whatever the desired look necessitates). Nothing more than the C100... not even an LCD loupe because their EVFs are very very useable as-is. No 'stopgaps,' 'workarounds,' or assorted faff we've associated with actual DSLR's for the past 6 years. They just come out of the pack working, with all sorts of full-on video camera functionality - just like the C100. Deployed like that, they're smaller, nimbler, but functionally very very similar. I think that's exciting in a totally non-detracting-from-the-C100 way. The C100 is not obsolete any more than my AF100 is obsolete, but new, affordable, interesting tools do indeed emerge as time goes on.

So yes, BE HAPPY, C100 owners still have an awesome camera, and BE HAPPY, there's new capable toys to play with as well!

[Les Wilson]

Not sure why this discussion has gone to the DSLR-ogs. I think it's fair to say no class of production equipment has had more limitations for video users to put up with than the DSLR. The happy outcome from this scourge has been that Sony and Canon have responded to the deafening choir of retching from those forced to use them and know better how a camera should operate. Watermelon and clouds have nearly identical water content. Understanding the differences between things, not the similarities between them is far more illuminating and results in much greater understanding.

[Andy Solaini]

One thing that often seems to get forgotten on this forum is cost. There is a big difference between the price of a C100 and a GH4. I get the impression some people on here have a big fat wallet (not meaning anyone in this thread).

The good thing in my view is that now we are at the point where there are very good cameras out there for all budgets. From a GH3 at £1000, to a C100 at £4000, to the £10,000+ models.

So whatever tools you use BE HAPPY and shoot a good story.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Andy Solaini

One thing that often seems to get forgotten on this forum is cost. There is a big difference between the price of a C100 and a GH4. I get the impression some people on here have a big fat wallet (not meaning anyone in this thread).

Not sure what that "big fat wallet" has to do with anything. If you want a business, you spend money to make that business happen, whether it's paying for permits or buying the gear you need. Some of us aren't hobbyists.

A GH4 is $1700 and the YAGH to add XLR inputs is $2000. Then you need, at the very least, the Powerbase-70 to power the YAGH, which is an additional $300. So for the kit to compete with the C100, we are looking at $4000. The C100 is only $1000 more, and I prefer its shooting configuration. It's ready to go out of the box without needing to mount the YAGH and then the Switronix battery, making the camera a towering mess of ridiculousness.

That's easily worth an extra thousand to me. Not to mention the fact that it has a robust picture profile engine (for achieving a close to final look within camera), easily one of the absolute best low-light cameras, Dual Pixel AF, built-in ND filters (that easily adds an additional $600 if you go with screw-on ND filters that are worth having), ect.

[Noa Put]

What are you guys actually trying to proof? :) I can take my 1000 dollar gh3 out of the bag and have it ready for shooting on a paid job, without any accessories, it supports my workflow in that way but I"m sure that won't be the case for many other shooters who have other demands. All camera"s have their strengths and weaknesses, what is a weakness for one might not be for another depending on your needs so if the c100 works for you, then be happy :)

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

What are you guys actually trying to proof? :)

Well, it's always good to debate pros and cons, not to convince the other person, but so that someone who may just be lurking can see point and counterpoint in a way that may help them make a decision one way or the other.

Why does it bug you?

[Noa Put]

I"m not sure what this thread is actually about, is it to praise the c100 and that you don't need any other camera because the c100 still has it all or is it to discuss other possible options, beside the c100 and discuss what they can provide what the c100 can't? Or is it to discuss what's not good about other camera's? :) If anyone can explain what the purpose is I might be able to join in again.

So far, I think that Kevin McRoberts made some valid remarks.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I"m not sure what this thread is actually about, is it to praise the c100 and that you don't need any other camera because the c100 still has it all or is it to discuss other possible options, beside the c100 and discuss what they can provide what the c100 can't?

I think a thread that is all praise is simply boring, and if it provides a jumping off point for people to insert their own opinions about options that are the same price point or cheaper, ect. then that's a good thing.

[Matt Davis]

I started this thread in response to the hype from NAB - lots of new cameras, but when the cold hard light of day hits them, is there anything to make us ditch the C100, with all its faults?

C100 users and potential owners need to petition Canon so that they fix the faults in the C100 before they go off and make a new one. When they make a new one, they shouldn't assume they did well on the first one.

Black Magic took their Cinema and Production cameras, and made them into a 10Kg bear to meet the howls of protest we raised in forums such as these.

It would be really nice if Canon accepted that their PSF doesn't work very well, and they should do unto edit software what they did unto Atomos, and worked together for the common good. Whilst they're at it, they can bloody well fix the asinine and stupid way they do white balance ('let's look at the whole frame and assume that we're filling it with an engineering chart' rather than 'find something that peaks close to equal in R, G & B, and if not, is there anything that looks like skin tone, in the centre 15-30% area'). Whilst they're at it, they can fix the audio issue - we need one input and two levels sometimes - they can sort out the interlaced chroma and they should (though I now know they can't) have audio in the 'last shot playback' function. Sheesh, that's specifically to ensure we got the audio properly, and they don't even do it via headphones.

Oh look, I'm writing in crayon again. Sorry.

All the new cameras sub-$10k will bring with them new issues, new problems, new challenges, new bugs. C100 is a stable platform, but it's still got issues. Let's stop trading 'old fashioned' insults at C100, get the bugs squashed, move on.

I fear Canon think we love the C100/C300 so much. No, we like it, but it does need fixing before Canon moves on. Canon should know this, I hope we can remind them.