Anyone hearing anything about a C100 MKIII announcement yet?

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

I'm not a fan of the 80d personally either; by my observations and the various reviews and tests, it's HD is quite soft compared to Mirrorless cameras HD output and not in the same league as the C100 in terms of quality.

Exactly. My B camera is an A7R Mark II. There is no comparison to the C100/300 level of detail with any of the Canon hybrids, save for the 5D4 and the 1DX in 4K. The 1080 on all of those cameras is terrible.

[Dan Brockett]

I find it depends on the clients. We used the 80D locked off and on a Rhino EVO/ARC slider a few weeks ago for a three camera corporate shoot. Only wide shots from the 80D, mediums and CUs from C300 MKI and C100 MKI. Client is pleased as punch with the results. We shot Prolost flat on the 80D, goosed up the sharpening a touch in post and we are good to go. WDR on the C100 and C300, they look different than the 80D but in the same neighborhood. A little CC matches them all nicely. These were skits with actors portraying employees, we are on the wide establishing or occasionally cutting to off angle Rhino slider moves for literally a couple of seconds here and there and it looks fine. 1080 delivery. Many clients are not nearly as picky about things like this as we are.

Also used 80D for shooting second camera gimbal for Dancing with the Stars, cut between C100 MKII with 70-200 2.8 IS II and 80D gimbal shots of contestants dancing. It went to broadcast and is on a clients website with a corporate sponsorship tie in and all of the clients were very happy with the end result. Not saying 80D looks "good" or nearly as sharp as a mirrorless 4K camera, it obviously doesn't. But it's looking "good enough" for how I am using it, and it's making me quite a profit after only a couple of shoots, clients are happy with the footage and how it intercuts with footage from much better cameras, DPAF is a joy for gimbal and Rhino EVO so I think it was a wise business move to buy it. Gimbal and 80D is getting $200.00 per day and 80D and Rhino EVO is getting $250.00 per day instead of hiring a second operator so they are happy to pay it for interviews because it gives us more to cut with and a more interesting look without a larger crew. The only mirrorless camera I personally like is the Fuji XT-2 and I may replace the 80D with that but at this point, no pressing need to. I can't handle Sony or Panasonic mirrorless, how they look and cut with the cameras I usually use.

[Jon Roemer]

The 1080 on the Canon M5 is pretty good. Same chip as the 80D.

Canon EOS M5 vs 1DX Mark II and C300 on Vimeo

80D has All-I, M5 does not but surprised at how good M5 is.

[Steve Burkett]

Aside from that video being another terrible example of a comparison video; tests I've seen show the M5 to be a touch more sharper than the 80d. Still not as good as the Panasonic G80 for example, when it comes to HD detail.

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

I never got it when people described how they could mix HD footage from Canon DSLRs such as the 70D, 80D, 5D Mk3 or 7D Mk2 etc. with HD footage shot with the likes of C100 Mk1 or Mk2 or C300 Mk1. They are certainly not at the same level when viewed at 100% and the differences are almost always very noticeable. I have tried, for quite a long time in the quest to save money, test-shooting in the top quality mode of the DSLRs models mentioned above but ultimately ended up with having to rent out the C100xx almost every time for paid shoots for my clients. Resolution (best or near best at HD), noise level, the looks of noise grains at moderately high to high ISOs, rolling shutter skew, arrangement of manual controls, form factor, you name it. The exception being that if I can shoot in 4K with either the 5D Mk4 or 1DX Mk2 and downconvert in post and this would be acceptable in terms of matching the IQ so that no particular part of the end result could stick out like a sore thumb. But then again these latter two DSLRs are not exactly cheap and the downsides of frame cropping, lack of zebra and peaking, bloated 4K files etc. make using them just to get the best HD footage neither a wise nor cost effective option IMHO.

[Dan Brockett]

But if your clients are satisfied with the match, who cares? Much of our obsession with image quality, resolution, color fidelity means nothing to our clients, it's not important to them. Sure, some clients care about this, I have one high end corporate client who will only shoot their live action with whatever the highest end RED is of the moment, but those clients are rare. Generally, they seem to care much more about if the script/concept for the piece works, is the sound good, is the edit snappy and interesting, did you get the coverage, does the piece tell the visual story effectively than "do all of the cameras used match perfectly?".

It also seems that today's producers have forgotten the aesthetic of mixed media. It's not as popular as it was in the 90s but I used to regularly shoot DigiBeta, Beta SP, DV and Super 8 or S16 film of the same setups and edit the whole thing together with all of the different formats. Clients loved it. Even as recently as last year, I shot and edited together a promo video for a training company. A camera for interview was a C300 but B and C cameras were a Go Pro and a 5D MKIII on a gimbal. We did not try to match the looks at all because they never would have matched even remotely so we embraced that the cutaways from the interview A camera were going to have a totally different look and the b-roll of the event was a total mix of three or four different looks.

It appears that a lot producer/shooters have become more engineers than artists. You can use shortcomings creatively, it's not that difficult, you just have to embrace the differences and use them creatively. Sometimes multiple cameras need to match but often, they don't if you have a few ounces of creativity. Not every, or in fact, very few projects need the best image quality. If they did, we would all shoot everything with an Alexa SXT and clients would gladly pay for that. Horses for courses.

[Jon Roemer]

Originally Posted by Steve Burkett

Aside from that video being another terrible example of a comparison video; tests I've seen show the M5 to be a touch more sharper than the 80d. Still not as good as the Panasonic G80 for example, when it comes to HD detail.

Terrible? Really? Quick test to compare it to other cameras I had in the studio and that I know well. Also, part of longer blog post which ran on Newsshooter.com.

That said - I agree with Wacharapong. 1DXM2 footage at 4K is pretty spectacular and easily mixes with C300 footage on jobs (1DXM2 in Neutral, C300 in WDR). Have done it a bunch of times. But shooting 4K on 1DXM2 only to make HD is not very efficient. Lack of peaking on it less of an issue for me on certain shoots as the DPAF is so good that you can rely on it and shoot camera as if it was large mirrorless.

Also agree with Dan that matching depends upon the needs of the job. What's great about M5 and similar with 80D or upcoming M6 is they are so small you can really fly under the radar when filming with them in public situations. Also, viable to have them on small one-handed gimbal as b or c cam, ready to go, on jobs where appropriate.

[Noa Put]

But if your clients are satisfied with the match, who cares? Much of our obsession with image quality, resolution, color fidelity means nothing to our clients

So why spend so much money on a c300 if this doesn't matter to your clients, I'd get c100 mark 1 and a 80d instead (or maybe just two 80d's) and save a lot of money, your clients will be satisfied regardless.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Jon Roemer

Terrible? Really? Quick test to compare it to other cameras I had in the studio and that I know well. Also, part of longer blog post which ran on Newsshooter.com.

That said - I agree with Wacharapong. 1DXM2 footage at 4K is pretty spectacular and easily mixes with C300 footage on jobs (1DXM2 in Neutral, C300 in WDR). Have done it a bunch of times. But shooting 4K on 1DXM2 only to make HD is not very efficient. Lack of peaking on it less of an issue for me on certain shoots as the DPAF is so good that you can rely on it and shoot camera as if it was large mirrorless.

Also agree with Dan that matching depends upon the needs of the job. What's great about M5 and similar with 80D or upcoming M6 is they are so small you can really fly under the radar when filming with them in public situations. Also, viable to have them on small one-handed gimbal as b or c cam, ready to go, on jobs where appropriate.

Perhaps my comment is somewhat harsh, but alas the internet is littered with these quick test videos that tell me little of the strengths and weaknesses of each camera. I admit to have never done comparison videos, but I would at the least compare them under different scenarios, like low light, indoors, outdoors, close up of faces for skin tones etc. I would be less inclined to make any strong conclusions from the video you posted. Regretfully I was unaware it was part of a wider article and assumed that was it.

I agree with you that a smaller camera is very useful. In fact I use the GX80 a great deal for that very reason. Thankfully it matches better with the GH4 and even better I imagine with the GH5 as it shares the upgrades to the colour.

The issues many have with Canon's smaller cameras is that they limit them too much. My GX80 maybe small and cheaper than the 80d, but enjoys not only features like focus peaking, histogram and zebras, but also 5 axis IS which is a godsend for smaller handheld unobtrusive work. No one can tell me that such features would not be welcome on either the 80d or the M5. As welcome as they are unlikely given Canon's track record.

This coupled with the softer image of the 80d, makes it less desirable as a B camera, and why many I've spoken to who use the C100 and C300 choose a Sony or Panasonic Mirrorless to pair with them instead, despite the loss of DPAF and superior colour. Had Canon not crippled their smaller line, perhaps this would not be the case.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

I agree with your posts Dan.

I have also used Go Pro for aerials and POV shots and used that with C300 shots.

I am amused by the attack on Canon's MJPEG codec used in 1DXII and 5DIV as space hungry. I find my 1DXII files to be very good. If you want good quality, then you shouldn't get frightened about file size.

The DPAF in the 1DXII is pretty good and even though they haven't included focusing aids, it works well.

Having said that, unless I am paid well, I won't use the 1DXII for two hour interviews because of CFast 2.0 cards and lack of XLRs.

The definition of professional film/videographer is one who earns majority of his/her income from doing filming/shooting video. So whether a person shoots with Go Pro or C300 or Alexa or anything in between, the person's viewpoint would be that of a professional. So each professional would have a different view point, personal likes, dislikes and fantasies. There are people shooting feature films with A7S/GH4/XC10/GoPro, albeit at a much lower budget. However that doesn't mean that each camera is suitable for every application.

When the original C100 was launched, a very senior executive had told me that the C100 was meant for DSLR folks to move up to that and they viewed it as a wedding camera. However, it became way more popular in every segment than was perhaps originally envisaged. Based on the feedback, they tried to remove the quirks from the C100 and created the C100 Mark II. I am not sure what feedback Canon is now working on.

Canon will not announce C300 Mark II successor at NAB. They will try to squeeze it till 2018 and announce its successor in 2018. However, they are likely to launch the C100 Mark II successor in 2017 which will definitely have 4K 60p. It may be pertinent to mention that nomenclature of cameras is always a marketing decision taken from a strategic point of view.

Never underestimate Canon. Their cameras are solid and work for me in jungles, deserts, rains and landslides, seas as well as saner environments. However enticing the recent camera introductions might be, Canon gives a peace of mind and I rate that highly. And there is of course the DPAF and the lovely colours straight out of the box.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

I have also used Go Pro for aerials and POV shots and used that with C300 shots.

So have many of us. Though I have become more dissatisfied with GoPro as time went on and rarely use it now.

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

I am amused by the attack on Canon's MJPEG codec used in 1DXII and 5DIV as space hungry. I find my 1DXII files to be very good. If you want good quality, then you shouldn't get frightened about file size.

I think the informed opinion is that codec is inefficient. Chosen because it is more compatible with what Photographers are use to rather than something that works best for Videographers. I have no issues with say a 5 times larger file size if they deliver 5 times the quality. That isn't the case. If they were offering 10 bit 4:2:2 for that file size, I'd be onboard with it and so would many others I dare say. It's not.

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

There are people shooting feature films with A7S/GH4/XC10/GoPro, albeit at a much lower budget. However that doesn't mean that each camera is suitable for every application.

Couldn't agree more. Still these differences make for a lively discussion. :)

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

Canon will not announce C300 Mark II successor at NAB. They will try to squeeze it till 2018 and announce its successor in 2018. However, they are likely to launch the C100 Mark II successor in 2017 which will definitely have 4K 60p.

You can say this with certainty - who are your sources just to ask?

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

Never underestimate Canon. Their cameras are solid and work for me in jungles, deserts, rains and landslides, seas as well as saner environments. However enticing the recent camera introductions might be, Canon gives a peace of mind and I rate that highly. And there is of course the DPAF and the lovely colours straight out of the box.

Despite being one of those enticed over a recently announced camera, I'd gladly add a C100 mark III if it offered 4K. I'd even accept no 60p as long as the codec is no less than 100mbps and there's no crop on the sensor. Many Production companies don't limit themselves to 1 brand. Ideally I would like to have a Sony 4K Mirrorless for my extreme low light filming, a C100 (with 4K) for some of my Corporate Promo work and my Panasonics for much of my Wedding filming.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

So why spend so much money on a c300 if this doesn't matter to your clients, I'd get c100 mark 1 and a 80d instead (or maybe just two 80d's) and save a lot of money, your clients will be satisfied regardless.

We do have lots of different clients who require varying levels of quality. Don't you? Have not bought anything new yet. C300 MKII would be for clients who require 4K or the 2K 12 bit 444. I am shooting a doc where they want to shoot 4K, probably with the C300 MKII, but the media management and amount of CFast cards required to shoot 410 Mbps for five hours a day for two weeks is convincing them we should just shoot 1080 Prores on my camera. I told them that if we need to shoot that much, they need to budget for a full time data wrangler because I cannot shoot 12 hours a day, then sit in my hotel room all night downloading CFast cards and cloning drives. (small crew documentary in South America). So adding another crew position for two weeks is a big expense as will be renting enough CFast cards. If we shoot on my Blade, that is one 480 GB drive per day to shoot Prores HQ, copy it, then clone it, done.

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

The majority of my clients out there have pretty good eyes for quality though, like myself they are not that sophisticated technically and often have trouble telling differences between say, 28Mbps or 36Mbps AVCHD or MP4 output from the Canon C100 Mk2 and a 10 bit, 4:2:2 ProRes footage from let's say a Shogun or Inferno. In short, they are comfortable with the H.264 files recorded internally on cheap SD cards though they and I do occasionally see some downsides. These however have been very few and far between and nothing compared to mixing in a few souped up Canon DSLRs snippets in the main footage. I would feel a little cheated and they could too. But I definitely agree to what you say that if the content and the rest of the production are done well enough these differences often hardly matter.

[Dan Brockett]

This and other boards we hang out on are for techno-nerds who are obsessed. I kind of wear two hats, I love all of the technology, specs and new toys, I am paid to write about it and find it fascinating, but my other hat is as a writer/producer and when it comes down to it, most of what we sweat and obsess about (specs, resolution, bit rate, data rate) here doesn't matter at all to 90% of clients. They are much more concerned about the concept, quality of writing, acting, direction, music, sound quality and how watching the project affects them emotionally than if it was shot 4K, 12bit, had superb color depth, etc.

I have a friend who is the opposite of most us. They know enough about the technology to shoot, but are not a great camera operator, shoot with older gear. But they are a great writer and producer. I have worked on projects for them, knew what we shot and have always been amazed and impressed at what they put together with the footage we shot and combined with the vast library of older footage we shot years ago for the same client. They often use SD footage we shot more than a decade ago, mix 720p with our modern 1080 and 4k footage. Much of the footage is technically inferior, but it totally works well because they are a master writer, editor and storyteller. That's what most paying clients care about more than technical perfection.

Most who frequent boards like these are wrapped up in specs and discussing new gear but are often clueless about being a great filmmaker and or an effective visual storyteller. I, as well as many of us, have worked on a well budgeted project where we got to use/rent or borrow the best gear available but the concept/script/casting/direction/sound went wrong and the end result was a failure. My point is, sometimes we need to take a step back from all of our techno-nerd obsession with specs and put forth some effort to better our skill set as visual storytellers. Which I write in a thread that I started, obsessing about the next great camera ;-)

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

This and other boards we hang out on are for techno-nerds who are obsessed. I kind of wear two hats, I love all of the technology, specs and new toys, I am paid to write about it and find it fascinating, but my other hat is as a writer/producer

Actually this forum and those like it are full of those who are happy to discuss the importance of specs, skin tones, bit depth and fine detail when attacking other cameras they don't like, but as soon as their preferred camera suffers a similar attack, the comeback of, it's all about content is reminded as to why these things are not important.

You're no different to the rest of us in that respect. You'll wag your finger against the GH4 over specs and colour science but tell us the Canon 80d is perfectly acceptable because it's all about content. I'm afraid many of us are equally guilty of similar behaviour, so I can't really complain.

Whilst there are plenty of techno-nerds here, at least many who write here are working professionally. I occasionally dip into DpReview forums and its more hobbyist there.