Anyone hearing anything about a C100 MKIII announcement yet?

[Dan Brockett]

Hi hopes for the possible C100 MKIII announcement leading up to or at NAB. I have been ready to buy a C300 MKII for a while but it's lack of 4K 60p, plus the overall cost for me to upgrade from my C100 has been holding me back. If it was just a camera body upgrade for $12k, okay, but add in all of the rigging stuff from Wooden or Movcam, $2k worth of new batteries, $2k worth of CFast cards, a new, larger capacity Sachtler head and legs to hold it all and I am knocking on the door of $25k. C100 MKIII will have 4K, but probably won't have 4K 60P although it's possible. It will still be stuck with HDMI, which I hate on the C100 but I make do with it. Pairing the C100 MKIII, assuming it will have some sort of internally hobbled recording scheme, with a CD Odyssey 7Q+ or Atomos Shogun Inferno would result in a nicely capable 4k EOS Cinema solution at around $8K. And I could continue to use my Sachtler DV6 SB and Miller Solo DV CF legs. But might have to buy new batteries and media for the camera, depending on what version of 4K they deem appropriate for the C100 MKIII.

Any thoughts? We are due for the C100 MKIII. Doesn't mean Canon will give it to us, but by the calendar and previous releases, it would be logical for them to intro at NAB 2017.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

From Canon's perspective if they added 4k and 60p to the C100 III why would anyone buy their C300 II for $12k? In addition you'd have a long wait for anything announced to be available. People have been grumbling about these issues but are they enough to make you jump ship? I'd assume Canon will have change their tune if they lose significant market share to a competitor. Which I believe only Sony offers a similar option.

[Dan Brockett]

As a C100 owner and one who shoots with the C300 MKII as a rental occasionally, I have thought about this. You are correct, I don't think they will give the C100 MKIII too many features that are better than the C300 MKII, that would be a strategic blunder. But they know they are losing a lot of market share to the FS5 and FS7 as well as a few to the Ursa Mini so the need for a sub $10k EOS Cinema camera is there.

There would be a way to utilize 4K in the C100 MKIII with an inferior codec to the C300 MKII, much like the AVCHD in the C100 MKII was inferior to the XF codec in the C300 MKI. This would be the real differentiator between spending $12k for a C300 MKII and $6k for a C100 MKIII. One to CFAST cards at up to 410 Mbps with the cheaper C100 MKIII perhaps utilizing a 100 Mbps or 150 Mbps highly compressed codec to SD cards? The Panasonic DVX200 and others utilize this sort of 4K at up to 150Mbps, using SD cards. Those who want/need better could still output to a Atomos, CD or SD external recorder?

The C100 MKII was introduced well after the C300 MKI and featured 1080 60p while the C300 MKI was stuck with 720 60p so there is precedent for the C100 MKIII having 4K 60p but a more highly compressed codec to get there.

The C100 MKIII will be stuck with HDMI only while the C300 MKII has SDI and HDMI outputs. The C300 MKII also has the ability to record and output up to three different codecs simultaneously, which the C100 MKIII probably will not be able to do.

C300 MKII also has PL mount option which the C100 MKIII won't.

Knowing Canon's past actions and strategic mindset, I think there is way for Canon to intro a C100 MKIII while still keeping up the sales of the C300 MKII. Time will tell if this conjecture or reality.

[Steve Mims]

I've used the original C100 since it came out. Despite the big issue of a poor viewfinder, the camera has delivered excellent results.

Now I'm ready to move on. As of yet I don't have a client need/request for 4K. However I do have a need for 2K. I've shot three features at 1080, and in the end my deliverable is a 2K DCP.

Making a 2K file from 1920x1080 works fine, but it would be great to record in 2K in-camera.

Perhaps Canon could make this option available as differentiation from the C300. I have no idea how many people would want 2K as an option.

I've never loved Sony menus and ergonomics but I'd make the move if need be.

[Nate Haustein]

Does Canon have a "low" bit-rate UHD codec? It's not like they would use XAVC-L. It seems like an excellent way to differentiate the C100 from the C300, but then they also have budget cameras like the XC10/XC15 that use C-Fast and high bitrate recording. You would think they would push their existing workflows.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Steve Mims

I've used the original C100 since it came out.

Quite a coincidence, I too have a C100. I am starting a feature doc at the end of March and when I asked the producer if they needed/wanted to shoot 4K, they replied, "No, 2k should be fine". Then I had to tell them my camera doesn't shoot 2k.

I might ask them if they will pay a decent day rate and might buy a C300 MKII as this shoot would pay for about half of it, not sure yet though. I think 2k 12bit 4 4 4 would be ideal for this film but not sure how much we are shooting. It is being shot in South America and we are supposed to be going very lean as far as gear, not sure if I could afford enough CFast cards for the shoot and I am not sure I want to drag my laptop and drives.

But I hate to buy a new camera just a few weeks ahead of NAB.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Nate Haustein

Does Canon have a "low" bit-rate UHD codec? It's not like they would use XAVC-L. It seems like an excellent way to differentiate the C100 from the C300, but then they also have budget cameras like the XC10/XC15 that use C-Fast and high bitrate recording. You would think they would push their existing workflows.

Figuring their strategy out is just about impossible, other than the generalities that Canon is mostly a follower, not an innovator, they are conservative and they don't take chances, other than by leaving key features out of their cameras. (unusable EVF on C100 MKI, no in camera 4K C500, no 4K 60p on C300 MKII) It was obviously a huge blunder for them not include 4K 60P on what was at the beginning, a $15k or $16k camera when the competition does much higher frame rates at cameras that are half of the cost (FS7)

But we keep buying their cameras because of glass investment, DPAF and skin tones, or at least I do.

[Ken Saieh]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

Hi hopes for the possible C100 MKIII announcement leading up to or at NAB. I have been ready to buy a C300 MKII for a while but it's lack of 4K 60p, plus the overall cost for me to upgrade from my C100 has been holding me back. If it was just a camera body upgrade for $12k, okay, but add in all of the rigging stuff from Wooden or Movcam, $2k worth of new batteries, $2k worth of CFast cards, a new, larger capacity Sachtler head and legs to hold it all and I am knocking on the door of $25k. C100 MKIII will have 4K, but probably won't have 4K 60P although it's possible. It will still be stuck with HDMI, which I hate on the C100 but I make do with it. Pairing the C100 MKIII, assuming it will have some sort of internally hobbled recording scheme, with a CD Odyssey 7Q+ or Atomos Shogun Inferno would result in a nicely capable 4k EOS Cinema solution at around $8K. And I could continue to use my Sachtler DV6 SB and Miller Solo DV CF legs. But might have to buy new batteries and media for the camera, depending on what version of 4K they deem appropriate for the C100 MKIII.

Any thoughts? We are due for the C100 MKIII. Doesn't mean Canon will give it to us, but by the calendar and previous releases, it would be logical for them to intro at NAB 2017.

I doubt the the C100 III will have 4k 60p, Canon likes small incremental upgrades. You should look into the GH5, with it's internal 10bit 4k and 4k 60p it's going to be superior to the C100 II and the III, additionally a smaller form factor, of coarse unless you don't have any need for 10bit and tend to shoot with very high ISO settings. ,

[Dan Brockett]

I had a GH4, I really, really disliked everything about it. The colors were awful pastels, very unflattering to people, audio was terrible, high noise on anything over ISO 400, I disliked M43 DOF and FOV, pretty much kept it for a few months, shot one corporate piece and a PBS doc and sold it with all of the lenses, everything. Two of my clients specifically requested that we never use that camera again. Sold it and bought the C100, the same two clients love the images from it. No way I would ever buy a GH5, it's just a more fully featured GH4.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I've said this before but people get carried away with numbers when image quality is more important. Just look at the GH5 thread, people were working themselves into a frenzy and anointing it and claiming it was the death nell for all other dslrs before they had even laid hands on it. People often confuse what they want with what they need. I personally think 60p is a valuable feature especially if you do much slow mo. 4k gives more flexibility for post cropping and stabilization but is far from essential. People get very worked up if their camera doesn't have 4k even if they don't need it.

[Steve Burkett]

Pete, whilst I agree with some of the hysteria in that thread, please don't tar us all with the same brush. I can assure you I do have a need for 4k with several clients a year now requesting it. 60p 4K is therefore of value to me as is 10bit 4:2:2 for grading vlog footage. Something I am doing now with the GH4, though struggling with the 8 bit image.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

I had a GH4, I really, really disliked everything about it. The colors were awful pastels, very unflattering to people, audio was terrible, high noise on anything over ISO 400, I disliked M43 DOF and FOV, pretty much kept it for a few months, shot one corporate piece and a PBS doc and sold it with all of the lenses, everything. Two of my clients specifically requested that we never use that camera again. Sold it and bought the C100, the same two clients love the images from it. No way I would ever buy a GH5, it's just a more fully featured GH4.

Actually colours are improved on the GH5, as is ISO performance. There's a new audio module that can be purchased that will improve on the sound. Plus 5 axis IS for better handheld work. Wide range of codecs, a Log profile, with a Summer upgrade that will allow better compatibility with HDR. So I'd say it's got the potential to be a worthy competitor to the C100 if it delivers on its promise, if nothing else.

[Dan Brockett]

If they got rid of the M43 sensor, I might consider it, I come from a long lineage of owning and renting Panasonic cameras. I owned the DVX100A, HVX200, HPX170, HPX300 and used to rent the Varicams, both the tape and P2 units quite a bit. That's why I was so disappointed with the GH4, no bright, vivid colors with flattering skin tones. No good quality audio. The lenses were like toys to me, they all kind of seemed small and cheap, even the expensive ones.

I was stuck with 1/3" sensors in most of the Panasonics that I owned, but once I moved to DSLRs, then S35 imagers in my Canons and in the REDs, Arris and C300 MKII that I rent, there is no going back to M43. The FOV and DOF are both subpar for my needs. Clients like shallow DOF, not too shallow but more than I could get with the GH4. They like clean images without a lot of noise and grain. The GH4 was a good hobbyist camera but for clients and budgets, not the right tool. The GH5 will be the same, not a terrible camera, great specs but not the right tool set for what I do. The GH4 was simply an experiment for me to see if I could reduce the weight of gear I have to lug through airports while gaining a 4K image. It failed miserably for that, it was small and light but our clients hated the images.

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco

I've said this before but people get carried away with numbers when image quality is more important. Just look at the GH5 thread, people were working themselves into a frenzy and anointing it and claiming it was the death nell for all other dslrs before they had even laid hands on it. People often confuse what they want with what they need. I personally think 60p is a valuable feature especially if you do much slow mo. 4k gives more flexibility for post cropping and stabilization but is far from essential. People get very worked up if their camera doesn't have 4k even if they don't need it.

I agree, that's why I have stuck with our C100 and C300, up until recently, most of our clients actively avoided 4K, they did not have the infrastructure to edit and archive it, bigger files, they mostly delivered 1080 as their final product. The times we shoot with a greater than 4K camera, they have requested 1080 delivery from it, not even 4K. I am starting to get requests though. I shot the worldwide promo campaign with Lauren Graham for the Netflix reboot of Gilmore Girls last Fall. We shot it in 1080 and the editor, was punching in on it to make it look like a two camera shoot. The good news was (it was green screen), the punch in worked remarkably well, luckily it was for the web. The bad news was, that should have been a 4k or two camera shoot, I discussed it with the client afterward and they agreed. We are lining up to shoot more for Netflix and Hulu and they require 4K origination and delivery so for me, 4K is a requirement now, even though some our clients will still request 1080 delivery.

I have to say, even wedding videographers and event videographers are starting to get 4K demands, it's pretty much a given now that the majority of working pros need 4K. Hobbyists, not so much.

[Steve Burkett]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

If they got rid of the M43 sensor, I might consider it,

Dan, not all of us are anti micro 4/3's, and value the camera because of a sensor size that gives us a smaller camera and smaller lenses; ideal for solo work, especially when filming with multiple cameras. Whilst lenses can look like toys, it is results that matter and those like the voigtlander are professionally made if one isn't too snobbist to look down on its smaller form factor.
Nor do we all share your video requirements and type of clients. Its clear the GH5 would be a poor choice for your line of work, but it is still a worthy contender for the C100 for some users, whatever your personal needs and feelings on the matter.

I disagree the GH4 is a hobbyist camera, as it is used by Professionals including myself and has been used in some TV shows, albeit as a B camera or for aerial footage. In fact I have seen the GH4 paired with a 12mm olympus, the very definition of a toy like lens, which was used on a TV show. So clearly it was Professional enough for them. As you say, it is a case of the right tool for the job, but not everyone has the same job and arguably the same requirements.