Quality 24p footage?

[Joe Batt]

Could someone post a link to some good, graded 24p footage from the 700? I'm buying a new camera for a low budget feature and I really want to get the 700 (beautiful slo-mo being the selling point), but I'm having a tough time finding proof that the 700 is equal to or greater than the image quality of something like the C-100. Can someone tell me why Canon has such a reputation on the internet for having a "beautiful" image and I can't find that type of hype for the Sony? I'm not biased at all, I just want my movie to look great. Right now I'm leaning toward the 700 but I'm scared I'll get an ugly image in 24p, based on what I'm hearing. Which I dont even understand because they seen to be so similar technically (minus slo-mo).

[Monday Isa]

The C100 has a much sharper image, better Lowlight, and higher DR when put up against the FS700. Now if you do the 4K upgrade and get a odessey 7Q or Sony's recorder option. You now have a 4K image which will yield a very sharp/sharper 1080P image then the C100 and you will have better DR and lowlight should even out if not be a bit better. With the 4K upgrade you do get S-log2 so the DR is much improved on the FS700 and should be 2 stops higher then the C100 both with internal codec and external recording. That option is cumbersome where as the C100 is small and compact. I need Slow-mo and will utilize 4K for corporate work where they'll pay. The FS700 is my choice, C100 has 0 slow-mo features. Weigh your options and good luck with your decision.

[Tim Dashwood]

I would still go with the FS700 + $400 upgrade any day. I was recently shooting a few days on a series (will be available online in September) with C100, C300 in Canon Log and my FS700 in SLog2. The C100 is limited to the 25mbps internal recording as the FS700 but it doesn't have a HD-SDI out for 4:2:2 recording at higher bitrates. You could use HDMI but it is very unreliable in heavy use. The HDMI on the C100 was constantly cutting out for the external monitors and became very frustrating very quickly.
I think the C300 is a much closer contender for the FS700, but it costs much more and doesn't have the lens mount options that the Sony E-mount mount does. On the Canon cameras you need to choose PL or EF.
On the FS700 I have adapters for PL, Canon EF, Canon FD, Pentax K, Nikon F, Minolta, C and "Turbo Boosters" for an extra stop of transmittance and .71x. (not to mention SLog2 & 240fps)

[Joe Batt]

Thank you Monday and Tim for sharing your experience. I'm attracted to the C100's size and sensor and image quality and it's what I was planning on buying until a friend suggested I research the 700. You've brought up excellent points, all things I've been weighing. I've seen the quality of the C100 on the big screen at our local film festival and it looks great, but being aware of the ability to expand with the sony to 4K and it's slo-mo makes me feel like I would be investing in a current camera AND my future camera. I'm also looking at overall setup size and weight as I'm coming from the Canon XL-H1 which is a huge, heavy camera compared to what you can get now. I'm leaning still towards the Sony hoping good lighting and grading will give us as usable image, You guy's wouldn't call the Sony's image bad would you? or is it? (24P) but I'm going to continue the research. Any other opinions and experiences would really be appreciated. We're going into production in January so I have to figure it out soon. Thanks again guys.

[Monday Isa]

I love the image off my fs700 a lot more then the images i was getting off the C100. Fs700 color was just right on where s the canon were colorful for me. If given an option between the two id pick up the fs700 over and over again. As i mentioned before the c100 is very good in lowlight and sharpness/resolved detail is very good. Better then the fs700. If you need slow-mo hdsdi out or 4k or slog2 then the fs700. If u need size and discreetness then the c100.

[Olof Ekbergh]

I have both the FS700 and the C100, and I think both are great cameras. I use both a lot, they can easily be matched. I would say the the Canon has a better look ungraded, but with a bit of work the FS700 can look just as good. The 700 is a camera that definitely needs work on the PPs.

There is a bit more sharpening in the Canon PPs. The 700 looks a bit softer unless you crank up the detail. Personally I like not too much sharpening in camera, you can always sharpen in post.

I did a series of tests on the C100:

C100 Picture Profile Test on Vimeo

C100 native & Nija on Vimeo

C100 Blue screen test 1 on Vimeo

If you check my other Vimeo vids you will find lots FS700 footage as well here are a few:

Slow Evening in Schouler Park on Vimeo

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

The HDMI on the C100 was constantly cutting out for the external monitors and became very frustrating very quickly.

I don't have that problem with my C100. What kind of cables were you using?

[Joe Batt]

Thanks guys, Great info. I'm still stumped on one thing and it's just because maybe I don't understand the electronics. Please tell me where I'm getting lost. If two different camcorders get their image through the same make and model lens. But hit different sensors, (lets say Canon super35 and Sony super35) in the the same ballpark of quality, and are then processed the same way 4.2.0. @ lets say 35mbs, and their color profiles are both completely customizable, How does a camera get a reputation for a "certain look"? Why can't a Canon be "tuned" to look exactly like a Sony or vice verca if the hardware like I described above is similar? I'm only saying that I really don't understand and if somebody could post a link that may explain it, it would be great! I'm wanting to go with the Sony but I've never used one. I'm coming from a Canon XL-H1 captured to a Nanoflash and the results looked great in the theater, but for a million obvious reasons it's time to move forward.

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Joe Batt

Why can't a Canon be "tuned" to look exactly like a Sony or vice verca if the hardware like I described above is similar?

You can of course customize your own setting in each camera and make them match to a common reference like a DSC Chroma DuMonde chart. However, I think most of the discussion in this thread is referring to Canon Log vs SLog2, which cannot be modified in either camera when the log curve is selected.

[Joe Batt]

Thanks Tim, so people are basing their opinions on images that they get without changing any settings and only using provided profiles and without color correcting? That makes a lot of sense. I think I get it.

[Tim Dashwood]

Both of those log curves are used for "digital negative" capture workflows and will render the most dynamic range possible. Post-production colour correction will be necessary in either case. However, based on my own subjective experience shooting with the C300 I would say the Canon Log is not as flat as S-Log2 (only available to v3.0 upgraded FS700), which makes it a little more watchable without an on-set LUT preview.

[Joe Batt]

Thanks to everyone that posted. I think I have a much better grasp on how the cameras are being compared. Everything considered I think I'm going to order the nex700.