Another Mk3 or the C100?

[Dan Burnap]

I do mostly low light events and deliver both long and short form edits (long form with HMC150s)

Lugging two camera systems and all their bits and peices around is getting stressfull and a PITA.

The DSLR type camera is where I want to be for all my work but using it for a long form shoot is worrying due to all the shortfalls that come with DSLR shooting mainly the record time and audio. I know there are solutuions but would prefer not to have to solve anything from the get-go.

The C100 as one camera and the mk3 as the second is my original idea but I am worried after reading comments from another user (I think Nigel Barker) that mixing the two cameras (albeit a c300) isnt a good match as the C300\100 image is so much better \ different.

Maybe I would be better getting a 6D and all the kit needed instead to have more consistant footage? After purchasing that lot it wouldnt come to much less than buying a C100.

Any thoughts?

[Adrian Tan]

I've been tossing and turning over the same sorts of questions. Plus other questions: for instance, how badly do I really need a new camera now? Is it better to wait a generation and see how people respond to the Blackmagic camera? Presumably the next generation of Canon cameras will have to fix at least some of the things that people customarily complain about, like limited slow motion options, 8-bit recording, and price tag. And, once the clean HDMI is enabled on the Mk3, will using an external recorder allow you to bypass the 30minute recording time (I've got no idea; anyone know?)?

On the Mk3 vs C100 question, assuming you're definitely going to buy one or the other, here's some thoughts:

-- What you're paying the extra $4000 for is better sound quality and image quality (sharpness, dynamic range), and convenience (eg ND filters, recording time, battery life, onscreen indicators).
-- You're worried about carrying around two systems, but won't you likely be in the same situation with a Mk3+C100? Different batteries. Probably different cards (unless you're shooting to SDHC only). Even if you're just shooting on SDHC, could you simply take a card out of one camera and put it into the other camera if you had to? Presumably they're formatted differently. Maybe the main thing you gain over an HMC, though, is that the lenses can be shared more easily.
-- Personally, I'm not too worried about cutting. Looking at Nigel's videos, there are shots I think I can tell are taken with the C300, mainly for reasons of sharpness, but it's not a sore-thumb, night-and-day difference for me. Perhaps I don't see all the work Nigel's put into grading them! And if I have trouble distinguishing them for sure, I doubt any real life client will really notice... This is for online. I'm sure the difference will be more obvious in other delivery formats... On the other hand, companies I've worked for have not infrequently cut together Ex3 footage with DSLR footage, and the clients never complain!
-- Broadcast-ability is one thing on my mind. In Australia, I doubt the specs for acquisition are as stringent as the BBC or Discovery. But I think most broadcasting work (thinking of freelance camera jobs) require more of you than DSLRs. So, C100 or C300 seems to open up more potential revenue.
-- I regard the smaller sensor of the C100/C300 as a plus if I also have a larger-sensor camera. Means I can get more distance out of my lenses when I want to.

I don't know how you'd weigh all of this up. For me, this weighs in the direction of a C100, since it opens up capabilities I didn't already have, and the difference in price I think is worth it. But I'm more undecided on the question of whether I should buy a new camera at all at this point in time, or wait a year or two.

Some people say that you shouldn't buy a new camera till you need one as opposed to want one. But I don't think the want/need line is that clear-cut -- for instance, recording times do drive me mad with a Mk3, and create the potential to miss a shot, but, given that I can work around them, does that make longer recording times a want or a need?

[Nigel Barker]

We left the C300 at home last weekend & shot a wedding with three 5D3s & an XF105. We will be doing the same this weekend for the last wedding of the season. The images out of the C300 are just so much better that they look out of place. We could use it as the wide safety camera with the XLRs but the XF105 does that job superbly & it would be such a waste of the C300. When I can shoot with one camera I will use the C300 but it's less work in post to use matching cameras & frankly the image quality form the 5D3s is good enough for our clients.

[Dan Burnap]

YOu almost had me convinced Adrian..until Nigel confirmed my fears again!

It would be great just to get TWO C100s but that gets seriously expensive.

Nigel, I had a look at some of your videos and as Adrian suggests, I couldnt really spot any obvious diferences between shots. Is it more pronounded on DVD \ Blu-ray?

[Nigel Barker]

Perhaps we are just more sensitive to the difference in look as we do know which shots were from which camera. It is more evident for Blu-Ray on a 60" plasma rather than Vimeo. It's both the higher resolution & the wider dynamic range with no blown highlights that make the C300 footage easy to spot for me. It's more a problem of making the 5D footage look bad which it isn't really just not as good as the C300.

A big bonus with the C300 footage is that you can pull stills off the timeline & print up quite large photographs (the 1/50 shutter means that motion blur may be a problem though). You could propose to the couple that they don't need to hire a photographer as you can provide equivalent reportage coverage.

[Tim Bakland]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

You could propose to the couple that they don't need to hire a photographer as you can provide equivalent reportage coverage.

That's quite another can of worms.

[Adrian Tan]

Another thing on my mind about this... what are the transfer speeds like from an SD as opposed to a CF?

I'm not technically-minded at all, but SD seems considerably slower to me. Maybe 2 to 4 times slower when I upload cards to my Nexto drive! Not sure of exact times. I'm sure comparative speed depends on hardware. But even in best case scenario, isn't SD going to be a lot slower than CF?

If you're on a time limit, this is surely another thing to bear in mind for a Mk3 vs C100 decision.

(Not to mention that F5 and F55 might now affect the pricings of everything...)

[Nigel Barker]

It was true historically that Compact Flash was much faster than SD but things have changed recently. SanDisk Extreme Pro CF are 90MB/s whereas SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC are not only slightly faster at 95MB/s but are half the price of the CF cards.

[Adrian Tan]

Have to add the thought that I've now talked myself out of a C100 and have gone with getting another Mk3!

Main considerations were:

-- Mk3 resolution, recording time, low light were good enough, and those are the main things that worry me
-- could get a Mk3 now, and use it for weddings next weekend, rather than having to wait
-- price savings, which for me are considerable. Used Mk3 is now around AU$2,800, vs around AU$7000 for brand-new C100. Add to that cost of new batteries, more SD cards, and a C100-fitting Z-finder, and I think maybe the price is closer to $8500.
-- less of a pain to match shots in post (per Nigel's suggestions)
-- uncompressed HDMI firmware update expected in April next year for the Mk3, meaning higher colour depth and bitrate if I need it, as well as longer recording times
-- transfer speeds. On paper, my SD cards say 95Mb/s and my CF cards 60Mb/s, but the equivalent amount of data does take me at least three times as long to transfer from SD with my current hardware setup! Not sure why exactly...
-- obsolescence. I figure a C100 will get older, and depreciate faster, than a Mk3. Canon has to step up its video game to compete with Sony's offerings. A year from now the video landscape will look completely different. But even ten years from now... maybe 50 years from now... a Mk3 will still be capable of decent photos compared to what else is out there. I've recently had photos from a 15-year-old digital camera published in textbooks.

[Noa Put]

maybe 50 years from now... a Mk3 will still be capable of decent photos compared to what else is out there.

That's because it's a photocamera.

obsolescence. I figure a C100 will get older, and depreciate faster, than a Mk3

You are worried about a camera being obsolescence while it has not even hit the streets yet?

I don't think you can compare the c100 to the 5dIII, the last one is still a photocamera with videofunctions, the first one is designed to be a real videocamera.

[Adrian Tan]

> You are worried about a camera being obsolescence while it has not even hit the streets yet?

Yes. :) Is that irrational? "Much more satisfactory camera next year" isn't the overriding factor in my buying another Mk3 now instead of waiting for a C100 (pricetag is probably the most important!), but it's not a completely insignificant factor...

"You can have one hot dog now. But if you wait a year, you can have 1.5 hot dogs."
Or: "You can have a hot dog now. But if you wait a year, you can have it at half price."

-- I think it's arguably rational to wait a year. Just depends how hungry you are.

It's true that there will always be a bigger or cheaper hot dog around the corner. But your hunger levels will keep rising in the meantime, so there's a point at which you're going to say "Stuff it" and buy one.

[Noa Put]

It's like buying a Iphone, before you manage to charge the battery they have a new version ready, twice as thin, twice as fast and even more expensive :)
I"m happy I don't have to worry about that kind of things, I just see what I expect, then what my budget allows and then see what's available now and buy based on any user experience I can find online. I see people often pre-order a new camera before it hits the streets and then go guessing in this forum about what it might or could do, never understood that. But it's thanks to these very early adopters I get to choose a better camera. :)

[Chris Harding]

Hi Noa

Very relevant point too!! I learnt the hard way with the Pansonic AC-130's They were totally unsuitable for weddings had lots of issues and the moment they came out I just had to have them. It's great that some people just have to have the latest and greatest but if we have a little patience they act as the testers for us and show up all the issues (and good stuff too, of course) That way we can make a much better and informed decision.

The other point is do you really need a new camera?? Will it take your business forward in huge leaps and bounds and pay for itself in a matter of months OR do you just want one cos everyone else has one??

I think the manufacturers rub their hands with glee when a new model is released because they know they will get a huge amount of pre-orders...shucks that's like paying for your new car before you get it and hoping it will great....even if it's not that great, the male ego says "I was one of the first to have one"!!

Nowdays I sit tight and wait for the sob stories to roll in ..if there are none then it's worth another look!

Chris

[Noa Put]

Preordering something that is only showcased by a manufacturer is always a risk, its like standing in line at a Apple store at the first day something new is released. By then the marketing department allready has done their job right. I don't like the fact of finding issues when I bhought something that was not mentioned before, a bit like the autofocus issue on your 130's. The manufacturer knows that for sure but they won't mention and the users only find out the hard way. But therefore it's always better to wait untill something new has been fieldtested so you can decide if any flaws are ok for you to work around.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

It's like buying a Iphone, before you manage to charge the battery they have a new version ready, twice as thin, twice as fast and even more expensive :)

or six months ago buying what Apple called the New iPad & discovering a couple of weeks ago that it is now the Old iPad.