First Canon EOS C100 Short Hits the Web

[c.d.embrey]

Most people who buy a C100 will NOT be doing helicopter or underwater shots. Or have access to the flight line at the Charles de Gaulle Airport. Something that is relavant to the target market would have been better. I saw nothing that showed me why a C100 is superior to the compitition, and isn't that what a demo is supposed to do??

For those that complain about 4:2:0, I have a friend who shoots a lot of Green Screen with a 4:2:0 Sony EX3. His commercial clients are happy with the results.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

I would have been super impressed with this video, but frankly it needed more eyeball close-up shots. Just a few more, and I would have been satisfied. MORE EYEBALL CLOSE-UPS. MORE!!! EYEBALL. Close-ups.


(I'd be curious to know if this footage was shot 4-2-0 internal, or 4-2-2 to an external recorder - picture quality looks rather good, despite the crap video)

The external is 4-2-0, otherwise they'd be chopping the legs off the c300.

 

[Axilrod]

I'm pretty sure this thing will do 4:2:2 with an external recorder...

 

[Axilrod]

Thanks to the Black Magic camera....

The BMCC has it's flaws too. The 2.3x crop is brutal, ergonomics are weird, the battery is internal and can't be removed, and shoot RAW with it and you're going to spend a fortune on SSD's, not to mention you need some serious computing power to deal with RAW. The IQ and price are excellent, but as a whole it's pretty far from perfect.

 

[AG]

Thanks to the Black Magic camera....

The BMCC has it's flaws too. The 2.3x crop is brutal, ergonomics are weird, the battery is internal and can't be removed, and shoot RAW with it and you're going to spend a fortune on SSD's, not to mention you need some serious computing power to deal with RAW. The IQ and price are excellent, but as a whole it's pretty far from perfect.

Agreed, Plus to add to that battery solutions are large and cumbersome and make the cameras ergonomics change, and storing old footage for customers using so many SSDs would mean TBs of backup space. Thats adding thousands of dollars to the costs.

 

[bp]

The external is 4-2-0, otherwise they'd be chopping the legs off the c300.

Then consider the legs chopped. Unless a whole bunch of people are wrong, the HDMI out is 4:2:2.
i.e. http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=12862
Have seen "confirmations" in a couple other places as well - but who knows...

Doesn't mean I'm going to rush out and buy this camera, but ... what I more firmly grab on to is the hope that it's a sign that perhaps Canon isn't QUITE as worried about cannibalizing itself as we all thought, and might consider opening up other doors via firmware fixes in order to deal with competition

 

[christian]

All the lame critiques of this promo are just that. . . .lame!

It's a product demo - not a narrative masterpiece. If you want that, go watch a real movie. Not a "PRODUCT DEMO!".

In those minutes I saw more about what that camera was capable of than if I'd seen some wannabe art-house director pull himself over an emotive narrative.

You guys need to get with the program and stop living up your own rear ends.

It's just a tool to make pictures - nothing more. . .

First post here and last, this community is poor.

Have fun.

 

[bradleyg5]

This camera is a better deal at 6800 than the black magic at 3000. Black magic is 2.5k interpolated, this is 1080P but pulled off a 4k readout. Look at the charts on EOSHD, the black magic has moire issues in fine detail and is not any sharper than a C300.

C100: removable battery, buttons, viewfinder, neutral density, sensor four times as large, XLR inputs, autofocus, smooth iris control, platform neutral workflow, much better low light, double the rated battery life

No way you are getting a Black magic running for the list price, that camera is near unusable out of the box. The fact that you have to format the SSDs with a mac filesystem basically means it would be unusable in a PC workflow.

The c100 you could actually do regular commercial work, it's ready to go out of the box.

You could actually make a living doing low budget works with a camera like the C100. The black magic is a movie camera and not much else.

 

[AG]

This camera is a better deal at 6800 than the black magic at 3000. Black magic is 2.5k interpolated, this is 1080P but pulled off a 4k readout. Look at the charts on EOSHD, the black magic has moire issues in fine detail and is not any sharper than a C300.

C100: removable battery, buttons, viewfinder, neutral density, sensor four times as large, XLR inputs, autofocus, smooth iris control, platform neutral workflow, much better low light, double the rated battery life

No way you are getting a Black magic running for the list price, that camera is near unusable out of the box. The fact that you have to format the SSDs with a mac filesystem basically means it would be unusable in a PC workflow.

The c100 you could actually do regular commercial work, it's ready to go out of the box.

You could actually make a living doing low budget works with a camera like the C100. The black magic is a movie camera and not much else.

Well said.

 

[JasonATL]

No way you are getting a Black magic running for the list price, that camera is near unusable out of the box. The fact that you have to format the SSDs with a mac filesystem basically means it would be unusable in a PC workflow.

Your statement about using it on a PC is needlessly over the top. I've been taking a serious look at the BMD Cinema Camera for a couple of weeks now. I actually pre-ordered one, but I might cancel before it ships (I figure I have a while to wait). I am in a PC-only environment, so I'm taking seriously the workflow issues when considering this camera. But, being on a PC isn't one of them. You don't need much computer know-how to be able to use a Mac formatted drive in a PC environment, especially for just retrieving footage.

Your main point - that $3000 won't give you a camera that you can take out of the box and start shooting with - is correct. But, let's add it up: Macdrive (Windows software to format a disk in Mac format) is $40 (available as a download). An SSD runs in the $200-$400 range, depending on capacity. SSD dock? Mine just arrived today (I decided I needed it to do more backups anyway): $50. Rig? Maybe. I'm looking at a simple handle so that I can hand-hold it. That's another $50 or so (you can spend more, but if you do, you should add the same to the C100). An external battery: $300. What are we up to? About $4,000 (that's overestimating). I could almost get two BMD CC's for one C100.

The points about resolution may or may not be valid. I think it remains to be seen as to which has a sharper image. The images from Mario at OneRiver are quite detailed. Should we discuss dynamic range and the power of shooting raw? I think anyone on these forums from the stills side understands the benefits of raw vs. a compressed image. If you want to shoot a quality codec where you've nailed the white balance and exposure, fine. You can and have tons of space with a codec (actually, a choice of them) that is far superior to that of the C100.

Crop factor. Yes, definitely a benefit of the C100.

I suspect that a lot of people will make a good living with the BMD CC. Same can be said of the C100. Beauty is, we both get to use our nice EF-mount glass!

 

[JasonATL]

Agreed, Plus to add to that battery solutions are large and cumbersome and make the cameras ergonomics change, and storing old footage for customers using so many SSDs would mean TBs of backup space. Thats adding thousands of dollars to the costs.

Not if you store it in the same compressed ratio that the C100 gives no choice but to store it in. I can render out raw footage from the BMD CC to the codec of my choice for storage. Do I lose the benefits of raw? Yes and no. I can do white balance and exposure adjustments before rendering it out (and after the shoot!). What is more, I can choose the quality with the BMD CC. 4:4:4? Yes. 4:2:0? Yes. 4:2:2? Yes - and I can record in this, too.

What is really a half-truth about your statement is that you are making an apples to oranges comparison. I can't store huge raw files from the C100 because it can't shoot in raw! I can, however, elect to store/archive BMD CC footage in a compressed format. Indeed, if I compress it as much as C100 footage is compressed from the camera, then no additional cost in hard drives is necessary compared to the C100.

No need for the hyperbole. C100 looks like a great camera. Is it clearly better than a BMD CC? No. Does it have some benefits over the BMD CC? I think so. Great price for the C100? I wish. Otherwise, I might have pre-ordered at C100 rather than a BMD CC.

 

[AG]

Otherwise, I might have pre-ordered at C100 rather than a BMD CC.

Dont take this the wrong way but that last like makes your whole post seem more like a justification for your purchase more than a valid argument.

As mentioned before the costs of a proper rig for the BMCC is expensive.

http://store.redrockmicro.com/Catalog/ultraCageHandheldRigs/Camera-rig-for-blackmagic-cinema-camera-ultraEvent

$1061 is a little more than the $50 you guesstimated.

The difference is you don't need to add the extra to the C100/300/500 because they come with the extra handle and other parts that make it work for handheld.

HDD capacity sure you can record in Pro Res format and get yourself some more storage space, but if thats the case then whats the point of buying a camera that is designed to capture 2.5k raw?
And lets also be serious, you dont even go onto a job with 1 SD/CF or SSD Card, you carry multiple. So you can also multiply your figure for SSDs by 4 (at least).

Same goes for battery solutions, you have to buy V-lock batteries (plural as in more than 1 if you are planning on using this as a commercial camera, min purchase 4) and mounts and chargers......all more $$.

External storage, again you mention compressing the format for storage, which is a viable option, but it also increases handling time when data wrangling, So instead of being able to do just a say 240GB dump from an SSD to a backup solution you now have to go through the process of converting it and then backing it up, Increasing work flow and killing time management.

As for the initial cost of the BMCC.

The way i see it, its like that happened when RED released the Scarlet. Initially people would rant and rave about how much cheaper it was compared to the C300 or other competitors. Then the truth about cost of ownership came out and the "cheap" figures almost doubled.

Why? Because people cant justify paying $16k for a camera as an outright purchase, but they can afford to buy the $5k body, then they can justify spending a bit here and a bit there until they have spent the same $16k but in multiple purchases.

I understand that not every camera is for everyone.
At the same time i understand that the C100 is not perfect, but then neither is the BMCC, FS100, FS700, C300, C500, F3, Alexa, Scarlet, Epic....etc etc. Every camera has its faults.

 

[JasonATL]

AG - I think this is an interesting issue. Why don't you try to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the cost?

In doing so, don't compare a $1000 rig to what you get with the C100. Rather, try one that provides the same points of contact (top and side handles?). Your credibility will thank you.

Also, to make it apples-to-apples, I suggest adding the cost of an external recorder (and accompanying SSD's) to the cost of the C100 in order to get a COMPRESSED 180 Mbps 4:2:2 codec (no need to argue raw here, as you can't get it from the C100). My guess on an external recorder would be around $400 plus SSD's.

When you add batteries to the BMD CC, don't forget to add them to the C100, too.

Perhaps your knowledge and experience here could enlighten us as to how much better of a deal the C100 is. I'm willing to listen.

 

[AG]

Perhaps your knowledge and experience here could enlighten us as to how much better of a deal the C100 is. I'm willing to listen.

Never said it was a better deal. I just stated that your calculations were off.

But there is no need to be patronising about it.

 

[bp]

Not sure how this thread has turned into a comparison discussion with the BMC, but...

If we're talking out-of-the-box, apples-to-apples issues here, the sensor size / crop factor is a big one for me.

I like the occasional wide (or even an ultra-wide) shot in my projects. I use the 24L on my 5D3 quite often - especially flying steadicam. The 2.4 crop factor on the BMC's tiny sensor would mean that none of the lenses I currently own would accomplish shots like that. Even my 14mm would become a more standard wide 33mm. So a new UWA lens would have to be added to the list of accessories needed to make it workable. Whereas the 14mm on the C100's 1.5 crop would be ~21mm, more akin to what I'd typically shoot at 24mm on the 5D3.

Now, if you do a lot of wildlife or sports vids - that 2.4 crop might actually be a benefit. heh

 

[DanThePhotoMan]

I see the BMCC has already been mentioned a good bit, but just for the guy who thought about upgrading from the mk3 to the c100, I would definitely take a look at this video:

Comparing the Cinema Camera & 5D Mk III on Vimeo

This puts the BMCC in perspective against the mk3, and it literally blows it out of the water. Now, I have nothing against the mk3 as I own one, but for video I would definitely take a closer look at the BMCC over the c100. You could get the BMCC, matte box, shoulder mount, SDD drives, an L lens, larger external display and a follow focus and still have change left over for the same price as just the c100 body. That, my friends, is tempting.

And this is just my opinion, but I'd still rather the Sony FS700 over the c100 from the looks of it. Same price range and the FS700 has a 4k firmware upgrade coming out.

It all honestly boils down to what you want though. People have made beautiful films dealing with the horrid H.264 compression in the 5Dmk2 (and nearly all other DSLRs). If you're serious about making movies, you'll find a way to work with whatever you get.

-Daniel

 

[Policar]

I see the BMCC has already been mentioned a good bit, but just for the guy who thought about upgrading from the mk3 to the c100, I would definitely take a look at this video:

Comparing the Cinema Camera & 5D Mk III on Vimeo

This puts the BMCC in perspective against the mk3, and it literally blows it out of the water. Now, I have nothing against the mk3 as I own one, but for video I would definitely take a closer look at the BMCC over the c100. You could get the BMCC, matte box, shoulder mount, SDD drives, an L lens, larger external display and a follow focus and still have change left over for the same price as just the c100 body. That, my friends, is tempting.

And this is just my opinion, but I'd still rather the Sony FS700 over the c100 from the looks of it. Same price range and the FS700 has a 4k firmware upgrade coming out.

It all honestly boils down to what you want though. People have made beautiful films dealing with the horrid H.264 compression in the 5Dmk2 (and nearly all other DSLRs). If you're serious about making movies, you'll find a way to work with whatever you get.

-Daniel

4k is marketing fluff. No one needs it. Have you every tried posting in 4k? Exactly. The c100 has a great sensor, awesome image processing, much less skew, an anti-alaising filter, everything but a solid codec, but an external recorder fixes that. An L lens does no good to make the BMC's sensor the right size or fix skew and aliasing...what l lens is wide enough to get you a usable FOV on the black magic camera? 18-85 is the range of every cinema package on super35 (zooms or 18, 25, 35, 50, 85 primes). That's equivalent to 12-55. So that's an 11-16mm zoom and a 17-55mm zoom and those are f2.8 on a tiny sensor, so shallow focus and low light suffer. There's no compelling prime kit and the UWA options are poor.

That video is obviously biased (the part on wide angle is particularly ludicrous), and consider how much additional work in post it takes working with raw footage. What if you shoot ten hours of that for an event video. How do you cope with that? 24Mbps has the advantage of recording a lot of footage--for doc or videography or wedding it's not so bad at all. Furthermore, apply HTP (which is only necessary in the tough shots that video focuses on) and sharpen the 5D footage in post and you've split the difference in that video at the expense of a bit more grain. But let's be realistic...the 5D is no video monster in the first place. Or just compare the C100 and BMC camera and I think you'll be surprised that the C100 outdoes it in everything except flexibility of the codec in post, again an easy fix and having that small codec can be nice for other gigs.

There's a lot of hype around buzzwords like 4k and raw, thanks mostly to Red. But 90% of new tv shows are shot on the Alexa (which can use raw, except no one is shooting in that format for tv, just for cinema). Likewise almost all content is posted in 2k or 1080p for tv or for cinema. And there are no consumer 4k tvs with any market share and 2k DCP is still the standard. If you can sell clients on 4k and raw, it's worth something, because clients are as ignorant as most people who buy into that kind of fluff...except they also are less likely to care about it (but some will!). But for actually getting good images to delivery the C100 is a lot more impressive than its specs and conservative design indicate, and I would take on over the BMC camera ten times out of ten EXCEPT in a studio setting or a greenscreen shoot or such.

 

[DanThePhotoMan]

@Policar

I think you missed the part where I said "I" prefer the FS700. For people like me who shoot the majority of their work for display in the cinema, what would be the point of purchasing of a lesser camera for the same price? I will say 4k is definitely pointless if we're shooting for youtube/vimeo etc, and ads hours upon hours into the work flow, but this is being marketed as a pro-sumer camera for all I can see. I just don't see a point in giving that much money to canon if there are better options available for the people who actually use the camera for displaying their footage in the cinema and/or film festivals.

 

[Policar]

That's fine, but I'll reiterate, how much work have you actually done posting in 4k? It's not easy. To this day, 90% of vfx shots are done at 2k, and most DCPs are delivered in 2k, too. People whose work goes to cinemas (most major studios) are still only delivering in 2k and 1080p. The Genesis and Alexa are pretty popular cameras and neither approaches 4k resolution. Very few films shot on red are delivered in 4k; most 4k film scans are downressed at some point along the chain--the only reason for scanning at that resolution is to avoid aliasing (nyquist), not to get extra detail.

Congrats on the festival acceptances and distribution deals, though. And, as a frequent festival reject who used to work for a company that picks up the occasional indie film, I mean that--it's an incredibly tough field and anything you get is a real win. To have the majority of your content see theatrical distribution or even major festival play is an incredible thing and something to be extremely proud of. That said, I've never heard of a festival that cares about format, beyond whether it's HD or not. Most submissions are made on DVDs. The fs700 does look like a nice camera, though, and I could see why someone would choose it over the cs100, though not for the 4k resolution specifically. I would take either over the BMC camera for form factor and sensor size, primarily.

 

[Axilrod]

I don't think anybody will ever release a camera that one will love. I for one love the versatility of the C100, sure not the best video around but does show me the versatility over the BMCC, but then again these two are completely different beasts. I love what both offer. Filmmaking has become democratized by so many options to choose from I am happy that I have so many choices than ever before and everything else can be fixed via firmware upgrade ;D

This thread hasn't had any responses in 2 months....









































































































































































































____________________________________________________________________________________
Lexia-3