Shield3

Properly exposed C-log on the C100 II looked to me, with the right lens, every bit as good as the 5d3 in raw.  I shot the latter for 2+ years (started in about May of 2013).  At the end of the day there's just way too many compromises with the 5d3 raw - tedious workflow (comparatively speaking), camera lock ups, audio sync headaches *if* ML raw even decides to record audio (yes I've used modern nightly builds).  Reliability?  Don't even compare the two.  No instant backup, no ND filters, no XLR audio, no Autofocus, shorter record times, more expensive (1000x or faster) CF cards, super dodgy 3x zoom mode that locked me up often.
If I'm shooting something I can do 10 takes on the 5d3 would be a good choice.  If it's a bride walking down the aisle, 100 out of 100 times I'd grab the c100.  If I need continuous AF, good audio, long battery life, long record times, quick turnaround, (you see where I'm going here) I'll grab the c100.  With the Sigma 18-35 1.8 it's like 27-54 2.8 of full frame, and you can still throw that 85 1.2 and blow the hell out of the background on both cameras.  Hell in the summer I had the 5d3 OVERHEAT shooting ML raw.  Never seen the c100 hiccup ever.   That image does have the magic sauce, but so does the c100 in C-Log.  I prefer it over the 1dc due to all the headaches.
No reliable 1080p30 or 1080p60 raw on the 5d3; c100 II has this.  I hate looking at sports shot in 24p, don't you?
I can go out with the 10-18 STM, 18-135 and 55-250 and shoot just about anything.  Dead silent AF with face tracking, great audio, great image and reliable.  No menu diving to toggle the WB, ISO, F/Stop, better focus peaking and punch in while recording.  An actual EVF instead of strapping on a damn loupe!    But hey...if you must have static shots with the FF DOF and raw, the 5d3 is the only thing in this price range.

Properly exposed C-log on the C100 II looked to me, with the right lens, every bit as good as the 5d3 in raw.  I shot the latter for 2+ years (started in about May of 2013).  At the end of the day there's just way too many compromises with the 5d3 raw - tedious workflow (comparatively speaking), camera lock ups, audio sync headaches *if* ML raw even decides to record audio (yes I've used modern nightly builds).  Reliability?  Don't even compare the two.  No instant backup, no ND filters, no XLR audio, no Autofocus, shorter record times, more expensive (1000x or faster) CF cards, super dodgy 3x zoom mode that locked me up often.
If I'm shooting something I can do 10 takes on the 5d3 would be a good choice.  If it's a bride walking down the aisle, 100 out of 100 times I'd grab the c100.  If I need continuous AF, good audio, long battery life, long record times, quick turnaround, (you see where I'm going here) I'll grab the c100.  With the Sigma 18-35 1.8 it's like 27-54 2.8 of full frame, and you can still throw that 85 1.2 and blow the hell out of the background on both cameras.  Hell in the summer I had the 5d3 OVERHEAT shooting ML raw.  Never seen the c100 hiccup ever.   That image does have the magic sauce, but so does the c100 in C-Log.  I prefer it over the 1dc due to all the headaches.
No reliable 1080p30 or 1080p60 raw on the 5d3; c100 II has this.  I hate looking at sports shot in 24p, don't you?
I can go out with the 10-18 STM, 18-135 and 55-250 and shoot just about anything.  Dead silent AF with face tracking, great audio, great image and reliable.  No menu diving to toggle the WB, ISO, F/Stop, better focus peaking and punch in while recording.  An actual EVF instead of strapping on a damn loupe!    But hey...if you must have static shots with the FF DOF and raw, the 5d3 is the only thing in this price range.

Properly exposed C-log on the C100 II looked to me, with the right lens, every bit as good as the 5d3 in raw.  I shot the latter for 2+ years (started in about May of 2013).  At the end of the day there's just way too many compromises with the 5d3 raw - tedious workflow (comparatively speaking), camera lock ups, audio sync headaches *if* ML raw even decides to record audio (yes I've used modern nightly builds).  Reliability?  Don't even compare the two.  No instant backup, no ND filters, no XLR audio, no Autofocus, shorter record times, more expensive (1000x or faster) CF cards, super dodgy 3x zoom mode that locked me up often.
If I'm shooting something I can do 10 takes on the 5d3 would be a good choice.  If it's a bride walking down the aisle, 100 out of 100 times I'd grab the c100.  If I need continuous AF, good audio, long battery life, long record times, quick turnaround, (you see where I'm going here) I'll grab the c100.  With the Sigma 18-35 1.8 it's like 27-54 2.8 of full frame, and you can still throw that 85 1.2 and blow the hell out of the background on both cameras.  Hell in the summer I had the 5d3 OVERHEAT shooting ML raw.  Never seen the c100 hiccup ever.   That image does have the magic sauce, but so does the c100 in C-Log.  I prefer it over the 1dc due to all the headaches.
No reliable 1080p30 or 1080p60 raw on the 5d3; c100 II has this.  I hate looking at sports shot in 24p, don't you?
I can go out with the 10-18 STM, 18-135 and 55-250 and shoot just about anything.  Dead silent AF with face tracking, great audio, great image and reliable.  No menu diving to toggle the WB, ISO, F/Stop, better focus peaking and punch in while recording.  An actual EVF instead of strapping on a damn loupe!    But hey...if you must have static shots with the FF DOF and raw, the 5d3 is the only thing in this price range.

Properly exposed C-log on the C100 II looked to me, with the right lens, every bit as good as the 5d3 in raw.  I shot the latter for 2+ years (started in about May of 2013).  At the end of the day there's just way too many compromises with the 5d3 raw - tedious workflow (comparatively speaking), camera lock ups, audio sync headaches *if* ML raw even decides to record audio (yes I've used modern nightly builds).  Reliability?  Don't even compare the two.  No instant backup, no ND filters, no XLR audio, no Autofocus, shorter record times, more expensive (1000x or faster) CF cards, super dodgy 3x zoom mode that locked me up often.
If I'm shooting something I can do 10 takes on the 5d3 would be a good choice.  If it's a bride walking down the aisle, 100 out of 100 times I'd grab the c100.  If I need continuous AF, good audio, long battery life, long record times, quick turnaround, (you see where I'm going here) I'll grab the c100.  With the Sigma 18-35 1.8 it's like 27-54 2.8 of full frame, and you can still throw that 85 1.2 and blow the hell out of the background on both cameras.  Hell in the summer I had the 5d3 OVERHEAT shooting ML raw.  Never seen the c100 hiccup ever.   That image does have the magic sauce, but so does the c100 in C-Log.  I prefer it over the 1dc due to all the headaches.
No reliable 1080p30 or 1080p60 raw on the 5d3; c100 II has this.  I hate looking at sports shot in 24p, don't you?
I can go out with the 10-18 STM, 18-135 and 55-250 and shoot just about anything.  Dead silent AF with face tracking, great audio, great image and reliable.  No menu diving to toggle the WB, ISO, F/Stop, better focus peaking and punch in while recording.  An actual EVF instead of strapping on a damn loupe!    But hey...if you must have static shots with the FF DOF and raw, the 5d3 is the only thing in this price range.

This just isn't true if you know how to expose properly. There's a tendency to over-expose the CX00, but its image is better overall than the 5D III RAW (and yes I've owned both since they were released, and no I don't think either is TOTL amazing, either). The CX00 is cleaner, has better DR, has better noise texture, is sharper, has better color rendering for video and holds highlight saturation properly, etc. The lack of "full frame" look is subjective and that does favor the 5D for most users who like that look.
This is a common myth spread by people without light meters lol. Having owned both and used both on the same shoots, I'd frequently hear this myth repeated and was dumbfounded. Had any of these people actually A/Bd the cameras with proper exposure settings and proper handling of super whites? You'll quickly notice that the 5D RAW's highlights desaturate in an unsightly way when pulled back in ACR whereas the 100-109 IRE range from AVCHD recovers very cleanly, leading not only to better DR overall, but to proper color retention in the highlights without chroma clipping (as Sony and Panasonic exhibit). The issue is that people tend to vastly overexpose the CX00. C LOG puts 18% gray at 32 IRE or something, VERY low. RAW is gamma agnostic, but exposing the 5D like you'd expose a normal dSLR works well and leads to a pleasant over/under even exposing by eye. You can't do this with a log gamma and WideDR has its own problems.
That said, it also shows how a more difficult workflow leads to a better image. I work with a lot of poorly shot CX00 footage and most of the 5D RAW footage I see online looks great. I think it's more intuitive to expose the 5D but harder to do everything else, its workflow demands attention and the practice of shooting with it is a little more rigorous. People get better results because they put in more work setting up shots and in post and because the exposure is more intuitive for those making the leap from a dSLR. 

And you are still complaining about the image?, could you please share some of your work with the C100 and the atomos shogun and tell us what is wrong with the images?.....could be camera operator lack of skills?

Looks like you never used the C100 I or C300 I with a Ninja Star, you get pristine images from this combination, I highly recommend to add a Ninja Star to these cameras, specially in low light....and since the Ninja Star use generation one Cfast cards the cost is very affordable.....
STM lens are incredible with the C100, I am just using the 18-135 and I am very happy.....what are you going to use for night shooting?, I am going with a Canon 50mm 1.4 and a Canon 28mm 1.8, but I would like to hear from other options out there.....

I have to plus-1 for the C100 mkii. I recently sold my other cameras to buy a secondhand one (GBP3000) and although I've been pretty much confined to quarters due to a combination of work and bad weather since it arrived, what little I've been able to shoot has given me an experience I never had with any of the others. I loaded the log footage into FCPX, applied a technical LUT and felt my jaw hit the floor. Just an all-round gorgeous image. Experiments in the kitchen in low light were also mandible-lowering, it simply knocks the socks off anything I've ever used before in the way the IQ holds up at high ISOs. Add to that the ease-of-use, the astonishing battery life, the parsimonious-yet-gradeable codec, the NDs and you have a machine that you just want to pick up every time you have a moment spare.
I have the 55-250 and 18-135 STMs arriving over the next few days and, weather permitting, an afternoon filming my son in a tennis tournament at the weekend and I just can't wait.
I'll just also add that I've had an idea for a micro-documentary brewing in my mind for some time, but just couldn't figure out a way to do it single handed with my previous gear. Just my around-the-house experience so far with the C100 mkii has finally given me the confidence to set to work on it and I have a meeting soon with the subject to get it all in place - so thanks, Canon!

Dynamic Range tests have become something of a joke nowadays. They remind me of the lovely shoet story titled Many Moons written by James Thurber, where every guy in the kingdom believes himself to be smarter than the other.
Cinema5D rated the A7S at 12 stops of dynamic range, so rating the GH5 at 10-11 is actually pretty good. They probably remove 30% of the manufacturer's stated figures for the RED cameras. RED says 18 stops on the RED Weapon and Cinema5D will conveniently say12 stops. Or less. 
I feel, that they have a curious bias against Panasonic Cameras. I personally hate anything Panasonic right now,  since my GX85 fiasco refuses to end. But, for the price, there isn't a better camera manufacturer for Indie Filmmakers out there. Panasonic gets way too many things right. Having 1 stop less of dynamic range doesn't even matter. Cinema5D praised the Sony RX100 to no end. And yet there was no mention of testing of great cameras like the G7, GX85, G85 etc. They definitely have a bias against Panasonic.
And unlike me, they don't really gave against justifiable reason. 

I did. Tested the A99 and the VG900 at a Sony Store when they came out. Both were so clearly behind the curve it was painful.

Watching that Subaru video makes me very angry.  Angry because the a99 ver 1 looked about 1/1000th as good in video mode.  This camera looks spectacular, and Sony pissed me off with the version 1's video.  Still bitter 5 years later.  I am going to knock my a6500 off the end table now.  Oh wait, I won't, it'll break and I'll have to wait a month for Precision Camera to fix it. 
C100 Mk2 gets it pretty good - I assigned a button to quickly toggle AF on and off - I can track my son's baseball players running down the first base line and it'll track all the way.  Of course there is, of course, no perfect camera, and I am limited to that damn center box for AF.  The 1dxII I thought was worse in AF mode - but it could have been the extra anchor point of the EVF stuck on my face vs. holding the camera (1dxII) at arm's length.

Well using AF in video mode isn't for slackers; sometimes you just need to.  Especially if you want to shoot things that move.  I might want to be at F/8...or F/1.4.  Don't know if it's changed, but the biggest problem is you can't even "PUSH" focus in Manual exposure mode - you have to toggle back to the damn Program Auto settings (i.e.F/3.5).  Even the 5d3 that wouldn't AF in video really at all I could "Push AF" to my actual "in use" exposure settings and begin rolling.  It's a problem, period.  With my A99 I I had the 24/2 lens and was able to put a piece of tape and hold the aperture wide open - it would AF all day in live view / video mode.  It's a self-imposed limitation that makes this one, for me, simply out of the question.
Not everyone is shooting controlled shots with their gear.  People rock back and forth with interviews, and you can forget tracking a bride down the aisle unless you're sure you want F/3.5.  P mode AF only SUCKETH, period.  But 11 FPS @ 42MP is pretty damn impressive.
Yeah it's a disgrace that it overheats.  Just unacceptable.

So if we focus on the art, the emotion of the combined 'lens filter', we can categorize looks so others can replicate themselves* and quit arguing about sensor size. I think Mattias' pics look cool, and if a MF->FF focal reducer plus cheap MF lenses can be used to recreate those looks, that's pretty neat- gives new love to neglected unused MF lenses
 
* this was not meant as a cloning comment  

And the dual record feature for instant backups, or relay recording, or the punch in while recording ability, the fact you can set the EVF to B&W only (or both it and the LCD).  I have my punch in set to enable peaking.  I wish they would have set the waveform in the viewfinder as well, but that's really the only downside.
For me personally in high contrast scenese I overexposed C-log by about 2/3rds to 1 full stop and get really nice results in post.  I do try to stick to the native 850 ISO and use the built in ND whenever possible.
I love my little A6500 for quick snaps and a much smaller footprint, but man do I ever have to think when I'm using that thing.  Sony has got to copy Canon and come up with a quick menu of the most used settings - the C100 I have my framerates, media record mode (AVCHD/MP4), metering options (spotlight etc) and the APS-C mode all quickly accessible.  I'm not sure I'd get that much more out of a 4k C100 unless it oversampled like 5k/6k and then I'd worry the rolling shutter would be a problem.  The C100 is just amazing.
If you're getting one, I highly recommend the 10-18 STM and (believe it or not) the 55-250 STM.  Both of those are cheap and punch above their weight, even if not "fast" lenses.

Good choice, you won't be disappointed! 

Yeah a C100 mkII has to be at the top for the money.  It is just laid out so well, both for tripod and run n gun, no way you can beat it if you don't need 4k. And since it is down sampled from 4k to 1080p in camera that saves a step in post. ISO 320 to 80,000 is crazy good, built in ND filters, and to be able to record two different formats at the same time is a crazy good idea.
Yep, I have made up my mind, that is the camera I am buying. I don't want to have 10 things hanging off a camera to make it work.

I've used the C100 (Mk1) and bmpcc a bunch.  The C100 is the best all around camera for sure, such a delight to use and the quality really punches above it's weight.
When it fires on all cylinders, I still prefer the pocket image. 
But you can't discount the "not getting in your way" factor of making a good image, and that's where the C100 is second to none I think. 

My pick is the C100ii used if you can find one for $3k.  Part of the image is FOCUS, and it has the DPAF.  Part of the image could be 30p/60p, which it has (and the 1dc does not in 4k).  Love the 5d3 raw image as well but man it's just too flaky and I don't trust it 100%.  Audio is part of the overall image too, as well as built in ND's - so to me XLR/ND, Canon C-Log, reliability and gorgeous 1080 24/30/60 make the C100 the winner.  Battery life, great EVF and EF mount (and face tracking with some EF-S lenses) just add icing to the cake.  Add a cheap recorder for more flexibility in post.
Skin tones too.  Also long record times without overheating, and the simplest damn joystick to instantly toggle between ISO/WB/shutter/F-stop.  I don't really have to think that much when I pick up the C100 II - I like that. 
But I haven't shot the BMPCC or some of these older Sony/Red cameras - so what do I know?

My pick is the C100ii used if you can find one for $3k.  Part of the image is FOCUS, and it has the DPAF.  Part of the image could be 30p/60p, which it has (and the 1dc does not in 4k).  Love the 5d3 raw image as well but man it's just too flaky and I don't trust it 100%.  Audio is part of the overall image too, as well as built in ND's - so to me XLR/ND, Canon C-Log, reliability and gorgeous 1080 24/30/60 make the C100 the winner.  Battery life, great EVF and EF mount (and face tracking with some EF-S lenses) just add icing to the cake.  Add a cheap recorder for more flexibility in post.
Skin tones too.  Also long record times without overheating, and the simplest damn joystick to instantly toggle between ISO/WB/shutter/F-stop.  I don't really have to think that much when I pick up the C100 II - I like that. 
But I haven't shot the BMPCC or some of these older Sony/Red cameras - so what do I know?

But I guess if I was a very famous director that is as old or older than I am, well they are probably dead , it would be hard to change over to digital if you have been shooting film all your career. I can see not wanting to do that.

Based on very recent experience - Canon C100 mkii.

My assessment as well in regard to the C100.  It's not a done camera....especially the C100MK2.  It captures very sharp HD images that are very cinematic looking and upscale well to 4k.  I did enjoy this test though and I have my eye on picking up a 1DC.  I would love to see a comparison of the 4k from the XC10 on a day scene with the 4K from the C300MK2.  I bet they would be really close.

Hi there
Thanks for a very interesting post. A nice side by side of the three cameras. However, I’m not totally in agreement with your summary of the models.
The reasons I still use the C100 are numerous and for shooters like myself, posting to the web, it is still a relevant camera.
You have based your assessment purely on image, (which is fair enough) and from that test I actually think they look pretty well matched. But there are other factors to take into consideration.
The C300, your winner, (as it would be mine), is 4.8 times the price of my C100 new (6x more than I paid for an as new, used model with DPAF) so I damn well hope it is a better camera. The same can be said of the 1D C at double the price. (B&H prices).
Ok the AVCHD codec is not great, but I think it actually stands up pretty well for web-based content. If you need a stronger, better codec then a Ninja can provide that.
Sharpness… on the shots in your test that were actually in focus, the sharpness seemed comparable. Again the external recording on a Ninja is fractionally sharper on the C100. The DPAF is brilliant for fast moving stuff…
But compared to the 1D C, whose images I actually find the most pleasing in your test, the C100 has a far better form factor. The DSLR’s are horrible to use for video. I find built in ND’s, a proper handle, on-board audio, phantom power, peaking, wave form, Zebras etc leave any DSLR sadly lacking. These are to me far more important than a marginal picture quality improvement).
It would have been nice to see a properly exposed shot using the Wide DR shot on the C100, for which you give praise. As I’ve not used it much.
So would I swap the C100 for a 1DC … no, absolutely not !! My days of using DSLR’s for more than a B roll camera are over. Would I swap if for a C300. Hell yes, if someone would give me the ten grand extra over what I paid for a C100.
So while I agree with your results order for these cameras… I also feel the C100 boxes above its weight, the only current camera I would possibly we willing to fork out for is the FS5.. a better camera for sure, but I’d need to adapt my range of Canon glass and its AF is not as good. So until I absolutely need 4K I’ll quite happily stick with my aging design C100.
Cheers
Gareth

If the hack is not stable it's not worth using it if you're doing a paid job. 

The codec on the 5d3 isn't what killed it.  It's the shit pipeline Canon put in between the 14 bit data coming off the sensor and before the data is written to the card.  The codec itself is fine; it's doing a fine job lightly compressing the crappy "baked in" data its getting.  Case in point, the 1dc in 1080p24 mode didn't look any better, and neither does the 1dx II (and they are using MJPEG).  Whatever Canon does to that image (going from 14 bit raw to the 8 bit output) is what kills the image.  Codec is the least of your problems - the c100 original had a puny 24 Megabit AVCHD file and walked all over the 3 aforementioned cameras in 1080p24.  The lowly XC-10's 1080p24 does as well; same codec I believe in 1080p mode (ALL-I or IPB). 
Moral = line skipping / binning is not your friend.