Lintelfilm

Coming from a screenwriting perspective, I have always thought content is king with films. And being a NO BUDGET, one man band filmmaker I have to make successions in a lot of areas. I really respect the craft of cinematography, but I would barely consider myself a capable camera operator, so DPAF is one of those priceless tools that cannot go overlooked for me.
Everything I have seen from C100s look great and have more than enough quality for a film at my level.
Hell, I would be happy making a feature with just the XC10, if I could get, shallow depth of field, close ups with a comparative 50mm focal length. Since that isn't possible with the XC10, I am compelled to get a second camera. Since I write mostly thriller and horror screenplays, that are slow burn with little dialog, I'm unsure if a C100 is overkill since the XC10 will be my meat and potatoes camera, but since I may be the world's worst colorist, I am worried that I will have major issues trying to match 80D footage with XC10 CLOG.
I know I sound like a broken record, just constant concerns I am having. I guess I could always buy an 80D and test it out and if it doesn't work I can return it to BH.

I love the C100 image but a huge part of the reason I got it (I came from a speed boosted GH4 and BMPCC - never owned a C100 MK1) is the use-ability factor. It's just a fantastic all-rounder. For the majority of work I do it's just so painless to get a great image and audio in 99% of situations. I was very reluctant to give up the BMPCC and still love the image but it wasn't practical for work.
For narrative stuff I don't think there's such a compelling case for a C100 as you have time and space for shooting and the image will be judged a bit more vs "real" cinema cameras like BM, RED, Alexa. But if you like the image why not? C300 looked great in Blue is the Warmest Colour. If you find a good deal you may find you love it and if not you can probably sell it without loosing too much. Check out Noam Kroll's C100 review from ages ago - he tried it for narrative vs his BMCC and liked it a lot.
 

... who uses a gorillapod and has the 80D with side flipped out screen and wears sunglasses to hide the fact he's checking the framing on the right of the camera. The M5 already borrows some of its look from the Canon G5X. They should've implemented the same display solution. Or atleast have given it the same as found on the G7XII.
But there are clear reasons vloggers consider Canon. Quick shooting. Quick turnarounds. AF is the smoothest out there, color is the nicest out of the box, tons of compatible lenses and accessories native to the system (and quite adaptable (more so than the Nikon mount)). 1080p keeps editing not that demanding and allows for quick rendering and uploads. It the least effort with acceptable results. But the M5 falls short I think...

I use both. 1080 when I want slow motion or IBIS and 4K the rest of the time. Unless for some reason I want to save card space. But as I said before the 4K image offers what the C100 doesn't. My current project involves a lot of landscapes so I'm using the XC10 a lot in 4K and time lapse. I avoid shooting deep DOF with the C100 because it can't match the XC10 4K there. If light isn't good I avoid using the XC10 as it can't match the C100. But in terms of colour, dynamic range, etc the cameras are very similar in all modes. 

Yeah I've used them in the same video a few times but they're not really cut together as such so not much use as a comparison. My Durham Cathedral Lego films use both. I'm working on something atm that requires them to cut seamlessly and I'm not worried abut it. They're very similar in terms of colour.

Yeah, that's my issue. If I made my living doing this, I would get a C100ii in a heartbeat, but my goal for filmmaking is really just as a promotional outlet for my screenwriting. 
Do you have any videos where you mix the xc10 and c100?

Thanks man. Yeah it's a fantastic combo. But Canon's pricing only makes sense if the camera pays its own way. 
I'm testing the 18-135mm STM this weekend so may post something later ...

Damn, really really nice work. Those Sigmas with the C100ii really work beautifully together. Great, now I want a c100ii and the sigma 18-35... Haha. Just kidding. But not really. 
Oh yeah, your logo animation is great!!!

I have the Sigma APS-C Art zooms (18-35mm and 50-100mm) which I use almost exclusively with my C100MK2. I also use the Canon 10-18mm STM a bit and like it (I call it my "Revenant lens" as the AF and IS, used at 14mm with the C100 top handle, allows very similar shooting setup (albeit not quite so high-end!) to Lubezki's
I've recently bought the other STM zooms (18-135 and 55-250) as backup for when the Sigmas aren't practical. I'm not sure how useful they are to me though. If I want ease of use I have my XC10 and don't yet see much that the STM's offer over it. But because they're so cheap, light and small it seemed worth having them on standby. I've also just ordered a 50mm 1.8 STM for when I don't want to carry the 50-100mm.
The Sigma's are just fantastic. The 18-35 is a known quantity - just beautiful. The 50-100mm Art I love also - the image quality is IMO out of this world and cuts perfectly with the 18-35. The two together make a full set of cine primes that work great with DPAF. They are both quite noisy with AF though (another reason I got the STM's). And the 50-100 is pretty huge, so not for everyone. With the C100 I find it fine but wouldn't like it for video on a hybrid. I wrote a review of it for Dan Chung over on Newsshooter.com if you're interested in hearing more (including thoughts on using it with the C100MK2): http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/05/05/guest-post-first-impressions-of-the-sigma-50-100mm-f1-8-art-lens-by-matt-james-smith/
Here's the video I made to go with it:
and this one (a personal piece for a friend with a new baby) is the same setup:
Other lenses on my list of long term purchases:
Canon 35mm f2 IS
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II IS
Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS
Tokina 11-20mm f2.8
However I'd honestly be happy shooting with just the two Sigma's for the rest of my days (only if they added IS and silent AF would I change them).

Great stuff. I really like the stuff you've done with the XC10 as well.

Canon maps C-Log at 32% IRE for 18% gray. When I shoot that way I get noise in the darker parts of my footage--makes me a little crazy. So, generally, I try to shoot at 40% IRE for 18%, and top out at 75 or 80% for 90% white and I get much less noise in the darker areas and still preserve my highlights pretty well. 
People have different ideas about this, but there is a general consensus about not starving Canon sensors regarding light. I know Shane Hurlbut shoots Canon Log at higher IREs than Canon recommends and likes the results. For a long time I was confused about how to best expose C-Log--mainly because I had  such a horrible time making Sony S-Log look like anything decent. But Canon C-Log is much easier to grade and, though I'm sure I'll get a lot of disagreement on this, I think C-Log is pretty flexible regarding exposure. Just don't blow out your highs (keep them below 80 IRE and you'll probably be fine.
I do a lot of shooting in TV mode, especially out of doors or where I have little or no control of the surroundings. Rather than adjusting exposure compensation I leave it where I would normally shoot non-Log gammas. I find this footage grades well, preserves the highs adequately, yields low noise in the blacks, and works great with C-log 3 709 LUTs you get from Canon for their C300 Mk II. In contrast, when I adjust exposure compensation to yield 18% gray at 32 IRE (or thereabouts) I get noise in the darker areas of the image.
You may find you don't like the results, but they can't shoot you for trying. 
PS
As an afterthought consider the sensors of the C100 Mk II and C300 Mk II are large and better, pound for pound, regarding low-light. So exposing Log 18% gray at 32 IRE yields a reasonably clean image in low light most of the time. So, it seems to me the XC10 with its smaller sensor might require exposing the image at higher IREs than the C300 mk II to yield similar results. Is this reasonable thinking--or what?

I've never tried vintage lenses on my C100 MII but would like to. Right now I use the tokina 11-16, sigma 18-35, canon L zooms, canon 35 / 50 / 85 primes. Here's a piece I shot on the 18-35: 
 
 
 

Don't you have an 80D? Using Andrew's Log profile, fast lenses (e.g. Canon 50mm 1.8; Sigma 18-35) and sticking to shallow DOF (i.e. what you want it for) by ensuring subjects are within a few meters of the camera, you'll get results very comparable to a C100. The benefits of clean, high res cameras only really come into their own for deep DoF shots with loads of detail. The old Rebel cameras, 60D, 7D, 5DII, etc were always fine when shooting portraits etc because A) out of focus areas negate moire and B) the codec & processing that caused those cameras to be soft struggles much less when large parts of the image are out of focus - allowing bitrate and processing etc to do more in the in-focus parts of the image. Also the contrast between OOF background and in focus foreground makes the subject appear sharper than it actually is. Besides, if you're shooting people you don't want them to be too sharp. As the 80D is significantly better than any of those cameras you should be getting shallow DoF results that cut perfectly well with the XC10's wider shots. 
Something that doesn't get talked about much is that 4K actually makes far more sense on small sensor cameras, because you're always going to have deeper DOF and therefore far more detail to deal with. So for Panasonic it makes sense for them to have led the 4K move because (apart from the fact they want to sell 4K TV's) they have the smallest ILC sensors. Even their HD cams were much higher res than APSC counterparts - and really they had to be, because the MFT sensor always meant more detailed scenes (less OOF areas).
 

Exactly. They cut very nicely, but only at lower ISO's. The HD image from the C100 (mkII in my case) is superior to the XC10's image even in good light, but not that noticeably. But the C100 has the best 1080p 4:2:0 image below 50mbps by a very long margin. The XC10 has the characteristics of a smaller sensor - more noise, a hair less dynamic range, more depth of field. Having said all that, if you shoot 4K 305mbps 4:2:2 on the XC10, it outperforms the crap out of the C100 for colour and detail in good light. 

You can definitely match them as long as the XC10 has enough light. Go above 1000 ISO and really discerning clients may notice. Even in great light though, if you pixel peep you can see the XC10 is pulling from a smaller sensor. 

This is excellent feedback, many thanks to you all for the encouragement. It is obviously time to upgrade and I'm looking forward to shooting the new project on a rental C100ii or C300ii.

export the master file in pro res and tell them you shot it on whatever their favourite camera is. 
 
If the image is broadcast legal, in focus and has minimal noise you should be fine. i suspect you probably lens your work nicely- which is where so much of the look comes from.
 
As a Gh4 user i can strongly reccomend going with that and speed boosters for your current lenses.

I don't have the 80D yet. I was waiting to see how the M5 matches up to it. Since it was sharing a sensor, I thought they were going to include the higher bitrate video as well...
They didn't.
Plus I wanted to do some tests on a cheaper camera to see if I can match Canon LOG and Reid-LOG. So, I just picked up a dirt cheap M10 to run some tests with.
Plus plus I will probably wait for a Black Friday sale and try to get the 80D a little cheaper.
But your points about close ups are very valid. This is why Canon DSLRs became so popular in the first place... Shallow depth hides the inherent budgetary and time restraints common in no budget filmmaking.
Good point about M4/3rds as well. The problem I had found with every other brand of camera I have owned, other than Canon, is that the colors require more tweaking to look "good," and I am not that great with color. I think Panasonic is getting closer with their newer lines, but it still takes some time in post to acquire that "organic, cinematic" look and texture that comes naturally out of the box with Canon's color science.
A couple months ago when I bought the XC10 and shot some footage with the 1080p C-Log, I realized in the first moment I looked at that first clip I don't even need 4K or actually want it in a lot of situations. I think 4K takes a naturally gifted colorist (which I'm not) or a good dose of FilmConvert to get footage to look "organically cinematic."
And this is my fear... Even with the 100mbps from the 80D. So let me ask... how close is the 1080p C-Log from the XC10 compare to the C-Log from the C100? Are they indistinguishable? Can you intercut the two, without any noticeable difference, as long as the correction/grade matched?

No doubt. The C100 image is beautiful. But the extra sharpness, cleanness and higher bit rate of the 80D - combined with shallow DOF, a log-like profile and some nice glass - is going to look a great deal closer to a pro image than a Rebel ever could. Personally I still like the 5DIII's native H264 image quite a bit (esp for shooting people). The 80D is arguably better in some regards. I'd be interested to know what kind of DR can be coaxed from video on an 80D with the EOSHD c-log profile, as the sensor is rated at over 13 stops for RAW stills (much better than the 5D3).

I see what you're saying but I still feel like I could pick out an 80D versus a C100 in a blind comparison test 100% of the time. Canon 1080p DSLRs have a softness that is unmistakable at this point. 

Hah, that's a C100mkii... 

The XC10's ISO performance - especially in HD mode - is very good for a 1" sensor. Compared to a GH4 in 4K (not too big a size difference: 2.9x vs 2.4x crop) it is noticeably better.
The thing is that it's pointless making such comparisons as the XC10 has a fixed lens with an aperture that gets slow at standard and long focal lengths. So although you can do noise comparisons at equal ISO's, the interchangeable lens cameras are always going to do better with half-fast glass (let alone a speed booster). As I said before I find myself ramping the ISO right up in only moderately dim situations unless it's a wide shot. Although noise performance is good at high ISO's, the situations in which you have to ramp it up are way more frequent.
It's a fantastic camera - I really love it for it's ergonomics, ease of use (with a few niggles that I've found perfectly good workarounds for), unsurpassed shot-grabbing ability, incredible stabilization and beautiful image quality. But there's no doubt it's put to best use in decent light. However it's basically an evolution of a classic camcorder and compared to most of those it does superbly in low light. 
Again it's a fantastic companion for the C100. The compliment each other very well. The C100's strengths are low light and shallow depth of field (where 4K is less important). The XC10 is great for deep, detailed DoF (4K), timelapse and as a small, inconspicuous all-in-one shot grabber (incredible IS and well implemented automatic modes). If you want both in one camera you pay a hefty price (money, size and weight) for a C300MkII.

The XC10's ISO performance - especially in HD mode - is very good for a 1" sensor. Compared to a GH4 in 4K (not too big a size difference: 2.9x vs 2.4x crop) it is noticeably better.
The thing is that it's pointless making such comparisons as the XC10 has a fixed lens with an aperture that gets slow at standard and long focal lengths. So although you can do noise comparisons at equal ISO's, the interchangeable lens cameras are always going to do better with half-fast glass (let alone a speed booster). As I said before I find myself ramping the ISO right up in only moderately dim situations unless it's a wide shot. Although noise performance is good at high ISO's, the situations in which you have to ramp it up are way more frequent.
It's a fantastic camera - I really love it for it's ergonomics, ease of use (with a few niggles that I've found perfectly good workarounds for), unsurpassed shot-grabbing ability, incredible stabilization and beautiful image quality. But there's no doubt it's put to best use in decent light. However it's basically an evolution of a classic camcorder and compared to most of those it does superbly in low light. 
Again it's a fantastic companion for the C100. The compliment each other very well. The C100's strengths are low light and shallow depth of field (where 4K is less important). The XC10 is great for deep, detailed DoF (4K), timelapse and as a small, inconspicuous all-in-one shot grabber (incredible IS and well implemented automatic modes). If you want both in one camera you pay a hefty price (money, size and weight) for a C300MkII.

The XC10's ISO performance - especially in HD mode - is very good for a 1" sensor. Compared to a GH4 in 4K (not too big a size difference: 2.9x vs 2.4x crop) it is noticeably better.
The thing is that it's pointless making such comparisons as the XC10 has a fixed lens with an aperture that gets slow at standard and long focal lengths. So although you can do noise comparisons at equal ISO's, the interchangeable lens cameras are always going to do better with half-fast glass (let alone a speed booster). As I said before I find myself ramping the ISO right up in only moderately dim situations unless it's a wide shot. Although noise performance is good at high ISO's, the situations in which you have to ramp it up are way more frequent.
It's a fantastic camera - I really love it for it's ergonomics, ease of use (with a few niggles that I've found perfectly good workarounds for), unsurpassed shot-grabbing ability, incredible stabilization and beautiful image quality. But there's no doubt it's put to best use in decent light. However it's basically an evolution of a classic camcorder and compared to most of those it does superbly in low light. 
Again it's a fantastic companion for the C100. The compliment each other very well. The C100's strengths are low light and shallow depth of field (where 4K is less important). The XC10 is great for deep, detailed DoF (4K), timelapse and as a small, inconspicuous all-in-one shot grabber (incredible IS and well implemented automatic modes). If you want both in one camera you pay a hefty price (money, size and weight) for a C300MkII.

The faster focus is a pretty important update. It was much too slow before and led to missing loads of shots.
The low light improvement (HD only) is important too as ISO is the only tool you have in dim situations with the XC10. I regularly max it out when shooting at the longer end. 
I'd say it's an essential update.
I wish they'd port the shutter angle option and waveform etc that the XC15 got over to the XC10 with a new update. No shutter angle always seems like a very weird thing for such a video oriented camera. It would also take all the pain away from calculating timelapse shutter as the XC10 only does TL as 2x, 4x, 10x, etc.
Talking of which, time lapse on the XC10 doesn't get talked about much but it's a fantastic aspect of the camera. Auto-generated, high bitrate, 4K 4:2:2 TL videos with a built in ND and C-Log! Unless you're a proper timelapse nut and want to shoot RAW stills, the XC10 has to be one of the best in-camera time lapse options out there, particularly if you're wanting a painless and not-data-heavy workflow. The small sensor is much less of a disadvantage for TL too, due to generally wanting deep DOF and long shutter speeds letting plenty of light to the sensor (I haven't tried it at night mind you). I'm shooting time lapse more than ever before with this camera.