Jump to content
DaveAltizer

Battle of the Canons! 1dc vs. C100 vs. C300mkii

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Hey mawnnn, the C300 II with ARRI compatible settings rocks: Canon Log 2, Cinema Gamma, and Production Matrix. Then use an ARRI LUT to Rec709 in post and add saturation & contrast as desired- really fast & easy:

We also use the 1DX II, and while it looks excellent, the C300 II with ARRI compatible color is like using an Alexa with autofocus. To speed up production and save diskspace, we use 1080p24 50Mbps (IPB) most of the time. 4K is used for wide shots that we crop in post (faster & easier than doing a 2 camera shoot). Ya gotta use the C300 II in production to really appreciate it beyond tests: it's underrated until you've used it for a while :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DaveAltizer

Thank you for this interesting comparizon! I still have one question: What about the native 1080p (FullHD, not downscaled from 4K) of the 1 DC? Is the 1080p footage more detailed / sharp / crisp (not as soft and mushy) than the native 1080p of other Canon DSLRs (eg 5d m4, 1 DX m2, 80D, etc.)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2017 at 4:01 AM, Arikhan said:

@DaveAltizer

Thank you for this interesting comparizon! I still have one question: What about the native 1080p (FullHD, not downscaled from 4K) of the 1 DC? Is the 1080p footage more detailed / sharp / crisp (not as soft and mushy) than the native 1080p of other Canon DSLRs (eg 5d m4, 1 DX m2, 80D, etc.)?

The S35 1080p mode is sharper than other canon DSLR. The full frame is about the same but still slightly better than 5D,6D etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gareth Watkins said:

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

I appreciate the comparison as well but completely agree with everything mentioned by Garth.

And the few but substantial improvements to the C100Mk2 take things up another notch... and I'd even say that it has an advantage over the C300Mk1.

Hands down the best combination of image, features and usability for the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, User said:

I appreciate the comparison as well but completely agree with everything mentioned by Garth.

And the few but substantial improvements to the C100Mk2 take things up another notch... and I'd even say that it has an advantage over the C300Mk1.

Hands down the best combination of image, features and usability for the price.

Totally agree, I just got a C100 with DPAF last December for US2,300, also a Ninja Star for US180, the price as more than right and the camera is really good.......and two XLR for my shootgun and a Lavalier, really is a good deal hard to beat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gareth Watkins said:

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd echo the sentiments of those saying there's more to the 1DC/C100 comparison than just the image. But I'd actually go the other way and say the built in mic and ND filter functions are exactly why I went with the 1DC. If you're like myself and many of my peers that make video and radio content, the ability to build up the 1DC (using the same high quality portable recorders and mics used to create our radio content) and break it down to go stealth, shoot b-roll or photos when needed is an extremely welcome advantage. Also, the 1DC is big enough to feel right when it's rigged up but still be small enough to fit in my Think Tank Retro 5.

But it really is about factoring in more than just the IQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ty Harper said:

I'd echo the sentiments of those saying there's more to the 1DC/C100 comparison than just the image. But I'd actually go the other way and say the built in mic and ND filter functions are exactly why I went with the 1DC. If you're like myself and many of my peers that make video and radio content, the ability to build up the 1DC (using the same high quality portable recorders and mics used to create our radio content) and break it down to go stealth, shoot b-roll or photos when needed is an extremely welcome advantage. The 1DC is big enough to feel right when its rigged up and still small enough to fit in my Think Tank Retro 5.

But it really is about factoring in more than just the IQ.

I'd say that many of us have multiple camera bodies, lenses, mics, audio recorders that we can employ under various scenarios anyway.

For me the C100Mk2 (with the handles off) and the 1DC are about the same physical size anyway. However, the pre amps in the C100 are solid.

The only thing missing are the hi-res stills... and the XF-AVC 305 Mbps. But hey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this post is getting some great comments. Thank you for taking the time to weigh in. 

My saying the C100 is done was an exaggeration for sure. Its a great camera and we have two of them here and use them every day. By no means is it done. However, I wouldn't buy one new or even used unless it were just a B cam. I shot a feature doc last year that had a limited theatrical release and some of the best shots on the big screen in it were shot with the internal C100 in Canon Log. Its totally still great. I was just exaggerating. 

 

C100 mk2 is much much better and I didn't have one to test otherwise I would have added that too.

1DC is such a freaking LOVE/HATE. I think if you think of it more as a RED or Blackmagic Cinema Camera and not a C300 you can enjoy it more. Its pure image goodness. Nothing else. And for what it is and for what it does...I don't think its comparable to anything else for the price it is currently second hand. I freaking love it and I cant wait to see what it looks like on the big screen when we finish this second doc. 

C300 mk2 is the best ever. If you can afford it....its the one to get right now. I wish the slow motion options were better...but from an ease of use standpoint and at an image standpoint...we love it and are thinking of getting one or just continuing to rent it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...