Jump to content
lafilm

Shane Hurlbut says "Canon C100 Mark II is a DSLR KILLA" !

Recommended Posts

Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

Disagree. It's NOT a DSLR killer. Because it's a different league of cameras for a different purpose. If you want to call something a DSLR killer it would be a mirrorless GH4/a7s/NX1. I would take a C100 mk II over any of these any day, but it's not the same type of camera and not a fair comparison... This is just like saying a C500 is a C300 killer. Doesnt make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

"Better resolution" froess. Can only laugh at that. You must be completely blind to say the 1080p on the C100 Mark II has better resolution than the NX1 internal 4K.

 

But is the 4k usable!!! I have seen from Cinema5d site and Samuel Hurtado on Dvxuser giving the A7s between 28 and 30 ms for rolling shutter in full frame mode. To put that in perspective the best cameras are in the 12/18 ms and ................. the Nikon D90 about 33ms. So already the A7s is very near to the D90 uhhhh and I have seen test that the Samsung is worst than the A7s. So has jello cam D90 considered good to shoot in 2015 now because it is 4k.

 

Another thing to consider is DR and low light. Cinema5d has measured the Samsung at about 10 stop which is very low to todays standard. Well some of there readings of cameras are a little bit odd in terms of DR, but from nearly all the footage I have seen the DR seems very low, blown out highlight and crushed shadows in winter UK is quite conclusive about the Cinema5d readings.

 

As the C line is very very sharp with its downscaled 4k sensor, I think the super low light and much better DR makes it a much better image and camera overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always been very critical of the Canon Dslr video, but the C line is very solid in terms of image quality. People can say what they want but for $ 5500 this is a very very solid camera and you have just to look at the success of its predecessors to know that this will be another hit. The C300 was a bit overprice and the C100 had no slowmotion capability at all. Now the C100 mark 2 rectifies all that. My only wish would be 10 bit even if the 8 bit codec on the c line is considered to be very solid.

 

In six month this camera will be selling for $ 5000, only 1500 more than the 5d3 which was considered industry standard (in these price range) only 2 years ago and you get so much more for the money. The only dslr I would consider close to it would be a D750 with a good EVF and an external sound recorder like the Tascam DR-70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd trade in my A7s for the C100 II any day even if it had a Shogun. The reasons: better color, built in ND, low rolling shutter, auto focus,  better IR control, better communication with Canon glass, etc. 4k? I've yet to be asked by anyone for a 4k deliverable. For punching in during post it can be great or a complete disaster (when you don't control the post). For work, I shoot mostly Amira/Alexa at lowly 2k or 1080p. Audiences, producers and directors (the people who pay our bills) don't care about the rez at that point. Until people get living rooms big enough for an 85" TV or you enjoy sitting five feet away from a standard size set, the difference is negligible. 

 

Where Hurlbut comes up short in his assessment is in the price. Saying 5500.00 is comparable to a DSLR with the requisite trimmings misses that you'll still need hand held rigging for the C100 II as well as an EVF if you plan to use it on your shoulder. So add perhaps 1200.00 for shoulder rig, 900.00 for decent EVF, another 300.00 for EVF mount and you see where this is going. 

 

I think his strong leaning towards Canon are its color profiles. His tests bare it out. It may be 8 bit but when your colors are 90% on in Canon Log, your grade isn't going to be so far gone that 8 bit becomes a major issue.

 

The main problem I have with the C100 II is rear mounted EVF, non - standard height (you have to buy special baseplates if you plan to use rods and MB) and stupid placement of iris wheel (when it's on your shoulder).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a $5K camera that you can take out of the box, plug in a microphone, start shooting and it looks great. What is wrong with that exactly?

 

Well put it this way, I'd be disappointed if it didn't do that for $5k. Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd trade in my A7s for the C100 II any day even if it had a Shogun. The reasons: better color, built in ND, low rolling shutter, auto focus,  better IR control, better communication with Canon glass, etc. 4k? I've yet to be asked by anyone for a 4k deliverable.

 

4K is the future. 5K display already on an iMac. Can't tell the difference? I don't think so. C100 II will be obsolete in a year and you will have to sell it and get the C100 III with 4K. Also it makes no sense to spend $5k on one when you can get an FS7 for $3k more which is 3x more future proof - 4K, slow-mo, 10bit output. Personally I need 180fps 1080p of the FS7. Even if you don't, then I fail to see what the C100 II offers over the FS7. If you are laying down that much money for a camera, the stretch to the FS7 isn't a huge problem. Unless you can barely afford or justify the C100 II, in which case you shouldn't really be spending $5k on a camera in the first place. For the commercial shooters these cameras are aimed at, $5k or $8k - doesn't matter, the camera will pay for itself. For everybody else, stick to $3k and avoid the nasty depreciation of pro gear. That's my advice. Invest in lenses and ideas instead.

 

Now let's speak artistically... Canon's EF lenses are designed for full frame. They are wasted on a Super 35mm sensor. It is only the A7S which gives you such good video from a 4K full frame sensor, at half the price of the C100 II. So artistically, A7S would be my choice over the C100 II. The rendering of the corners, look of the lenses, field of view, and in particular the look of a fast F1.4 aperture at 24mm wide angle is something you simply can't get on the C100 II. You can however get it on an FS7 thanks to Speed Booster.

 

I don't care about built in ND filters. How many variable ND filters can I buy for the $2500 I save by using the A7S!? Whats more I can adjust exposure much more precisely with a variable one. On the C100 II I still have to adjust the aperture, can't always shoot at F1.4 & 180 deg shutter.

 

The ergonomics are overrated. EVF is still shoddy compared to the Fuji X-T1 for instance. The shutter dial is too small and in the wrong place. Rather stick to controlling aperture mechanically on my Contax Zeiss or Nikon AI lenses.

 

Your opinions may differ. Just be aware that they're flawed ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

off course our opinions may differ, that's the whole purpose of this forum i suppose. just as resolution is not that important to some people. personally i prefer the "pros" of the canon c100 mark II compared to the other cameras everybody is talking about, those pros being nice colours, nice lowlight performance, super 35, good audio and nice ergonomics. i do understand people buying cameras that are future proof but i certainly do not agree that this camera will be obsolete by next year. technicologically outdated in it's specs? sure, but the image will still be good in proper hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, you make valid points. 

 

You must remember some people enjoy the look of S35 much more than FF. Of course much easier to pull focus (especially if you're alone). 

 

The C100 Mark ll has a 4K sensor inside. It down samples to 1080p for you, no need to deal with that in post.

 

Advanced Hi Def image (the best in the industry in my op) and super fast turn around time. Don't get me started on the color science from Canon..it's the best in the biz.

 

Sound (built in mic on body as well) ND's, Wide DR, Frame Guides, Zebras, False Color, Waveform, Vector.

 

Fits perfect in the hand and lighter than a 5D3.  Shoot and edit the same exact day..and the damn thing looks filmic. (yea that nasty word)

 

​However…your biggest mistake was suggesting that the new 2015 Canon C300 Mark ll 4K  is going to sell for $8K…forget it...try $15 or $16K with advanced frame rates, S35, internal 4K, 3.5 pounds…and they'll sell more than any other 4K cam yet made ;)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

off course our opinions may differ, that's the whole purpose of this forum i suppose. just as resolution is not that important to some people. personally i prefer the "pros" of the canon c100 mark II compared to the other cameras everybody is talking about, those pros being nice colours, nice lowlight performance, super 35, good audio and nice ergonomics. i do understand people buying cameras that are future proof but i certainly do not agree that this camera will be obsolete by next year. technicologically outdated in it's specs? sure, but the image will still be good in proper hands.

 

The colours are nothing unique, you can get the same look on other cameras, in particular the NX1 in 4K is very Canon-like. The A7S just needs the right grading when it comes to S-LOG, as would the C100 in LOG, though clipping of bright blues can be an issue. The GH4 is giving us 10bit out of HDMI. Something to consider for VFX heavy shoots. The best colour of all though, comes not from the C100 II but from raw. Blackmagic, Digital Bolex, Magic Lantern and F5 / FS700 to Shogun.

 

Low light performance is eclipsed by the A7S.

 

Super 35mm - indeed, but no PL option on the C100 II so you are pretty much stuck with shooting through the centre of full frame lenses. EFS lenses are a bit crappy compared to PL cinema stuff aren't they!

 

The ergonomics are overrated. It is nice handheld with the articulated screen & IS on the lens. But then, so are other options.

 

It's a solid option. A work-a-day kinda tool. I dislike the lack of innovation really and there's nothing 'special' or unique about the image it produces. Trust me there isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advanced Hi Def image (the best in the industry in my op) and super fast turn around time. Don't get me started on the color science from Canon..it's the best in the biz.

 

OK own up! What department of marketing do you work for at Canon USA? Best in the industry? Try telling that to Alexa, F65, Dragon users delivering high def 1080p for broadcast. Exactly what the C100 II is designed to do, but not as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The C100 Mark ll has a 4K sensor inside. It down samples to 1080p for you, no need to deal with that in post.

 

Oh great, so it puts strain on the processor in the camera having to do the intensive calculations in real time, increasing the heat generated, decreasing the cameras ability to set it's processor to tasks that can't be performed better in post (Like speeding up the reading of the sensor and thus reducing rolling shutter). I think I'd let my 5960x do it, to be honest, with my choice of algorithm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4K is the future. 5K display already on an iMac. Can't tell the difference? I don't think so. C100 II will be obsolete in a year and you will have to sell it and get the C100 III with 4K. Also it makes no sense to spend $5k on one when you can get an FS7 for $3k more which is 3x more future proof - 4K, slow-mo, 10bit output. Personally I need 180fps 1080p of the FS7. Even if you don't, then I fail to see what the C100 II offers over the FS7. If you are laying down that much money for a camera, the stretch to the FS7 isn't a huge problem. Unless you can barely afford or justify the C100 II, in which case you shouldn't really be spending $5k on a camera in the first place. For the commercial shooters these cameras are aimed at, $5k or $8k - doesn't matter, the camera will pay for itself. For everybody else, stick to $3k and avoid the nasty depreciation of pro gear. That's my advice. Invest in lenses and ideas instead.

 

Now let's speak artistically... Canon's EF lenses are designed for full frame. They are wasted on a Super 35mm sensor. It is only the A7S which gives you such good video from a 4K full frame sensor, at half the price of the C100 II. So artistically, A7S would be my choice over the C100 II. The rendering of the corners, look of the lenses, field of view, and in particular the look of a fast F1.4 aperture at 24mm wide angle is something you simply can't get on the C100 II. You can however get it on an FS7 thanks to Speed Booster.

 

I don't care about built in ND filters. How many variable ND filters can I buy for the $2500 I save by using the A7S!? Whats more I can adjust exposure much more precisely with a variable one. On the C100 II I still have to adjust the aperture, can't always shoot at F1.4 & 180 deg shutter.

 

The ergonomics are overrated. EVF is still shoddy compared to the Fuji X-T1 for instance. The shutter dial is too small and in the wrong place. Rather stick to controlling aperture mechanically on my Contax Zeiss or Nikon AI lenses.

 

Your opinions may differ. Just be aware that they're flawed ;)

 

4k the future? The viewing distance of a computer monitor is not much more than an arm's length. So sure 4k is noticeable. It's 9 feet in a living room. I leave the math up to you.

 

Not sure how much doc work you do or testing of variable ND's you've done but variable ND's have considerable issues in terms color cast, IR contamination, as well background flaring / contrast issues and then usability (have fun using it with a sun shade).  Compare the IQ of any variable to a straight ND. You'll see background contrast especially in the bokeh is muddier as well as color distortions. If continuity figures into your shooting, the latter can be a big problem. Even with Heliopans.

 

Regarding EF lenses on super 35mm as a waste, how can you justify that? Loads of shoots, professional and amateur alike use them to great effect. Virtually every paying doc  job uses a 70-200 at some point. In super 35 you get considerably less fall off towards the corners. 

 

Concerning the Fs7, I think it's a great concept on paper. Until I've used it or seen some good tests/footage from it, it's just specs. And if specs were everything, the Alexa would be a waste and the industry would be dominated by f5/55's. Have you had a chance to shoot / grade Fs7? Love to know what you think, flawed opinion or not.

 

Hurlbut's review of course is tainted by his biases like all of our opinions. For you, 4k seems to a be a priority. For many, like me, it's not. The consistency with Hurlbut that I share as well is that he leans towards cameras that produce rich but natural flesh tones and low noise. All of his tests use faces  and color charts (not trees, buildings, cars, bridges, etc). He's trying to discern the camera's accuracy and ability to re-produce that which he thinks is most important, flesh tone. Based on this, I thought the IQ overall from his C100 II tests looked outstanding (except bad clipping in one shot). Hopefully, he does a proper A/B with Fs7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I purchased an FS700 with SpeedBooster as an upgrade to the 5D3. While it has many well known features and advantages over the 5D3, the one area where the 5D3 is superior is color for skintones. Talent even finds the iPhone 5S skintones superior to the Sony for skintones. Now that I have an A7S, which has slightly better skintones than the FS700 and a better overall image, the FS700 is only relevant for super slomo. I would expect the FS7 to have better skintones than the A7S but not a good as anything from Canon.

 

Where folks ponder why Canon holds back on features, it's curious why Sony holds back on skintones, given how beautiful the F35 and F65 look.

 

The top motion picture cameras are known for top skintones (ARRI). The stop stills camera maker is also known for skintones (Canon). It makes sense in both cases as pleasing skintones (not necessarily chart accurate!) are what the audience cares about the most (this is rooted deeply in evolutionary biology: emotional communication and health status).

 

Unless Sony has upped the FS7's skintone game, the C100m2 will likely far outsell the FS7.

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...