We take a look at some of the main differences between the Canon C100 and the C100 mk2 C100: www.proav.co.uk/eos-c100-eosc1... C100 mk2: www.proav.co.uk/canon-c100-mar... Music: Acoustic Breeze - Bensound.com
I'm about to buy the mk1. While the mk2 has some significant improvements, I just don't think it's worth me spending the extra thousand dollars on the mk2 considering it's a few years old right now. I'm upgrading from the DSLR world because I'm sick and tired of having to rig everything up, sync audio, and have limited record times. I mostly shoot local commercials, video depositions (I've been using an older Canon GL1 for those), and occasional weddings. Hopefully in a couple of years I'll do well enough that I can step it up even more. And while it may not be 4K, none of my clients are demanding it right now, and to be quite honest it would be a bit of an overkill since TV stations don't broadcast in 4K, and not everyone has the bandwidth to stream 4K video anyway. If they do I can just rent a 4K camera and pass on the cost to the client. I've seen and read several reviews of people still buying the C100 in 2017 and it's serving them very well.
I'm crazy, it's 2018 I had a gh5, i liked the slow mo i got, the 4k looked good. it was small so people didn't stare at me and can sneak some shots in places But .. a big part of me misses my Canon c100 mk1 and I am temped to buy a used c100 mark 2, it was just so easy to shoot with. long recording times variable nd filters xlr audio built in etc I think I will end up having both so I can get the best of both worlds or something lol.
I have 3 gh4, got a gh5 and now need to shoot some run and gun, have tons of canon lens so this makes sense. Still want to pick up UMP 4.6K for its dynamic range in controlled shoots.
Great comparison review and still relevant as both of these cameras are useful for people on a budget. Just ordered a mark 2 which we got for under £2000 looking forward to trying it out. thanks
Bravo! Great Video. This is what I needed as I'm in the market for a C100 and wasn't sure if the Mark 1 was work getting. Looks like the Mark 2 is on the horizon...
Hey, wanted to say, "Thanks for your great insight into these two cameras." I've been debating them, along with the Black Magic Cinema. I really like the features of this Mark II. I will probably get it. Thanks again! I'll be seeing your other shares as well. Kindly, LNJIV... Ciao!
Great explanation, I have to admit the images were very close. If anything the mark I looked better but not really sure on that. Looks like a lot of it is usability is vastly improved with the mk2 but price wise the mk1 may be a better starting point for me as a beginner film maker.
I am surprised that you didn't mention the addition of the joystick and menu buttons on the mark ii screen, which means you can remove the side handle for an even more compact and lighter configuration without losing any functionality except the wheel.
Blake Bauer I would say so. The 5D mk3 is good but the c100s have a smaller pixel count, and improved dynamic range, 4k Sensor to built in downscale 1080p. So essentially it's a 4K Image scaled down.
+420 Productions I dont think it is. The mk2 has improved the ailiasing and 'jagged edges' problem though which might be giving the mk1 some 'perceived sharpness' The image is certainly very close. Carl
No doubt it does seem sharper, but yes with some more 'jagged edge' or in body sharpness level. I think it's an in-body setting, so no 'real' impact after post... Jut to say : some very low sharpness settings in old cams (2010 & more) did really destroy details on files & reduced image definition (might seem unbelievable, but real).
Its hard to say really. Any change in ISO will introduce grain. Its just what you consider 'usable' for your work. Most people consider 3200-6400 usable, i've pushed it as high as 20,000 for some shots though. You just need to do your own tests to know what those higher iso's will look like so that you can make informed decisions while filming. Carl
but franckly think that u shouldnt say that, you are talking from a pro level and to say that u don't know ans i have to do tests made hate the camera before doing the rest.
They are very different cameras for different jobs. In controlled environments I would choose the Ursa Mini's and in uncontrolled environments I would choose the C100. Carl
yes - absolutely. I really need something out of the box without a rig except maybe focus follow, work with my EF glass and shone in low light (i shoot modern dance in theatres)
Currently a used Mark I is selling for around $850 US dollars..meantime a used Mark II is typically more like $1500 us dollars on average... while I definitely think the improvements made to the Mark II are extremely helpful for filmmakers, that massive jump in price might be too steep for some, even getting into this camera used.. Bottom line: I think the image quality seems extremely close in some instances and there doesnt SEEM to be any jump in quality like added stops in dynamic range etc. overall - great video and well done job with illustrating the comparisons much thanks
Difficult one. They both have different strengths. The a7rII does 4K in a small package & has a stabilised sensor. The C100 has XLR sound & better audio preamps / controls and the ergonomics of a video camera. Depends what you need. Carl
We need the best, most versatile video camera. We do not need 4K, all of our videos will be for online purposes. We will rarely be in low light and will never use it as a photographic camera, only videos
How do we get in touch??? I'm going insane trying to pick a new camera to buy around this budget. I don't know if I should just go with the GH5 and learn Panasonic... or if I should stick with canon and do the c-100.
