Comments on: Which is the Better Value, Canon C100 or C300? Plus a Short Film Scene Shot with the C100

By: chris

chris — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:52:01 +0000

I have both cameras. The BMCC moires like a canon 7d. The C100 will alias here and there, but the image is tight just like the C300. Workflow for each camera is so far apart. If you want to compare cameras by price, start thinking of the terabytes of HD space you will need to archive your BMC footy. THe BMC does make a good image, as long as you shoot like you would with a moire ridden HDslr. Then, start thinking about your IR filtration, sound solution, SSD’s, LENSING, and support if your camera goes down.
Between the two, I would take the C100 on 9 out of 10 jobs.

By: T Nails

T Nails — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:11:49 +0000

Not much “forward thinking” when it comes to chip size. You can’t use super 16 cine glass and finding fast wide angle glass for the BMCC is not viable.

By: T Nails

T Nails — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:04:00 +0000

5D sharper. Everything I’ve shot and tested clearly show C300 to have more range and detail than a 5D. Expect the C100 to have similar results. 5D is a hopelessly soft camera.

By: T Nails

T Nails — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:02:01 +0000

What a lot of BMCC fans seem to ignore is the awkward chip size. BMCC really dropped the ball here. It should’ve been either Super 16 size or Super 35 size. It’s current size severely limits your lens options, especially for narrative work. If it were S-16, you could’ve exploited all that great super 16 cinema glass catching dust.

By: Matt Thomas

Matt Thomas — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:56:05 +0000

I agree with Sebastian. The C100 ergonomics make the use of a cage and other attachments rather pointless. Due to the design, the film plane is very close to your nose when shooting with the viewfinder, and this is the most stable place on your body. I hardly use Steadicam at all since purchasing the camera because I’ve found it to be adequately stable for most shots that require steadicam on other cameras.

With the new 18-135mm STM IS lens, it is remarkably versatile handheld. I’ve used the C100 along with Sony F3 and Sony FS100 (which yields similar colors to the FS700) and have noticed better color reproduction from the C100 when comparing shots from similar angles on the same scenes. We record to Ninja recorders when possible, but the C100′s AVCHD is insanely good considering the bit rate. In most cases, it will be very difficult to see the differences unless you plan on remapping your hues into luma channels, or (of course) if you are shooting Chroma Key. Chroma Key off the C100 + Ninja 2 ProResHQ is absolutely superior to chromakey from the FS100 into a similar recorder. Skin tones are much better with the C100 than our other cameras. The camera’s most unique benefit is its very high color sampling from the 4K sensor. This in many cases makes up for some of the technical features which we find on other cameras. Also, the built-in viewfinder is useable. Granted, it isn’t as good as the one on the much less expensive GH3, but it is much better than the viewfinder on the Sony EX1.

By: TonyBR

TonyBR — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:50:17 +0000

I´m looking for a new documentary AND nature shots camera… A C100 OR a FS700??? Sorry, no intention on buying a BMCC, as service for them in Brazil will probably not exist. Thanks for your comments.

By: Which is the Better Value, Canon C100 or C300? Plus a Short Film Scene Shot with the C100 | FilmMaking Hub | Scoop.it

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:28:31 +0000

[...] This camera seems to be getting as much vitriol in the comments on this website as the Canon 1D C, but the Canon C100 also has its share of defenders. It might not be priced perfectly considering the features, but it’s a camera that should just work out the box without much fuss, and Canon has made some key changes compared to the C300 that might be a deal-breaker for some, but well worth the cost-savings for others. I’ve said quite a bit about where I think this camera can fit in, but don’t take my word for it, here is Philip Johnston with his review (which is also available for download): [...]

By: Allan Crocket

Allan Crocket — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:10:22 +0000

First it was a nice example video to really look at when taking in the C100. It is a camera I personally am taking a long look at since the AF100a really didn’t set up as much as we wanted.

Based upon some other video I’ve seen this camera is really good at low light. The form factor seems to be liked by everyone that is using it actively, when Im shooting form factor is important. It looks like a very simple and forgiving camera that should be pretty flexible other than no overcrank and I don’t think it has time lapse capacity which is a shame due to the low light performance.

By: Michel_M

Michel_M — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:01:08 +0000

Got me!… That’s also true that I shoot primarily some kind of documentaries and I need a camera with good performance in low light.

If there is enough light, BMCC _could_ be really nice, but I am still waiting real tests since the camera is not yet widely available and tested.

By: Michel_M

Michel_M — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:57:39 +0000

Agree entirely.

By: Tim Bradley

Tim Bradley — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:41:02 +0000

The C100s are impressive and a really good choice for certain shoots. Another camera to consider would be the Scarlet from Red. The RAW file recording of the red is a very powerful feature, but if you don’t need or want the RAW R3D file advantages, stay with the Canons.

By: Nitpicker

Nitpicker — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:48:18 +0000

Pesto is something else. Best keep it away from your Speed Booster.

By: ryan

ryan — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:55:39 +0000

They will differ as much as they do now, color and dynamic range are not really dependent on compression. The 5d will be a little sharper and noisier thats all really in most cases.

By: J

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:16:29 +0000

i’ve owned the ex1 and now the c100.. with the c100 at the same price the ex is redundant as the c100 destroys it.. i don’t know a better doco option under 10k than the c100.. in fact it almost stands up against the c300 as a viable option being smaller and having clean hdmi out.. this camera is definitely far more capable than weddings.. it also performs beautifully in well lit conditions with nice glass.. ultimate affordable alrounder at the moment..

By: Joe Marine

Joe Marine — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:05:13 +0000

Of course it can be a motion picture camera, and I did say that above. I was just saying it’s really perfect for documentary shooting where you don’t want to be noticed but need a fully featured and light sensitive camera.

By: Jayy Slocum

Jayy Slocum — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:53:55 +0000

BEN all good info and true stuff, i guess what we need to really do is wait until canon releases the firmware for clean uncompressed 422 on canon mark 3 and compare the footage to see exactly how this camera differs from others. It would have been great to have a 10bit camera but at the same time 8 bit is more than enough for a talented colorist to work with.

By: BenJamin

BenJamin — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:48:52 +0000

In documentary shooting, you don’t have time to go set up lighting, get your primes out, set your tripod up — and prep the talking. You are usually running-and-gunning. So you need a camera that works well in low-light. Between Canon’s 5D Mark 3 and the Cx00 series of cameras, you get low-light like no other camera.

With the built-in ND filters, you can go from shooting indoors to outdoors without playing with filters or matte-boxes. With the XLR audio sources, you can allow the camera to handle audio ingest. And the form factor allows you to shoot without a rig. It’s a combination of all these features that make the C100 a documentary filmmaker’s dream camera.

By: BenJamin

BenJamin — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:44:40 +0000

For documentary work (and possibly news gathering), the C100 has all the right bells-and-whistles. It has a great form factor, it has built-in ND, it performs amazingly in low-light, and it has great run-time. Yes, the codec is crippled, but unless you are shooting sports, the codec in the camera will be fine.

If you are going to be shooting greenscreen, you are going to shoot on a RAW camera, like the BMCC. If you are going to shoot a feature film, you’ll probably want 10- or 12-bits of depth for flexibility in color grading. C100 provides 8-bits.

I think that C100 could be priced more aggressively, but it has all the markings of a successfully mid-tier camera system.

By: Jayy Slocum

Jayy Slocum — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:34:12 +0000

Joe Marine just curious what do you mean by the c100 being a documentary camera, not saying its the perfect camera ,but can you elaborate on why this camera could not be considered a motion picture camera,when its basically the same as a C300 MINUS about 25mbps. I just hate when people catagorize something subjectively without giving full detail. Especially when a 5d mark11 and other 1080p cameras have been used on the big screen. This camera again not the best but has a nice RGB sophisiticated unit paired with a hefty large almost 4k sensor.

By: FabDex

FabDex — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:30:27 +0000

To answer the question “Which is the better value?”: none. They both are wildly overpriced.