Director/Director of Photography/Editor
I know that the processor will give it less noise and morie but I don't really need that. The original C100 is already great in both of those categories. Really not worth buying spending $5500 for that. The movable auto focus is great but I rarely use the auto focus feature anyway. The bit rate increase is not going to be noticeable to anyone really because it will still be 8-bit. Just because it went from 24 to 35 doesn't mean the image is gonna blow away the C100. Slow motion would be nice to have but not worth buying a new camera for. People that are using the C100 don't generally need the wifi option and while it would be nice to have, not worth a whole new camera. I'm not upset because I don't think they added enough to the new camera to make it worth upgrading. I'm pissed because they could have easily added most of this stuff into the original C100 through firmware updates. The C100 is capable of the same performance as the C500 but instead of giving us a few more things, like 1080p 60p, they just came out with essentially the same camera and added a few new and unneeded small features.
I don't care too much for 4K yet, it would be nice to have, but don't put a new coat of paint on a BMW and call it a Ferrari.
They should have just done a firmware update that gave us 1080p 60p in the original C100. They made no changes to the processor or sensor so obviously the original C100 is more than capable of handling 1080p 60p, probably even higher frame rates. I knew it was a long shot but I was hoping Canon would release a paid firmware update for all the cinema cameras that gave internal 4K, 60p, a better codec, and so on. I would have paid a good amount to have 4K and 60p put into my C100. It would almost be the perfect camera. The C100 is a powerful camera with a lot of untapped potential. If someone hacked it and gave it the features it was capable of, I'd pay for that.
So your $1800 STILLS camera now does 1080p 60p. How about you add that to your $5000 C100 and $12000 C300. Your overpriced CINEMA cameras should not be lacking features that your much cheaper stills cameras have.
But with all of that, the GH4 costs about as much (maybe a little less) than the C100. While the GH4 does do 4K, it sucks at low light and the C100 has much better dynamic range. Plus, having built in NDs is a really under appreciated feature. You would also need to add a shoulder rig to the GH4 (especially with the interface unit) for it to be as stable as the C100 can be when it is handheld. Each camera has their strengths and 4K is a pretty awesome feature but I'd grab the C100 for it's low light ability, dynamic range, and ergonomics almost every time.