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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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
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.
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)
+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).
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.
Nice comparison -thank you. I bought a C100M2 in March of 2019 - still a terrific HD camera - especially if you already have a bunch of Canon glass
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.
Not crazy at all! They are very different tools for different jobs. I think it makes a lot of sense to own them both.
Carl
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.
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.
Its still a great camera.
Carl
Get the mark2
Just Bought a C100 Mk1. Your video is a big help in sorting out what it can do. Many Thanks
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
How can I be the only one to notice? The Mark 1 Is way sharper in your footage. Look at the bird feeder cage. Is it the lens difference?
I also thought it was slightly better
Looks like the focus wasn't set properly. Also the footages were used as interlaced (50i) on a progressive (25p) timeline.
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.
That's my thinking too... i can get a c100 mk1 for £400 ... a mk2 will run me nearly £740... the differences for me don't justify an extra £340
Hello!
I have the Canon C100 mark 1 with the dual pixel autofocus upgrade. Do you know if I can use coninous face detection STM lenses?
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.
What camera would you recommend for streaming in low light ?
please make a test C100 Mark II vs Sony FS5,nice video
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...
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
I WANT TO BUY A MARK I, I DON'T SEE MAJOR CHANGES IN MARK II. YOU RECOMMEND ME ?
Great, to the point and well done video. Thank you!
What codec was the footage u shot recorded on? Also do u see the c100 mk ii as a big upgrade in picture quality from the 5d iii?
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.
thank u for this video, in your opinion what ISO one can push the iso of the mark2 and still get a clean image without grains and artifacts,thx.
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
+ProAV TV thank you 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.
The C100MKII can do in camera slow motion but only in MP4 format, you can run 60p and then in camera it will slow mo down to 24p.
True.
Carl
THEN I DON'T SEE A GREAT DIFFERENCE AND THE VIEWFINDER DOESN'T BOTHER ME, I WANT TO BUY THE C100 MARK I FOR MY BUDGET
coming from 1dx people shooting and a black magic 2.5k cine camera - would you recommend the mk2 over the BM ursa mini or the 4.6k?
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)
Hello, wich gimbal we can use canon 100 mark1
+proavtv nice video but it will be better if you use 2 cameras, like that battery/memorycard scene, we need more closeup view of it
Quality review, thank you Carl!
+Jam Punch Thanks for watching!
Carl
C100 MK I looks sharper!
+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
They get rid of aliasing by making it a softer image, so it's not really 'perceived sharpness' it's literal sharpness.
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).
Unfocused.
a very helpful comparison!!
I have a 6d and I’m tired of shooting videos with DSLR. I almost change to Sony, but now I’m sure that I’m going buy the C100. The price is good.
If all you need is 1080p 25p the C100 is a fantastic choice
Carl
Can you do c100 ii vs 1DX II? Thanks.
Very different cameras.. Strange 2 to be comparing?
Carl
for video only, would you recommend canon c100 mark ii or sony a7rii ?
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
In that case the C100 sounds like a better choice for you in my opinion:
www.proav.co.uk/canon-c100-mark-ii-body-only
Carl
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.
If you email sales@proav.co.uk one of our sales team would be glad to help you.
Carl
Hi
Which has better hd, c100 ii or 5d iv
Thanks
C100 II has better 1080p video, especially when paired with an atomos recorder
Carl
great video, thanks 😊
Very good Info!!!!!
great comparisson
image quality looks almost the same, would save 2000 by getting mk I lol
The difference is mainly in ergonomics and usability. The Mk1 is still a great camera.
Carl
ProAV TV yeah I think I'll go with the mark I and get an recorder, I have other cameras that shoot 60fps at 1080p
Nice Thank You
Thanks for watching
Carl
pictures quality no much different.
🤦🏿♂️ anybody want my C100....
how much are you selling it for?
@@marymullan I'm letting you know right now it does not have the DAF upgrade.....🤦🏿♂️
@@DRACOFURY ok thanks, i was just considering it, ill probably go for the mark II
@@marymullan trust me you better off... This thing is more trouble than it's worth 🤦🏿♂️ I should of went for that A7
@@DRACOFURY why was it so bad?
Is it wrong to keep thinking that Harry Potter himself is giving us a good camera feature breakdown?
everybody knows that mark ii is better than mark i
Better yes, but this was to talk though which features are better and which are similar
Carl