Canon C100 Mark II -- Worth the upgrade?

Original C100 prices are hovering around $3,000 used and $4,000 new.

Mark II price is $5,500.

Is 60p, a new OLED, and better viewfinder worth an extra $2,500?

Think you can get paying work out of the C100 mark II? Doc producers are still asking for the C300, or slowly transitioning to Sony's FS700/FS7.

If you're going to add a recorder, it becomes respectable for narrative/greenscreen work, but then you've got bulk and an added cost.

If you like the look of the original C100, I'd just pair it with a 7Q or 7Q+ if you've got extra cash laying around. Personally, I feel like Canon is intentionally kneecapping their lower end cams to keep them from competing with their high end cinema stuff, and it's starting to get frustrating. If you need bang-for-the-buck, Blackmagic owns the market. If you need awesome images and a pro interface, the FS7 destroys anything in Canon's C-series.

Yes, I will get paid work, but I'm not sure I'll get higher paying work or more paying work because of the C100 mark II. Time will tell.

Most of my workload is weddings. I won't need to worry about a producers request or green screen work. Everything is run and gun so adding an external recorder is really not preferable.

My biggest priority is improving image quality and camera usability. We've taken some big leaps forward in the past 3 years and I feel like we've finally outgrown the DSLR package. They are amazing cameras, but I'm ready to take the next step. I'm just not sure if that next step should be the mark I or II. $2,500 is a ton of cash. Heck, the gap may widen beyond $2,500 as more C100 mark II's ship. I watched a used C100 Mark I sell on ebay last week for $2,900 with a kit lens!

I would obviously love to have a better EVF, OLED display, and 60p. Just not sure I can justify the price difference. Perhaps we'll look into a pair of used C100 mark I's along with a GH4. This will solve the issue of higher frame rates while also giving us a dedicated camera to keep on our gimbal.

If I were shooting more weddings, I'd have a stack of GH4s. They are fantastic for the price, and mounting to a gimal or steadicam is so easy.

The more I use the Canon Cx00 series, the more they feel like overgrown DSLRs to me. Isn't the big benefit of a "real" camera to eliminate the need for the cage, monitor, etc.?

There is no way I could work with a M4/3 sensor as my primary camera. Maybe as a 2nd or 3rd cam. Wedding receptions often require ISO's of 3,000 or more and getting nice shallow DOF is essential for our style.

I'm curious why you think the CX00 series needs a cage or monitor? I don't even use a cage or external monitor on my 5d mark II or my 1DX. I just swap them between monopod/tripod/slider/​gimbal.

If you can, try out a GH4 with a Metabones speedbooster. A 50mm f/1.4 becomes a 35mm f/1.0, the Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 becomes a 13-25mm f/1.3 etc. You'll make up for most of the DOF loss by having larger f-stops available. I wouldn't suggest it if I hadn't tried it myself. Native ISO of 800 plus the extra stop of light means you're not reaching too far to shoot in the dark. Once you get to the end of the night, an A7s would be ideal, but you can push the GH4 with primes if you're smart about how you shoot.

I still haven't figured out how to hold a C300 for more than 30 minutes without cramping. Nice for tiny places like car interiors, but having a shoulder-mounted cam really makes the day more bearable.

It's also supposed to have better noise performance and there's a joystick toggle on the OLED. I'm using a C100 Mark II for weddings now. It makes all of my DSLR footage look a bit dated and the low noise levels at 16,000 ISO have been great for wedding receptions. For me, this model was just the best fit. Autofocus allows me to get some really unique shots when flying it on a DJI Ronin. Built-in ND is huge for me and the overall ease of use are the main benefits. I do have two main gripes...Not having auto ISO just doesn't make sense and it really makes the camera more difficult if you're using a 3-axis gimbal. Additionally, not being able to move the focus box from center is a bit annoying. A Canon 7D Mark II has both of these features at a much lower price. A bit ridiculous that Canon opted not to include them on the C100.

Kylemorgan88 wrote in post #17403305
Yes, I will get paid work, but I'm not sure I'll get higher paying work or more paying work because of the C100 mark II. Time will tell....

It is a royal pain lashing together a DSLR rig, esp. with variable ND filter, brackets, external EVF, external recorder, HDMI cables everywhere, etc. With the C100 you just grab it and go. Everything is built in -- zebras, color peaking, ND filter, EVF, XLR, etc. OTOH it's very expensive and I doubt produces better material than a 5D3 with similar quality lenses.

OTOH the "switchology" on a DSLR rig is so complicated that it's easy for even a skilled operator to miss a shot or bump a control. What is the cost of a missed/spoiled shot on a major assignment? Suddenly the C100 doesn't look so expensive

Definitely agree with what some others have been voicing here. Messing with ND filters and external sound recorders is a hassle. If I shot video and not still photos for weddings, I'd get at least a C100 Mark I right away.

In the same boat, looking at picking up two of each (Mk I or Mk II) can't decide on which two.

I ended up purchasing a mkII and my brother purchased a mkI. We have our first wedding next weekend so I'll get a first hand experience on how each operates in a real world environment. I'm most concerned with how they will match up in post given the different image processing. Hopefully I won't spend too much time on color correction in post.