C100 vs 7D MKII

I do a mix of photography and video. Here lately more video. In my kit I have 2-T3i, 7d, 7d mkII. I purchased the mkII because I wanted auto focus with video.

Now that the C100 is in a affordable range. I am thinking about selling my 7d mkII to purchase C1. From a video stand point should I keep mkII or sell for C100 w/o dual pixel option?

A primary reason to upgrade to a C100 (any version), or, any camcorder, is the ergonomics of shooting it vs. any DSLR.

The list of ergo advantage (off the top of my head, halfway through the first cup of coffee!):
Side handle and strap for eye-level, low, and high-angle hand-held shooting support with the right hand. A big red button on it - start/stop recording.
Top handle for secure handling.
XLR audio inputs and decent preamps/recording gets you into the world of pro audio. Not just mics, but mixers of all types.
The control surface on the left side of the cam - many hardware buttons for commonly needed functions. You won't be diving into menus in the middle of a shoot.
Built-in ND filters.
Multiple methods of monitoring exposure, including a waveform monitor display.
A tilting LCD monitor - supports shooting at high/low angles. (limited on the Mark 1, IIRC).
Clean outputs for external recording at higher standards.

C100 Mark 1 DPAF adds the first camcorder AF that is actually useful for something in pro shooting!

C100 Mark 2 includes slight improvements to AF, but also much better monitoring.

All these cams are bigger than your 7D.

IMO, they are *vastly* better than a 7D; but that's because I value all those functions listed above very highly. How would you value them? Maybe not the same...

Shooting a DSLR can yield comparable image quality, but the ergonomics make that quality more accessible in a cinematography approach to shooting (you're in control of the set). Shooting a camcorder like the C100 series gives you more consistency in creating quality imagery, not only in cinematography, but also with videography (you're not in control of the set).

I *strongly* agree with you that Canon's latest pricing ($2,500 for a C100m1, $3k for C100m1DPAF, $4.5k for C100m2) makes a true video camcorder of very high quality more affordable than ever. For my money, that's the great AF and better monitoring of the Mark 2, that's less than $200/mo. at Canon's 0% 24-month financing.

And, of course, use all the nice canon glass you have, though the STM zooms enable face-detection and tracking with DPAF.

SailingAway wrote in post #17866979
A primary reason to upgrade to a C100 (any version), or, any camcorder, is the ergonomics of shooting it vs. any DSLR.

The list of ergo advantage (off the top of my head, halfway through the first cup of coffee!):
Side handle and strap for eye-level, low, and high-angle hand-held shooting support with the right hand. A big red button on it - start/stop recording.
Top handle for secure handling.
XLR audio inputs and decent preamps/recording gets you into the world of pro audio. Not just mics, but mixers of all types.
The control surface on the left side of the cam - many hardware buttons for commonly needed functions. You won't be diving into menus in the middle of a shoot.
Built-in ND filters.
Multiple methods of monitoring exposure, including a waveform monitor display.
A tilting LCD monitor - supports shooting at high/low angles. (limited on the Mark 1, IIRC).
Clean outputs for external recording at higher standards.

C100 Mark 1 DPAF adds the first camcorder AF that is actually useful for something in pro shooting!

C100 Mark 2 includes slight improvements to AF, but also much better monitoring.

All these cams are bigger than your 7D.

IMO, they are *vastly* better than a 7D; but that's because I value all those functions listed above very highly. How would you value them? Maybe not the same...

Shooting a DSLR can yield comparable image quality, but the ergonomics make that quality more accessible in a cinematography approach to shooting (you're in control of the set). Shooting a camcorder like the C100 series gives you more consistency in creating quality imagery, not only in cinematography, but also with videography (you're not in control of the set).

I *strongly* agree with you that Canon's latest pricing ($2,500 for a C100m1, $3k for C100m1DPAF, $4.5k for C100m2) makes a true video camcorder of very high quality more affordable than ever. For my money, that's the great AF and better monitoring of the Mark 2, that's less than $200/mo. at Canon's 0% 24-month financing.

And, of course, use all the nice canon glass you have, though the STM zooms enable face-detection and tracking with DPAF.

All of the things you mentioned are definitely good points on the C100. Do you think the C100 will hold it place with it's video quality and 1080p output? It seems everyone is going to 4k even though it's not really deliverable at the moment. Most people that I have asked this question keep saying get a GH4 or Sony A7s2. Personal I don't want to have to build out a video camera. I just want grab and go.

extrememc wrote in post #17870582
...Do you think the C100 will hold it place with it's video quality and 1080p output? It seems everyone is going to 4k even though it's not really deliverable at the moment. Most people that I have asked this question keep saying get a GH4 or Sony A7s2. Personal I don't want to have to build out a video camera. I just want grab and go.

Well, now we're really getting down to personal opinions!
GH4 and A7S2 are really great cameras if shooting video on a DSLR makes sense. I remember the transition from SD to HD; so much of one's initial success with HD depended on pulling sharp focus with inadequate monitoring! I've not shot either of those cams to understand how the monitoring (or advanced AF) performs.

A few years ago I built out a rig for a Canon 60D - cheese plates, handles, rods, pads, monitor, audio mixer... When I got to the end, my first thought was "this SUCKS". My inner geek was satisfied with the spec and construction project fun, but shooting the rig with any sort of efficiency was only possible under limited circumstances. The ergonomics were horrible. And batteries, so many different kinds of batteries... So I guess that's back to you to think about usability of any dSLR with your style of shooting.

I'm afraid I don't have much of a crystal ball when it comes to distribution of 4K. For HD distribution, shooting 4K is nice because you can zoom in post and still have true HD - I've worked with a shooter/editor who depends on this. Your single camera shoot of a medium shot can become a "2-camera shoot" in post, because you can cut to a closeup, for example.

Timing a purchase with new technology is always tricky. If you can afford to wait, a working pro's accountant would say "don't buy it - you don't need it!" But the spreadsheet that balances rentals and purchases and costs and utilization and income doesn't tell the whole story.

The way I think about it is that 1080p is fine for Internet delivery, and will be for some time to come, and all my work delivers on the internet these days. But that's only my work. Now that I think about it, I don't have any way to watch 4K... Or monitor it during editing. It's not just the cost of a camera!

One thing about the C100 series - that's a good looking image. Good imagery is always in style. But if there's somebody down the line saying "nope, 4K only" sometimes you have to conform to that.

P.S. There's speculation that Canon will announce 4K for a new C100 this year. I don't know about that, but I suspect that if it is released, that version will be back up at a $5900 price point. Kind of outside this discussion. People like the low-end pro Sony cams for their 4K - I think they're all more than $2500 though, and image not as nice.

the first NHL games are starting to be broadcast in 4k now - next season, there will be a bunch of them

i bought a 4k TV 12 months ago - there is starting to be more 4k content on Netflix

i own a c100 with the dual pixel upgrade and 7D2

if you buy either, these are 18mth investments max (this doesn't mean they won't work for a decade - but if you want to be a pro that will be the deadline)

ergonomics of the c100 kills the 7D2

12-18mths from now, if you are selling your video services, you will absolutely need a 4k camera

the transition is starting but it isn't here yet - 12 months from now, you will be able to buy a good video shooting, good ergonomic, 4k camera that doesn't cost 6k - it will be $2-3k

i would hold onto your 7D2 until you are ready to jump to 4k - or you have lined up enough gigs to get the c100 now knowing you will upgrade again in 18 months

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17870872
...if you buy either, these are 18mth investments max (this doesn't mean they won't work for a decade - but if you want to be a pro that will be the deadline)... i would hold onto your 7D2 until you are ready to jump to 4k - or you have lined up enough gigs to get the c100 now knowing you will upgrade again in 18 months.

Quite right - camera technology has been changing quickly. You have to make your money in 18-ish months if keeping up is a concern.

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17870872
...12-18mths from now, if you are selling your video services, you will absolutely need a 4k camera

the transition is starting but it isn't here yet - 12 months from now, you will be able to buy a good video shooting, good ergonomic, 4k camera that doesn't cost 6k - it will be $2-3k...

It's a fair bet that you'll need something new in 18 mos., but will it be 4k? Maybe it will be 8K?

OTOH, 3D didn't have much growth & longevity outside of studio releases.

I do agree that at that point there will be under-$3k and under-$6k cameras that do new stuff that we'll be having this same conversation about!

SailingAway wrote in post #17870849
A few years ago I built out a rig for a Canon 60D - cheese plates, handles, rods, pads, monitor, audio mixer... When I got to the end, my first thought was "this SUCKS". My inner geek was satisfied with the spec and construction project fun, but shooting the rig with any sort of efficiency was only possible under limited circumstances. The ergonomics were horrible. And batteries, so many different kinds of batteries... So I guess that's back to you to think about usability of any dSLR with your style of shooting.

I can definitely related to this. I don't want to have some camera with every geek device I own hanging from it.

SailingAway wrote in post #17870849
I'm afraid I don't have much of a crystal ball when it comes to distribution of 4K. For HD distribution, shooting 4K is nice because you can zoom in post and still have true HD - I've worked with a shooter/editor who depends on this. Your single camera shoot of a medium shot can become a "2-camera shoot" in post, because you can cut to a closeup, for example.

Timing a purchase with new technology is always tricky. If you can afford to wait, a working pro's accountant would say "don't buy it - you don't need it!" But the spreadsheet that balances rentals and purchases and costs and utilization and income doesn't tell the whole story.

The way I think about it is that 1080p is fine for Internet delivery, and will be for some time to come, and all my work delivers on the internet these days. But that's only my work. Now that I think about it, I don't have any way to watch 4K... Or monitor it during editing. It's not just the cost of a camera!

I mostly do weddings, interviews and documentary films. My distribution is generally web or usb drive.

I think if I had a client as for 4k I would rent before I would buy. I have rented the C100 and I agree the image from that camera is nice and I definitely like the ergo of it. It is literally a grab and go video camera.

For the price, you can get 2x 7D mark II

You can't say a 2x price by saying that you are using C100, while you can easily rent a better EX3 or new PMW series that will do better than C100

For that reasons,
Having 2x of 7D mark II means more productivity than having C100,
And selling used C100 is not as easy to other options

Your comments about cost are certainly accurate; and if you do have good availability of rental gear it's always worth considering at what point you're actually making money with gear you own. Most of us have to be our own accountants in looking at these questions. But though cost is almost always an issue, it isn't the only issue.

I've never seen a C100 linger in the used market here in the Northwest U.S. Though, if you bought a C100 M1 at $4000, and later saw Canon drop the price to $3000 then $2500 you'd have good reason to feel bad about when it comes time to unload it.

Which kind of underlines the point made above; if you're concerned about such things, it's another reason to think about getting your value out of a camera in 18 months. NO camera is a good investment (maybe vintage collectibles, but no video camera!). It's all about what you can do with it during its useful life.

An EX3 or PMW200/300 is a very different kind of camera. Smaller sensors, poorer low-light performance, fixed zoom lenses. There's nothing wrong with them, other than the EX3 and 200 are getting kind of old, but their purpose and look is more towards the videography end of the scale. Except low light performance... Which is, I think, why they're rarely seen in wedding work. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just quite different than what most dSLR shooters choose.