Canon C100 MK II at B & H
The original C100
When the C100 first came out, I wasn’t even considering shooting with it based on the spec sheet. The bitrate is low, there’s no variable framerate, and the graphics are limited to HD resolution, which annoys me considering the price tag. However, about a year after the camera was released, I had the opportunity to actually shoot with it and completely changed my mind about cameras. Like the C300, the C100 has excellent ergonomics and delivers images that go well beyond what you’d expect based on specs alone. After shooting with this camera for the first time, I also began to understand its best uses. This is obviously a great event/documentary/low budget camera that allows for very high quality recording without the need for additional gear. No, it doesn’t offer raw, high bitrate, variable frame rate, or many of the other features offered by many cheaper cameras, but it does deliver great images every time, and can be used with an external recorder for looks like narrative Beautiful project. Needless to say, it became my camera of choice for many smaller projects as it made my shooting life easier and provided very reliable images.
This is a short video I shot with the C100 a few months ago. Normally I wouldn’t use the C100 for narrative, but in this case it’s the best choice:
Based on all of this, you might be wondering why I’m not rushing to pre-order the C100 Mark II, since it’s essentially a better version of the C100. The EVF has been greatly improved (which was my biggest issue with the original C100) and is now available in 1080/60p, and there have been some other design and feature changes to improve the performance and usability of this camera. However, the reason I don’t want to upgrade is simply because the changes aren’t dramatic enough. If I were in the market for a C100 today but don’t currently have one, I would certainly go for the Mark II as it does offer some additional features that I like (i.e. the ability to shoot 1080/60p), but most importantly, for me as a current As a C100 user, Canon doesn’t do enough to make me want to upgrade. My current C100 still delivers beautiful images, it’s the exact same camera except for some of the new features I listed above.
Indeed, my issues with the C100 MK II have less to do with the camera itself and more to do with Canon’s approach to developing new products. There’s no denying that the C100 MK II will be a great tool, but in my opinion, based on competition alone, I don’t think it will make much of a splash in today’s camera market. Current C100 owners will likely feel the same way I did (as this is not a necessary upgrade), while new potential C100 MK II buyers will most likely be put off by the camera specs, even more so than they were when they originally purchased the C100 MK II Even more serious. That’s because, while the MK II’s specs are better than the original C100’s, its specs relative to today’s average semi-pro camera are further from the original camera’s specs than the competition. There are tons of 4K cameras, variable frame rates, and other amazing features out there, but not much (at least on paper) to keep new buyers coming back. Again, though, I’m not saying this will be a bad camera or that some people won’t find a use for it. In fact, I think the opposite is true. However, I also believe that with a few more features, this camera could have had an even bigger impact. Of course, the problem lies with Canon’s other product lines –
Canon’s pigeon hole
Over the past few years, Canon has made some choices in video products that I think were not very good, and ultimately drove away many video-based users.
Canon’s initial dominance of the single-eye video industry was more or less accidental. They didn’t expect the initial 5D MK II (About Video) to be such a huge response, and they’ve since tried to capitalize on that success by launching more video-based products, notably their Cinema range. While some of their other cameras (including the C100/C300) have been widely used and quite popular, they haven’t since come out with something as exciting as the 5D MK II, and that’s what a lot of us All disappointed.
A big problem with their line of cinema cameras (particularly the C100 and C300) has always been that the feature sets of these cameras are quite limited given their relatively high prices. For example, the C300 still costs $12,000, and while it’s undeniably a great camera (based solely on ergonomics and reliability), it lacks many of the features that cost cameras have (such as 4K capture). There’s an argument to be made that some of the missing features, such as 4K, aren’t needed by all shooters – and I certainly agree with that. But the truth is, while not everyone needs to shoot 4K or record directly to ProRes, many shooters do. In fact, more and more people want it every day, and Canon reserves 4K and other more professional features only for their highest-end products.
The fact that Canon got off to a late start with high frame rates, 4K and other important features in higher-end cameras is only half the problem. The other half is that their lower-end cameras (especially digital SLRs) offer even fewer features to avoid cannibalization of their higher-end offerings. I’m going to reiterate here that this is certainly my opinion, but I’m sure many others will agree with me that Canon seems to be purposefully retaining features like 4K recording on its cheaper cameras, so their higher-end cameras still have A niche product.
I can understand and respect Canon’s need to protect themselves and make sure they don’t obsolete any of their products by offering better features on lower cost products. However, I think a better solution to weakening lower-end cameras is to innovate more on higher-end cameras. 4K and high frame rates shouldn’t be the only reasons customers buy a $12,000+ camera, I think it could be the best of both worlds for Canon. I believe Canon has to have the technology, manpower, and infrastructure to make a movie camera that can truly compete with some of the best movie cameras available today. If they can significantly improve their performance on the C-series cameras, they can also offer 4K and a host of other features on cheaper cameras without risking losing sales at the high end of the market, as these no longer need to be blockbuster features .
Unlike many current or former Canon users, I’m not upset about the direction Canon is taking, even though I don’t agree with it. In fact, today I can choose from dozens of amazing cameras that cost less than Canon’s offerings and deliver superior visual results. There’s no reason to be upset with Canon or any other manufacturer today because the bottom line is we have more choices than at any time in history. That said, on the other hand, one thing that frustrates me is that many other manufacturers do offer better specs, but don’t offer the ergonomics that Canon offers. Hopefully this will change in the near future.
Many of my close friends and colleagues have left the Canon brand in favor of cameras made by Panasonic, Sony, Blackmagic and other brands. A few years ago, it was rare to see anything other than 5D or 7D on a low-budget shoot, and that changed almost immediately. I sincerely hope Canon changes direction and ups their game in the future because I do think they make amazing products and know they are capable of so much more. Unlike companies like Blackmagic, which have to innovate to advance in the industry, Canon is staying comfortable no matter what. They still make some of the best stills cameras in the world, and no matter how much innovation they innovate on their video lineup, that will always keep them afloat. But if they’re not careful, they could lose the rest of their video clients…
For my initial review of the C100 and comparison to Blackmagic cinema cameras – click here!
