A Review of the Canon C100

If you get the image here, you'll know the primary reason I bought a C100.  Of course there were other factors which I'll get into below, but that's the main one.

This review doesn't delve deeply into all of the specs of a C100, rather it addresses the reasons I purchased one and why I think it's the right piece of kit for me. 
For in depth reviews with video, I would recommend Phillip Bloom's review or the excellent in depth one by Stefan Czech.  These certainly influenced my decision.

Let's go back a ways so I can give you a little about my background and why I made the decision I did.  I'm an independent video producer who works as a freelancer and the owner of Haaksman Media.  I have done work for small businesses, major corporations, and more recently, television.  And since the start of the DV revolution, I have happily enjoyed watching video camera technology take us to the place we are now.

While I've spent many hours working with Betacam cameras, I was thrilled to be able to use dv - for it's quality and editing ease.  While digging through menus was a nuisance, I enjoyed the smaller form factor.  And the cameras began to improve - better chips, pro audio, more thought to ergonomics, etc.  One camera I used on a regular basis beginning in 2005 was the Sony HVR-Z1U.  The hdv codec didn't bother me much since the image quality produced looked gorgeous in my eyes.  And I liked using it.  It was solid, could go just about anywhere, and made great images.

Shallow Depth of Field

There's an HV-20 in there somewhere!

Then I began noticing that people were building and using lens adapters to create a shallow depth of field look.  (I imagine DP Gregg Toland would have begun rolling in his grave)  I had an Canon HV-20 and began using it with an old slr lens.  It was unwieldy to say the least, but resulted in videos like the one below:



I was in love with the look - despite the mushiness, heavy vignetting, and horribly difficult way of working.  One had to manually focus the lens to the ground glass inside the adapter and the be careful not to knock that focus out.  Flipping the image was another obstacle to overcome as well, but an industry was born.

DSLR

Then the DSLR revolution began.  There was certainly something nice about a small form factor camera that could shoot shallow depth of field - and make it look nice.  But I fought it.  I thought it was ridiculous to hold an slr camera and shoot video with it.  Obviously, many people felt that way and began designing add ons to make using one simpler.

Of course I eventually took the plunge and purchased a Canon t2i.  I couldn't believe how nice the imagery looked and so I invested more money into lenses.  Here is an example of the beauty of a dslr.  Shot with a t3i and a 7D:



But one issue remained - audio.  I would need an external audio recorder to record good quality sound.  And on top of that, there was an issue with the camera which limited record time to 12 minutes.  I felt like I was shooting on film with a Nagra recorder.   And for a while I didn't mind.

So there I was, I had bought a better dslr, better recorder, shoulder rig, external mic, electronic viewfinder.  My rig looked like Frankenstein's monster.  And while it looked impressive - I shot an antique car show and one man said my camera was cooler than all of the hot rods he'd seen - it was unwieldy and a huge hassle. 

Cooler than a Hot Rod!

But I kept moving forward with this setup.  I replaced my DSLR with a 70D which can record over 30 minutes, and a Tascam DR-60 to record audio and I shot a man on the street interview one day.  While everything turned out fine, I stepped back from myself and began to wonder why I was shooting like this.  I was having to turn on the external recorder, the camera, the viewfinder, the microphone.  What if I forgot one of them?  I could really mess up my shoot and I'd have an unhappy client, and I'd lose money.

This is getting ridiculous.

Change is Gonna Come

I knew I needed a different camera.  So I began looking around.  I thought, 'maybe I'll get a good used Sony EX-1 or Ex-3, or a Canon XF300 or 305. '  I could even get a shallow depth of field adapter relatively cheap on eBay.  And the pricing was good for a lot of this gear.  I don't shoot as often as a dedicated DP, so I didn't feel the need to spend more than $7,000 on a camera.

In the back of my mind was the Canon C100.  When it was released, I was like so many people, very skeptical about it's specs.  It looked quite underwhelming and over priced.  Even the C300 wasn't exactly what I thought was a great deal when it was released.  But I began producing segments for HGTV shows and the cameras used were C300's.  The dp's were all talking about how much they liked the camera and how easy it was to use.  And when I reviewed the footage after a day of shooting, I was blown away.  The dynamic range, clarity of image, and overall look were remarkable. 

We shot so many scenes with dark interiors and bright exteriors and the camera handled it well.  When we needed more shallow depth of field, we'd use the built in ND filters.  We could swap out our lenses and even run around with a good mid range zoom like a 24-105.

A C300 on location.

Now I started to look back at the C100.  By this time a lot of people had gotten their hands on one and numerous reviews popped up.  Image quality was always touted as a high point and with an external recorder, it could shoot the same quality as a C300.  Another feature people liked was the ergonomics.  And after playing with one at a trade show - I had to agree. 

So I bit the bullet and made the purchase.

I was not disappointed. 

Let me talk about the best and worst aspects of the camera and how I've worked around them:

1.)  It's a real video camera. 
      While DSLR's are improving their video capabilities, they are and always will be still cameras first.  And they do an amazing job at it.  But the C100 is a real video camera.  It has professional audio jacks, HDMI out at 4:2:2 color space, and most features you would find on any other professional video camera, like waveform, audio monitoring, color and white balance,  and built in ND filters.  You can also select and create color profiles.

2.)  I can use my existing lenses. 
      Because I purchased several lenses for my dslr, I can use them on my Canon C100.  And with an IS lens and the upcoming autofocus upgrade, I could hand the camera to an intern and not be worried how the shot turned out.

3.) Everything is built in. 
      It has a carrying handle, it has built in microphones, it has a mic mount, it has an lcd, it has a viewfinder (more on that in a moment). It has what I need in one package.

4.) The image quality is incredible. 
      From high contrast, to low light, to perfect settings, this camera shoots in most every condition very very well.  Since it shares the same sensor as the C300 and C500 it is no wonder why the image quality is so great.

5.) It can record to external recorders. 
      Not only that, but at a better color space and codec.  But you don't need to do this unless you want to or the shoot you're on requires it.

Some of the camera's drawbacks with my own input:

1.) The tiny viewfinder. 
      Yes, Canon made the viewfinder on this camera very small.  And compared to the C300, it's just abysmal.  However, I have been shooting with a Zacuto eyepiece wrapped around the viewfinder and am now very used to shooting this way.  It has actually become comfortable and has the added benefit of being one more point of contact to help stabilize handheld shots.

Look into my eyepiece!

2.) The lcd flips awkwardly.  Yes, it does.  I find it a bit of a nuisance.  Because I actually use the viewfinder more, I keep the lcd open only to review the waveform and peaking.  I just don't rely on it a lot for actual shooting.

3.) The AVCHD codec.  AVCHD is more common on consumer cameras and it's 4:2:0 color space make heavy grading difficult.  But this version of the codec in my opinion hands down beats previous versions of it.  I compare it to the Panasonic AF100.  That codec, with it's own sensor is just awful to me.  Whether Canon have improved on the algorithm or because the camera has such a superior sensor, I'm finding that most of the subjects I shoot with the built in codec look incredible. 

Conclusion

So is this camera the right one for you?  Only you can answer that question.  For my needs, it fits well.  I still believe that for the vast majority of shooters 4K is unnecessary.  All the major networks in the US have only recently upgraded their systems to high definition.  I don't see them going to 4k in a while.  Certainly the added resolution has it's advantages and I can think of countless applications for it in the motion picture industry, but otherwise, it's not going to be something on my plate for a while.   Additionally, 4k takes up a lot of storage space,  it's a slower process to edit with, and the higher quality it produces is nominal in my eyes.

Cameras evolve at lightning speed and there are so many choices today.  I spent a while wondering if I should hold off until I see what happens at NAB or some other industry trade show, but I realized that what I needed was a new camera now.  And I wanted to purchase one that made my life easier - not more difficult.  Now that I have used the camera for a couple of months, I’m finding that it feels like an extension of myself.  Because it is relatively compact, lightweight, and ergonomic, I don’t feel the need to throw it onto a rig.  The audio inputs fit the bill nicely, and I feel like I can focus my attention back to shooting without worrying about whether or not I’ve turned on every accessory on my kit when I’m ready to roll.  Is it the perfect camera?  No.   But right now, it’s the best one for me.

Here are a couple of samples from my own work which show how well the C100 works - especially in low light.