GH5 or C100 Mark II
As the title says. The company I work for is going to purchase a new camera this year and was looking at the C100 Mark II. Now with the GH5 specs being released, I'm wondering how they compare and which would be better. We primarily shoot product examples, DIY, and talking head videos. Any advice or direction would be great!
Just my quick two cents.... admittedly without ever having seen a GH5...
As and old film guy, I am NOT a fan of the revolution that brought DSLRs into the world of shooting video. Sure, they can record great video (and many video cameras can take great stills), but that's not what they were initially made for. They are both great tools, but one's a hammer and one's a wrench. Sure, you can pound a nail with a wrench, but why would one choose to when hammers are readily available? Yes, in this case a wrench can be a fair bit less expensive than the hammer... but for professional work I don't think the difference is big enough to be a consideration.
And yes, I know the GH5 is a mirrorless camera, so technically not a DSLR. But the theory is exactly the same.
I'm all for "If you are going to shoot video, use a video camera." It would just make life so much easier in many ways. And the C100 would be a great choice. I've personally never used one on a job (my daily shooter is the C300) but a friend has three C100s and I've played with one of them and wouldn't hesitate for one second to buy one. The C300 is my favorite camera that I've ever used, and its little brother will do darn near all the same things.
Others opinions will differ....
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
Todd, did you pony up for the C300 Mark II? We have the C300 Mark I and just updated our 5D Mark II to the Mark IV but think the C300 Mark II is our next move. Unless NAB shows us something better in the $5-7k range.
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
I JUST noticed Rich asked me a specific question... didn't mean to ignore him, but I didn't see it until now....
[Rich Rubasch] "Todd, did you pony up for the C300 Mark II?"
No, not yet... I'm still shooting with the original C300. We've had it for, oh what, five years now, or almost? We got it very early on shortly after they came out, I think it was about then.
I haven't gone to the Mark II for a couple of different reasons... mostly because it didn't give me a whole lot of benefit to do so. For one, It seems to have some pretty impressive focusing tools... but that doesn't do me any good, since it's just for EF lenses. My version is the C300PL, and I use PL mount cine primes... so I have to focus with my bare hand like an animal (which actually I prefer, it's the real "Hollywood" way and if I didn't have my hand on a focus wheel I'm not sure I'd know what to do).
To get that benefit from the Mark II I'd have to go EF and ditch my primes for a whole 'nother set of lenses. I really love my lenses, they are my babies and frankly they are worth many times more than the camera bodies, so I'm sticking with the PL glass. I almost only shoot primes... although Canon does have a pretty darn nice zoom that I'd consider if I went EF mount... but it's gigantic and heavy, and pushing 50 grand so there's not a lot of incentive to do that.
The other benefit to the Mark II is obviously 4K. That hasn't really been an issue or a real need here... but is becoming more of one. Like most people we don't have any need to do 4K output yet, but it would be nice to be able to shoot and use 4K footage. We learned though that our editing suites, which have the biggest and most badass computers that you could get three years ago struggled a bit with 4K footage (we started doing a little bit of 4K handheld footage with the DJI Osmo stabilizer and Zenmuse X5 camera). Even though the computers are only a couple of years old, that's an eternity in the computer world... so we just had one of them upgraded (bigger SSD system drive, crammed as much RAM in as possible, and added an additional processor). That machine now handles 4K just fine. That wasn't my personal suite (it was my senior editor Joey's), so I was using his as a guinea pig... I'll do my own next. So now that we can handle 4K much better that makes the Mark II a lot more attractive.
If I had to buy one today the C300 Mark II would definitely be my next camera. I suspect we'll get one sometime this year.
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
[Todd Terry] " I am NOT a fan of the revolution that brought DSLRs into the world of shooting video."
I think I'll piggy-back on what Todd said here, but take it from a different angle. I AM a fan of the DSLR revolution. I think it opened up so many doors and new possibilities in the way we shoot. Kyle, I've shot the Canon EOS line (C100, C300). I've shot Panasonic's GH4. I've also shot quite a LOT of Sony (a7s, fs7, f5). I love all of these cameras.
What's interesting is the majority of the work I did last year happened to be on the a7s. Why? Well, it is full frame, excellent in low light and the image is lovely. It fits very well with the Movi M5. It allows us to be the most mobile and flexible when shooting. BUT....It fails when it comes to audio. It is a PAIN. We make it work and record separately, but it is not enjoyable.
Back when the original C100 came out, I shot with it consistently for 2 years. I have to say that I really loved that camera. It was a bit of an odd shape, but still small and compact enough to be mobile. The colors of the Canon are my favorite. With exception of the RED, the ease of shooting with the Canon makes it my favorite when it comes to shooting interviews.
When we got the GH4, I remember thinking...this is a fun toy. I've made some great images with it, but I think it has sat in the bag for most of it's life. Why? It just wasn't great in low light with it's M43 sensor. I didn't enjoy the color as much as Canons or even Sony. And audio was still a pain.
To sum this up, the Canon C100 Mark II is an excellent camera. It would be an excellent choice for the work you are describing. In my opinion, I would not invest in the GH5. It looks like a cool camera, but I would rent it when the project is right.
Director of Photography, Producer
Thanks for all the input. I think I'll keep an eye on the GH5 as more info and tests come out, but for now stick with / lean towards the C100.
I agree with all the posters above. I have the C100 (original with focus upgrade) and a GH4. I love the GH4, but agree that it's not suited for serious cinema work on a daily basis, unless you need 4K and can't afford another. I use it for primarily shooting still kinds of work, or as a second camera for B roll where I can take the picture and punch in for a close up, like having 2 cameras in one. I have no need for 4k output at this point. No client I know asks for it. But Panny has done an amazing job of filling it with spectacular features. It's the best of the sub $2k cameras for video IMHO.
However, I always grab my C100 for 'real' jobs, with dual card slots, and real audio inputs. And I agree it's the best ergonomic video camera I've ever shot with. Just a dream. Would love to be able to afford the C300, but money is money.
The new GH5, with dual slots, and slightly better low light ability seems *extremely* interesting, but if you are going to shoot in low light (theatrical, stage, night clubs, etc.) then full frame is the best way to go. I had a Canon 5d Mkiii, and for low light, it was incredible. Loved that camera for low light, it's video was, well, sub par compared to many of today's cameras' including the C100.
i was asking myself the same thing. Do I go back to m/43 because of all the "specs" of the GH5 or upgrade to canon c100 mk2 at least. I really really like how it looks, colors etc without needing to do post processing. you can just set up and get a great image in camera (using wide DR) mode. I since sold my c100 to get some other gear for video podcasting (video switcher zoom h6 mics etc) cause I just don't have that much disposable income at the moment. But I will be buying a camera in the next few months and man I miss the c100... especially for what I want to be shooting. Interviews, docs etc . I thought I was crazy thinking to buy a c100 mk2 over a gh5 but I am glad to see I am not alone in this thinking! gh5 looks great gives you slow mo and 4k but, just something about the look and feel of the c100.... good luck!
I guess I would answer that if it were me, by asking what I was shooting every time I shoot. Is it always video? Then likely I would stick with Canon, and just upgrade. You say you do standard interview work, well, the C100 type camera is a breeze to setup and use. No fussy bits to manage, dangling off the camera.
If I were seriously looking at moving into a lighter weight and kit, and I shot a lot of stills (which I do), then having one camera to do both well is worth it. It still remains to be seen as to whether the GH5 can run in an theatrical setting for hours, allowing me to switch out cards seamlessly, as the C100 etc. can. To me, the gh5 is engineered for clip shooting as opposed to long running hard core video production work. Their chief engineer admitted as much on his Youtube intervew. So I'll keep my C100 for a while, and see how hard I can push the GH5. As to sound, I usually add my Tascam 70d under the unit, and run the sound into there. Very nice dual recording settings for 10db lower. Hardly any weight gain.
Go on Youtube and look at some of the work that's been done with the prototype cameras, including the one on "ice" in NYC. Very nice look to it. However, you could have shot the same thing with a C100. There was nothing special about the GH5 look in it. But it was beautifully done and showed off a bit of it's low light ability. I think the samples in low light look distinctly better than my GH4 was. Noise looked remarkably smooth and not ugly.
Good luck! I'll go shoot some stuff with mine when it arrives. Hope to give it a shake down against my C100 just to see where the differences lie.
A little update. Today I was shooting with my GH3..w/ variable ND, 20mm 1.7 etc. and it was pretty much event footage. I MISS THE AUTO FOCUS AND THE FEEL OF THE C100. Sorry for the caps. I made my decision I am buying a C100 MK2 in a few weeks, before I buy a gh5, for my purpose the C100 is just easier and less stressful to shoot on. sigh
I will eventually make money with the c100 and buy the gh5 so I have the best of both worlds.
Yep. I can understand your feelings. The C100 is very nice to shoot with. Certainly the auto focus on the GH5 is better than the GH3, but Canon does a great job with it on the C100. The form factor of the C100 (and most camcorders) is much easier to use than a DSLR. But to be clear, the GH5 has an incredible array of features not on the GH3. Much more like a C100. I'll have to see, I might decide to sell my C100 (with the autofocus upgrade). I'll let you know if I do. Probably come in less than $2000 for the body.
interesting.... yeah the g3 is 2 generations behind, still a solid camera but because I had a taste of the c100 and how much easier it felt to shoot with in run and gun situations. I am full of regret and feel it's the better option for me. You did mention you selling your c100 with DAF, that's cool but I will most likely hold out for the mk2 as tempting as your price is to go back to the c100 mk1 my dollar is so weak it would end up being pretty much average to what I can get one up here for. Now if you were talking about the MK2 for 2k us dollars, now we talking haha.
Understood. Good luck!
but then there is this.... For the Price of the Canon C100 mk2 here in Canada.. I could probably get the Gh5 new and the C100 mk 1 with DAF used...... hmmm decisions, decisions. 😅
The question was GH5 vs. C100 mark ii and everyone seems to lean towards the Canon. But what if we're talking about the Mark i with no DAF. Here in Manila the price of the GH5 is very close to the Canon Mark i (no DAF version), with the Canon being slightly more expensive. Would you still advise going for the 5 year old Canon in this situation? I'm also deciding what camera to buy. Thank you in advance.
ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus
my 2 pennies. IT depends on your shooting style, what you are mainly shooting. Do you have time to pull focus and frame up or in my situation I do a lot of event work where I don't have the time to pull focus and I need a reliable auto focus. This is why the C100 with DAF was great for me. But you are talking about getting with no DAF? are you going to send it in to get the DAF upgrade? do you need auto focus? I hear it has a great one touch focus option button though so you could probably use it with that. Form factor is also important. the top handle with the nice side grip just feels good to shoot with. I am rambling but you need to figure out what your shooting style will mainly be and go from there.
DO you need 4k?
slow motion? (which is nice)
built in stabilizer
smaller for factor
I am really thinking about just getting c100 with DAF after my latest experience. and I played with the GH5 in a store and when shooting 60fps the auto focus is decent, when shooting 24 fps, Horrible made me miss my c100 even more.
colous on the c100 i like better, and the low light is a lot better
oh look i am rambling again.
good luck with your decision.
Thanks for your post.
I like all the features of the GH5 (except for sensor size). I like the C100 for the form factor, EF mount, and ease of use (since you don't have to dig in into the menu). I'm in Manila. I don't think they can install the DAF here. They don't even have the camera. Canon Philippines still needs to order it abroad and I'll have to wait for two months to have it.
I have several uses for this new camera and I can only buy one. I will use this for corporate videos,, commercials, and live streaming. Yes, I need 4K (for reframing shots in post and future proofing), slow motion, and built in stabilizer.
One thing that really bothers me in buying the GH5 is that one ad agency that I work for wants to see "big" cameras, like the C100. They think small DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are not good enough for serious work. They think bigger is better.
I know, no camera can do it all. But I want to know which to buy for these applications if you only have money for one.
I also really want the a7s ii. I actually like it the best because I need the super low light capability. I also shoot religious processions at night (I do this for free so I can't rent a camera for this every time. I need to have my own). But live streaming will be a problem, especially that our live streams usually last around 3 hours.
ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus
well I understand the part where you said business want to see "big cameras" this is also true for me. That is the reason why i went with the Canon C100, they just take you more serious and don't question anything and feel they got their money worth. I know it's messed up because the GH5 and as7 cameras are so powerful but look like nothing serious.
here is the thing. You will never lose out on a job for having a Canon c100 (real video Camera) but you will lose out on jobs if the clients doesn't want dslr style looking cameras.
I have to admit I know it may sound wrong but one of the main reason I am going back to the Canon c100, is the size, it actually makes me feel more confident out there when I am on a job. Because lots of people are walking around with canon t5is and look exactly the same as you with the small camera. I know people will say let your work speak for itself, It should be about the end results etc. But, again I rather be able to get hired more based on my Camera AND skill.
Battery life is amazing on the c100, way better than the Sony so like you said for the 3 hours streams, you may want to consider the c100, and I find the low light pretty good on the c100 its sensor is decent and the iso can go highish compared to my GH3 lol but the sony as7ii is the low light monster but again you lose other functions.
if you can afford one at the moment, Maybe get the c100 so you can get the most amount of jobs and make money to buy another camera for all the other features you will need. That is my plan. Canon c100 and a gh5 I will have most situations covered from slow mo to 4k to low light to auto focus etc etc between the 2 cameras!
again my grammar, I apologize.
Hi from Toronto Canada by the way.
Thanks Quincy ☺
I hope there's a way to output 4K from the C100 since it has a 4K sensor.
I checked A7s ii on the web and the bitrate of HD recording is 50Mbps. The Canon C100 only records at 24Mbps. Did I understand that correctly? Does that mean the A7s ii has better colors than the C100?
I hope to visit Canada one day ☺
About the grammar, I'm from Manila so I also have problems with English☺
ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus
soo.... Hi folks. I went and bought a used Canon c100 ver 1 with DAF, it was in great condition. 188 hours total use extra fat battery, with box. over all excellent condition.
Happy again with the auto focus and the form factor etc. One thing I did forget is... the noise in the darks, I have read around about using wide DR and iso 350 vs canon c log 850 iso etc etc
I also notice again with this camera and I don't know if it's just my eyes but it seems to pulse through the footage. This happened with the last c100 I had too, I notice a pulsing. When I was shooting with the Gh3, didn't notice any pulsing or noticeable noise in the blacks. the trade offs eh?
that's it. I am going to buss my bum off and buy a gh5 to have the best of both words for sure!
end of rant..
hows everyone doing? alllrighty then!
So I read another older thread on here and found a "work around" well, at least so that it doesn't annoy me, I am talking about that pulsing/ flickering in the darks. Basically I just added some noise reduction in camera in the custom picture settings. Still have a satisfying image and no pulsing. Thanks to https://my.creativecow.net/Steven-Anderson
I ended up buying a GH5. I think the higher bit rate will get me through most of the jobs. And I love the slow motion. For those clients who really need to see a "big camera," that type of project will just have to wait until I have funds to buy a C200 (In reality, I think the GH5 is enough for that, if they only allow me to use it). I think the C200's ability to shoot raw will be very useful.
The only serious problem I have now with the GH5 is the menus. Very confusing. I have to search the internet every time I look for something. In the Canon Cinema cameras, almost every function has a dedicated button. Better for run and gun situations.
ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus
Congratulations on your purchase, after you get use to it the menu system, it won't be a problem. I too will buy a GH5 eventually. But for me the c100 is the right tool for me. But for sure I want to grab a gh5 so I can offer 4k, slow mo, higher bitrate for color correction or grading, for more serious projects. Isn't this field fun? I keep learning something new and getting better, I'm really enjoy this Cinema/videography world!
GH5, definitely! I own the GH2 and GH4 and they are incredible movie making machines!
I've had a c100 Mkii for over 2 years and its definitely earned its keep for me.
However, having recently acquired a GH5 with metabones speedooster, it makes me want to throw the C100 Mkii on the rubbish tip. Not literally of course, bit there is not one single usage situation where I wouldn't see an advantage to the GH5.
1) Don't get too sold on the dual pixel AF on the C100 Mkii. Its really NOT all that. It only works in tiny central portion of the frame, its not as good as the version on Canon's DSLR's (like the 80D & 5D Mark iv), and what's worse is Canon deliberately made the face detection available ONLY on 3 slow STM zoom lenses. So its useless in low light.
2) The GH5 with speed booster is genuinely cleaner than the C100 Mkii up to 3200 iso.
3) The GH5 fits better on my gimble.
4) The GH5 waveform monitor shows in the viewfinder.. the C100's waveform only appears on the LCD.
5) The GH5 has in body stabilisation. So all those fast prime lenses work better on a shoulder rig.
6) The GH5's colour science is damn near as good as Canon's, and I mean it!
7) The GH5's image quality blows the C100 Mkii out of the water when recording in 4K.
8) In 1080p, the C100's image is comparable.. maybe even a hair nicer... but its limited to 60fps. The GH5 goes up to 180fps, and its usable. Now I have 4K, I wouldn't ever record in 1080 unless it was for high frame rate stuff... so the GH5 wins again.
9) The GH5 on a shoulder rig isn't too high like the C100 MkII.
10) Worried about audio... fair point. But the XLR show mount adapter gets you there on the GH5 for an extra £350.
I'd have a C200 in heartbeat, but at nearly £8,000 its completely irrelevant in the presence of a £2300 GH5 + speed booster.
Now don't get me wrong, the C100 Mkii is nice to work with and I know exactly how to expose stuff nicely on it to get the best from the sensor. But the GH5 is genuinely pretty nice to work with too.
Panasonic have done an amazing job with the GH5. If it comes to a choice in 2017 between the C100 MkII and the GH5... its a no brainer.... get the GH5.
I see some of your points. I feel like I am missing out with the slow motion ability, I want to make some nice looking music videos and other kind of creative videos and I feel that the slow motion would really help make the vision come to life. Is it the only way, no but it sure would help.
What would you do if you had say a c100 mk 1 and could pretty much sell it and get the exact amount to buy a gh5 would you sell?
giving up the XLR and ND filters. And form factor stings. I don't know what to do. earlier I said oh I could possibly get both, but it doesn't lok like that is the case. as I dropped a ton of money on upgrading my editing work station