-
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!
-
34 Replies
-
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….
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
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.
Rich
Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
Founder/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
https://www.tiltmedia.com -
[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.
Cody Walters
Director of Photography, Producer
https://www.linkedin.com/in/codywalters/ -
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.
Good luck!
Al
-
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.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
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.
Al
-
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.
Al
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up