Canon C100 vs Canon 7D Part 1

After hearing a lot of talk on the C100, we wanted to try it out for ourselves. We used it on a shoot and it worked great but I kept wanting to know, how much better is the image on the C100 over a 7D or 5D.

We used two identical Sigma 30mm 1.4 lenses on each camera and attached the 7D on top of the C100. Here's what we got. One thing to note is these cameras have different sensors. If we used the same exact settings, one of the cameras wouldn't have been properly exposed. We also didn't want to use a Fader ND on the 7D because it tends to soften the image.

[Jacktherippervs]

This test is absurd, you are comparing flat image with contrasted image. The test is not realistic.

[cscooper]

Why are you comparing f/2.8 to f/8.0? ND compared to no ND? I don't understand this test and it doesn't get me any further toward making an informed decision. Am I missing something?

[AntHeywood]

The overall quality is just so much better on the C100. The 7D looks much more 'videoie' as opposed to a more filmic look on the C100.

[PeterGregg]

C100 so far has blown everything away including the 5D3 on Magic Lantern. The sensor simply takes it farther than ever with a significantly sharper image, and most others bloom where the C100 does not. There is a comparison of this on YT with the C100 vs the 5D3. The only camera that was really an unexpected surprise in comparisons is the GH3. I really would never have thought to see something like that especially from a Panasonic GH3.

[jdgts]

You get better dynamic range if you use 850 ISO which is the sweet spot for C-Log. Im done with DSLRs, the C100 is just amazing in many ways. I own one with Zeiss ZF.2s and you combine the two, you have clean and sharp image.

[MattSezer]

Other than the first shot, all the shots were relatively low contrast and weren't super wide. Where the C100 excels is in maintaining detail in the highlights and resolving finer details in wide shots. This video didn't show situations where that that would apply, except for the first shot.

[RobRuscher]

Yes, but we compared the cameras and the 7D does not have built in ND. We did not want to add on a fader ND because that tends to soften the image. Another plus of the C100 and another reason it costs $5500

[mycoronas]

I don’t understand all the negativity here. I own an 80d but have never really use ND filters. They seem impractical screwing them then off. I finally see the difference and the detail retained in the highlights and shadows it makes. Maybe the title of the video should have been different.

Thanks for posting!

[erickmax]

Why does the c100 have a fast f stop and the 7D was shot on f7 and up

[tvkino]

thank you for this amazing test. It show how small in reality camera researche achivements from beginning dslr revolutions. And in future all cameras could stand even more closely. Definitely first place now not camera but cameraman. Excuse my english. I 'll show you test to beginners who put their effort to use best equipment as possible, but not care about interesting story

[TVperson]

The trouble is that the C100 won't do slow motion through. but I think it is a worthwhile camera for the level of detail you get with it. But C300 is a bit over priced, you can get a RED Scarlet with all the bits to make it work for that price.

[Madaspy]

IDK man, I own a 7d, and have used it for all of my projects, so I like the camera. But, the c100 offers all of the coviences of a real video camera that the 7d lacks. For instance, Peaking, XLR PCM audio, Decent codec, articulating screen, Less rolling shutter, ability to monitor audio, Supremely sharper image, and most importantly ND filters. Yes, it is 4k more expensive, but makes life much easier. I can see if video is a hobby its hard to justify, but if you make money buy it!

[StaceySonic]

To me it's kind of useless to compare a $800 camera to a $5000 camera.
Apart from the extra options like XLR inputs, built-in ND filters and Canon C-Log, the C100 overpowers the 7D in image quality. There is absolutely no detail in the shadow parts of the 7D. Besides, you can't compare the flat image from a C100 with a sharpened, saturated and contrasty image from a 7D. If you want to make a proper review, use a flat image style on both camera's and grade them in post in exactly the same way. Otherwise we could compare a Hasselblad with 40MP digital back with a Canon Coolpix.

[vintagestereo]

stupid test, use same iso values next

[KingsbridgeAV]

You might want to change your profile on the 7d. Film more flat so you can cc and grade better. C100 was much better in the example.

[wildheartimaging]

Kind of an "apples vs oranges" comparison I think, when comparing a clip shot at f/1.6 with something shot at f/7.0. But thanks for posting, anyway.

[xbelugax]

Anyone that work in the film industry (wedding is stlightly different) will or should go for C100 (and then C300). Way worth the money, hands down. It's like Daihatsu feroza vs toyota landcruiser. Just for the sdi and xlr output, ’I would pay 5000$ more.

[GeorgeLoch]

Why didn't you use the same settings if you had the same lens?

[GForceVisuals]

The thought of comparing these two cameras is a good idea, but I'd have to say that this test is invalid. Mostly because the settings for each camera were not even close to being the same. And you used an ND filter for one camera, but not the other. The picture profile that you used for the C100 was flat, which it should be. But the 7D had more saturation and contrast. And you couldn't even see the details in the shadows with the 7D. Not trying to sound so negative, by all means. But if you're going to compare a high-end camera to a low-end camera, then you should make sure the settings are the same throughout the entire test. 

[luizluiz]

wtf! Absolutely useless test. Why compare one with ND filter and other without? Obviously the image on C100 is better exposed, just because of the filter. Can't really compare the images.