Leaderboard

Also just did this corporate video. Stronger LUT applied here -

Actually I completely agree. I am waiting for the F4 (do not care for 8ch at the moment), stepping adjustment issues (if Iam understanding it right) is a no go for me, and of course you have to trim "when and why", and digital gain with step implementation is a post nightmare when you do! There is a recent trend here(Greece) with one man sound departments, especially for documentary series, so my evolution is to have the ability to have some kind of control while booming. The market is just a mess at the moment (for financial, political and social reasons), so I have to upgrade wisely, as sound is often overlooked and very badly paid.

Budget? Native lenses or adapted? AF or legacy? Favorite FL's? Too many options without knowing more specifics.

I know it might sound like a crazy idea but... The new EosM (5) is a mirrorless 80d and you can use a Speedbooster for your Full Frame look. Still don't know if the AF is as good but it could be a great B cam.

Yes, they are. Only the pre-production models had a firmware where this feature was disabled. The production firmware 1.0 does have the possibility to set the highlight and shadow tone attributes. I'm just waiting for the firmware upgrade which enables internal F-Log. ;-) And yes, the difference is smaller than what I remembered. And I really need to calibrate my monitor. When I grabbed the stills in resolve they came out brighter and I saw more detail. The two items I was looking into were the second pillow and the basketwork of the left flower pot. And by pushing the shadows I saw more artefacts and less detail in CC than in NS. The differences at a more usable level are smaller. I think that some film simulations are great in some scenes whereas they don't work at all in other scenes. Shooting stills this isn't a problem, because I can choose the film simulation after the fact due to the internal raw converter. But if I shoot video, I have to know it in advance. That's why I like the idea of using a more neutral film simulation and choose the look in Resolve. I am still testing different lighting conditions and different backgrounds. For instance, I also like Provia, but if you are on a green meadow, the green is just too intense and you wish you dialed in CC before. All in all, if you don't want to spend a lot of time in your preferred color grading tool, CC is the simulation to go with, in my opinion.

oh just the snippets of 4K that have been posted ( think they're all on this thread). To my eye it looks a bit more organic than the gx85, but its early days

If I can match an A7S II to the 1DX II and C300 II (actually all to each other), I'm sure it would be fairly easy to match the XC10 and 80D using similar/same picture profiles (and maybe even no post work needed).

I'm not really sure where this shared LSI stuff comes from. Even if it's true they are different sensors and totally different technology approaches. Olympus really are leaps ahead in the way they do IBIS. There are fundamental differences even between the em5 and the em1 for example. Im fairly certain the HDMI output on the 1 will be 8 bit :-) (though I've been wrong before) jb

I bet it will be at least as good, and likely a bit better. Pixel count is but one factor in lowlight performance.

Occasional? I scan channels on my G3 before every shoot, set my frequency, and I still get interference often. Been in the city a lot so I guess that's the issue. Lots of radio waves flying' 'round. The spectrum is only going to get more crowded into the future. How viable is wireless in these environments, really? Here's the thing, the work I do, if something is going bad I really can't do anything about it in the moment, so ultimately (and god help you if you're an audio guy reading this) monitoring a wireless system does nothing but tell me what I'm getting might be dropping out or squelching every once in awhile. So, that's nice to know, but again, I can't really interrupt the moments and do anything about it... and, since that's the case, why not just carefully place a wired lav on my subject and hope for the best? After all, that's what I'm doing with my G3 wireless anyway. I'm one guy with a camera following my documentary subject. Yes, there's the "right" way to do audio, and then there's the "actually-productive-on-a-shoe-string-budget-way." Poo-poo that if you must. I'd love to be able to monitor and fix all my audio with whatever problems arise, but there are times I just can't. Wireless that's monitored is usually the best solution. Maybe in other situations it is not. Audio solutions are like video solutions. I'm not shooting 8-bit on a GX85 because it's the best camera. I'm using it because I think it's the best solution for my particular job. Similarly, unmonitored wired solutions like the DR10L is a viable tool for certain gigs. I kinda feel like it's deserving consideration.

The challenge you'll find with the 1DX II is that if just want good 1080p, you have to shoot 4K and downscale in post. The 4K files are of course gorgeous (as is the 4K60p), however they are also huge, and even with very powerful computers NLEs like PP CC have trouble playing these 4K files in real time (not an issue with FCPX on the same hardware- even 4K60p plays like butter). For short interviews/shots and/or when you can frequently offload to hard drives, it's not really an issue. However if you need to shoot a live event that is long, you're out of luck unless you can afford to miss some footage when switching cards (and don't run out of cards). As for stills, the 5D3 has higher resolution and I haven't seen any DR advantages during real-world shooting giving the 1DX II an advantage (I'm sure it's there I just haven't seen or tested it). For sports style shooting, absolutely the 1DX II is a better choice. I haven't shot on the C100 II, however the C300 II is a superior video camera to the 1DX II. The 1080p is gorgeous and the files are small. The 1DX II 1080p is soft and aliased, barely OK for closeups but too soft and aliased for wides. The C100 II 1080p is also gorgeous and the files are tiny. A really good fit given the OPs original specs. The C100 II is S35 and lenses like the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and Canon 17-55 F2.8 (used extensively in Cartel Land) are great for low light and run & gun.

I've made a similar setup for a friend and the result is really good. In my case, I have a Tascam DR 100 Mark II and want to fully utilise it. Otherwise, it is a good combination.

I would love to order one, but from the lack of sample photos is really hard to jump the gun. Can you paste more comparisons raws or send one to someone for a review? Its hard to rely on early adopters to make and post tests. Thanks!

I bought a C100 and a 5D Mark III right after they came out. Sold the 5D pretty quickly although the RAW looked good (not as good as the C100 other than its shallow depth of field "FF" look, which was impossible to pull focus with so whatever). The idea that the 5D III's RAW is technically a better image is a misconception fueled by people who are incompetent on set or in post. Both have great images, though, and the quality is really pretty close. I've used almost everything on the market and it's the combination of great ergonomics and a good image without much work in post that's led me to not replace the aging C100. I feel like nothing else on the market has an image that's better in a meaningful way without some sacrifice. Sony is technically a bit better (a stop better highlight detail, a stop faster native ISO) but the ergonomics and workflows are dodgy and the color is hard to work with on the high end and on the low end it's a real nightmare with overheating and SLOG 2 having awful color (the Kodak emulation LUT on the F5 is decent, however) and the ergonomics are awful. The Red is expensive and difficult to work with on set and in post, awful in low light, and actually had slightly less dynamic range than the C300 etc. until the Dragon and the new color processing. The Red M had like 8-10 stops of DR, MX about 11-12, and color wasn't great then. And still it's behind Canon and Arri but it does become subjective because its looks is digital, not film emulation. The GH4 is not bad IMO but its 1080p is surprisingly soft (the 4k is fine but you get a bit of crop) and the ergonomics I don't love and it's not super reliable. But it's not bad at all. But they're all fine. I guess for me if I want a better image the next meaningful step up from the c series is renting an Alexa, but that's also a pain to use. I sort of worried about minor differences until I tried something that was actually different and now for me it's Alexa or bust (though the C300 Mk II look pretty nice after the firmware update–haven't tried it with the new firmware though!). I don't care for the "FF" look, but if you want shallow depth of field get some f1.4 or f1.8 lenses and an 80D to go with the C100 I'd say. The 80D is easy to use for video and the autofocus is useful for close ups (where sharpness isn't important) and you can get APS-C lenses like the new Sigmas that are sharp and fast enough to match f2.8 on FF and for cheaper. And the DR is RAW is good on the 80D for stills. Also the Canon RAW workflow is the exact opposite of the cinema series workflow–a nightmare, and that's really why I abandoned it. The 5D II is nice for stills, but has poor DR in RAW compared with the 80D. I'd get an 80D and a C100 Mk II, but I think part of it is that I'm lazy and I do care about color more than most people (consistently score off the charts in color vision tests). I wouldn't bother with a 1DXII as a video camera. Same very limited dynamic range as other Canon dSLRs. 1DC could be nice, but it lacks the efficient low bitrate codec.

Wow!!! super crazy story!!! The images from this video are really good to my eyes: no moire, no bad artifacts... smooth movements... I like this little drone! Thank you for the advices!

I think you'd make a wise choice in getting 2 separate cameras. I never understood the need for using one camera for both unless it's just for fun or travel.

They're both set to Natural 0, 0, 0, 0. WB 6000 K and the same lens. No color correction. Even with the same settings the GX85 is a little brighter so maybe that have something to do with it? In that video the WB is almost spot on with the GH4, whilst the GX85 is very different although they were both set to 6000 K. After making a few comparisons I agree with you that the GH4 has slightly better highlight rolloff and yields a more pleasing image (less contrasty), especially with Cine D and off course V-log. On the other hand when I actually used the cameras it was easier for me to achieve better results with the GX85 due to new color science and noise performance. If the GH4 sensor wasn't so noisy I wouldn't have sold it as I really liked that camera! When the GH5 finally arrives with the best of both +++ I will upgrade as soon as possible and probably keep that camera for years to come.

Am I the only one disappointed with the F2.8~4 lenses? Fix Aperture is a must, at least for me...

The XC10 really makes shooting fun again. Between C-Log, the IS and the 4K image, there's nothing not to like about the camera. If you feel like shooting auto, have at it, it's a pleasure. The face tracking works great in AF. If you feel like shooting in manual. The step less exposure wheel let's you ride the exposure as you follow your talent in and out of different lighting scenarios. It's just very intuitive. Every button is where you need it to be, but the most important thing is the image and you can shoot in high bitrate 4K or even the MXF 1080p in C-Log or WideDR is just gorgeous and still very flexible in post. The best purchase ai have ever made for video... So much so I have C100 saved in my eBay watch list... If the prices get in the right ballpark, for me, I can easily see myself picking one up and maybe a 20-35mm L lens.