syrcular

Getting back to the original topic, I have done some exhaustive research and renting of cameras, to figure out what my next move was and after careful study, I've decided to wait a little longer. It seems there are a few options in the Canon and Panasonic camp that might be relevant to what I'm looking for, and I feel like I don't want to commit to a specific camera yet, so I'm planning on renting in the meantime...but...I hopped on another discussion thread from a user that had similar question of what camera next, and I shared some of the my conclusions on there, so I thought I'd copy and paste my response to here. This will give a litte more context too my findings/assessment of the cameras we've been talking about. One note: Sorry ML users. I love the idea of going Canon ML, but just didn't have the reliability as you guys experienced, so I can't see myself going that direction. Anyway...here's my thoughts... "It's been really interesting reading through this thread. I started a similar one, after ditching my Canon 5D Mark III to pickup a dedicated video camera, since I now shoot stills mostly on Fujifilm X camera and wasn't satisfied with the quality of the 5D Mark III in comparison to other video cameras I was renting and shooting with for video projects. The 5D Mark III was brilliant in it's day and still to this day shoots amazing stills, but because I shoot a lot of street photography needed something smaller and Fuji really helped replace that function in more compact package, so my 5D sat in the closet a lot. I did consider using ML on my 5D to sort of resurrect it as my dedicated video camera, but felt like ML was way to unpredictable for my liking, contrary to the fact that it DID produce much better video and stunning footage in RAW. So that started my search for the new camera, and it really came down to either Canon or Blackmagic simply for the color science and ease of grading. I found both cameras to be the easiest to grade. Sony is an impressive package, but I find their footage to be a little too sharp and green and because there color science is a bit different in it's approach, I found that it took more time to grade, and although my results were positive, I felt there were a lot of challenges, with using the camera from color to exposure. I'm sure after some mileage one could get used to it, and make it into an amazing camera, but I felt in comparison to the Canon and Blackmagic packages, it seemed to not make sense to me. Then there's the Panasonic. Also same deal with Sony. Except the footage looked more magenta cast, then I prefer, and very sharp in a video sort of way. Where Sony is hard to expose but has good low light capabilities, I find the Panasonic can accurately expose more through it's built in tools, but is not ideal for low light. I think there cameras have gotten better and better as they progress and even there skin tones have improved from footage I've seen with their G7 and most recently the GX80/85, but again the footage is a bit more hard work to make filmic or skin tone friendly, at least to me. So then we move onto the Canon C series. In the theme of this conversation, I think the ultimate camera package that seems to do everything, from experience shooting with it, is the C300 Mark II. It has the filmic quality of an Arri Alexa, making it a more than adequate B Camera for it, for commercials, films and TV, but also with all the features needed on the exterior to make it an amazing run and gun tool for the Doc and otherwise applications. It has 4K internal recording capability, Canon Log color, 1080p60 for slow motion, built in ND filters, etc......I feel this is the most versatile camera package out there, with the most appealing image quality to match. However it exceeds the price of the cameras discussed in this thread, by a good chunk...SO...we have to look at alternatives, and this is where things get a little weird.... The Canon C100 Mark II is definitely not a C300 Mark II. But it offers a ton in it's price class. It has all the bells and whistles of the C series cameras making it a very capable all in one system, with everything you need. This is a camera that you can pickup and go. No question. The image quality is not as filmic to me, as the C300, but is a very capable and elegant look, compared to a lot of cameras out there. Personally I think this camera is a must for the professional videographer, doing a lot of doc, or commercial style shooting and I'm sure you've heard similar assessments in this and other forums. The Dual Pixel Autofocus is a revolutionary feature as well to this camera! However from a narrative film perspective, I prefer a more filmic look, which I feel this one doesn't produce inherently, lets say compared to a Blackmagic camera or C300 Mark II (or Alexa, if you want to go there). But of course, with work, can probably be accomplished with grading. The other missing feature to this camera, is 4K. I know...everyone says we don't need 4K now...and that's totally true, and if I were buying a camera for 1000-1500, I'd say don't worry about the 4K now, just get something when you need it...but when you're looking at a camera, specifically like the C100 Mark II, priced at around $4500, it becomes an investment, which means having something a little more long term, and as 4K emerges into a standard, you want to make sure that your camera at that price level is at least a little future proof. And that's where I hesitate with moving on a C100 Mark II. Then we go to the mighty Blackmagics! Now I've spent a lot of time drooling over the footage on these cameras. esthetically, these cameras produce the closest look to what I look for in this price category, but I do have to say each of them has a bit of a different look to them, so lets break that down for a sec. BMCC, BMPCC - These were the first ones. I feel these are the best ones. They seem to have the least amount of issues on the image side, from what I've experienced and seen. It's not the best at low light, compared to the Canon's but totally use-able. I even had a BMPCC for awhile, and did a natural/available and low light test with it. Here's the link if you want to check it out... It's not scientific at all, but you can see what can be done with this camera in a number of available light situations. At the time I didn't know that the native ISO was 800, so I was changing ISO settings based on the scenes I shot. But as you can see, it's filmic and the grain is organic looking enough. Depending on your tastes of course! The draw backs to these specific cameras are with the BMPCC, it's only HD, and with the BMCC it's 2.5K sensor not 4K. However at this price point, I don't think it's as much a show stopper. And these cameras just produce amazing filmic image quality. They also record RAW, which is another plus to these cameras. Offering a load more dynamic range. So from the image perspective, I think all the characteristics of these cameras, are a plus. These cameras have often been used as B cameras for Alexas as well. Especially the Pocket, which can be rigged in places where a camera might not normally fit. The not so great challenges of these cameras are the crop factor, especially with the EF version of the BMCC, not being able to use speedboosters which of course changes the crop factor from 2.3 to 1.5 (Super 35), because of it's mount type, which severely limits lens choices, especially in wide options. The BMCC MFT though offers more lens options, but if you own a lot of EF glass, you won't be able to control aperture since it's a passive mount. Which makes the BMPCC the most flexible option with an Active Mount, and MFT compatible, so you should be able to control aperture on EF glass as well as autofocus. Another challenge is getting all the necessary accessories to these cameras, which has been discussed thoroughly already so I don't have to get into that, but there are some ideal accessories, and there are other things, where you'll have to get more creative to kit it out, depending on your needs. But all in all it's basically a sensor, that you have to build into a camera. The last downside, I think with this camera, is no slow motion. It does a maximum of 1080p30. For folks doing more filmic work, you would think that would be a feature more of interest, but I'm guessing it's a technical limitation to the camera's hardware. BMPC4K - This camera was the next in line. I"ve been reading a lot of mixed reviews on this camera. Basically a 4K version of the BMCC. So it has all the features and issues of the above camera with two exceptions. It has 4K which is great! And it's got a Super 35 size sensor, so no crop factor issues. And it comes in EF or PL. No MFT, which is a bit of a bummer, but if you have EF or PL glass you're all set. But how's the image? From what I can tell...not as good as the 2.5K BMCC. I found the BMPC4K footage to not look as filmic, for starters, but most importantly I saw two big show stopping issues. One is that highlights were not as detailed on the BMPC4K as they are in the BMCC. They seemed to blowout as easily as a DSLR. Second issue...when I was playing around with one, I noticed that the camera only goes at 800 ISO (please correct me if this is something I'm mistaken) and the BMPCC and BMCC can do 1600 and at lowlight exhibited some pretty major fixed pattern noise. Those issues alone make this camera to me, un-usable. Ursa Mini 4K and 4.6K- Now we come to these gems. The answer to all of our gripes on the camera limitation front. Good ergonomics, same image quality, built in audio, 4K or 4.6K options, good sensor size, high frame rate options, professional lens mount capabilities, Super 35 sensor size. All we've been asking for. But here's why this camera is a no go for me, at least for now.... It seems that these cameras have a number of issues in both image quality and hardware. Things like the dreaded magenta cast, which I hear is improving with firmware upgrades, more of that fixed pattern noise from the BMPC4K! Audio noise in the audio inputs, is another issue. And many other weird issues here and there, which I hear maybe as easy as swapping the camera for another at the store as a solution, but still! It seems they rushed this camera to ship, and are now paying for it. So it seems that we need to wait for about as long as it took the BMCC and BMPCC to mature. Promising but not ready...today. BMMCC - So this camera to me is the most frustrating and exciting from the batch, because it sounds like a totally functional camera, but lacks in the user interface. It's got 1080p60 and the flexible size of the Pocket camera, and It sounds like the image quality is great, but like the other posters have mentioned, it sounds like a nightmare to operate. Even at controlled filming environments, we want to be able to access operations on the camera quickly. It sounds like the buttons and menus and overall operations of this camera are non intuitive and slow. With the same theme of the earlier cameras. It's a great naked sensor and brain that needs to be built into a camera. I don't think I would mind as much, with that factor in mind, but if the buttons are hard to hit and it's hard to access the menu options quickly, controlled shooting environments or not, this poses a real challenge, that might not be worth it. So this is sort of my take on the cameras discussed on this thread, from loads of time operating the cameras, or researching heavily on footage examples and reviews. I still haven't replaced my 5D. I felt given all the factors I laid out, I'd rather rent camera bodies for now, for specific projects, rather then invest in a specific camera since I feel like we're close to hitting all the marks, but not quite. I also want to wait because I've heard there are some new things being announced in both Canon and Panasonic camps this fall that might be worth waiting and taking a look, so I'm planning on getting something probably this fall or winter. If I had to make a choice today, given that I do mostly music videos, short films, and some commercial work. I'd probably get a C100 Mark II. It works with my existing Canon EF glass, has 1080p60, great dynamic range, low light, built in audio and ND filters. I can work with this footage, and with a combination of even more filmic glass, can make the image more filmic, if I need to. I think I would rather work harder in that avenue then have to work with hobbling a camera together with many parts and stuff to get it to a place, where it's functional. I don't even feel I have to do that with a Arri Alexa even though you have to kit that camera out, I feel like the camera itself is still intuitive and functional. I love the BM image quality, but it's really not a camera, in the sense of how Arri, RED, and Canon cameras are. If I had to get a BM camera today, I would probably go back to buying a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, and rig that up as best I can. I think the button positions are more accessible than the BMMCC, and feels more like a camera, and I don't need to put a monitor on it, to control it's functions. That's just my 2-cents."

It's been really interesting reading through this thread. I started a similar one, after ditching my Canon 5D Mark III to pickup a dedicated video camera, since I now shoot stills mostly on Fujifilm X camera and wasn't satisfied with the quality of the 5D Mark III in comparison to other video cameras I was renting and shooting with for video projects. The 5D Mark III was brilliant in it's day and still to this day shoots amazing stills, but because I shoot a lot of street photography needed something smaller and Fuji really helped replace that function in more compact package, so my 5D sat in the closet a lot. I did consider using ML on my 5D to sort of resurrect it as my dedicated video camera, but felt like ML was way to unpredictable for my liking, contrary to the fact that it DID produce much better video and stunning footage in RAW. So that started my search for the new camera, and it really came down to either Canon or Blackmagic simply for the color science and ease of grading. I found both cameras to be the easiest to grade. Sony is an impressive package, but I find their footage to be a little too sharp and green and because there color science is a bit different in it's approach, I found that it took more time to grade, and although my results were positive, I felt there were a lot of challenges, with using the camera from color to exposure. I'm sure after some mileage one could get used to it, and make it into an amazing camera, but I felt in comparison to the Canon and Blackmagic packages, it seemed to not make sense to me. Then there's the Panasonic. Also same deal with Sony. Except the footage looked more magenta cast, then I prefer, and very sharp in a video sort of way. Where Sony is hard to expose but has good low light capabilities, I find the Panasonic can accurately expose more through it's built in tools, but is not ideal for low light. I think there cameras have gotten better and better as they progress and even there skin tones have improved from footage I've seen with their G7 and most recently the GX80/85, but again the footage is a bit more hard work to make filmic or skin tone friendly, at least to me. So then we move onto the Canon C series. In the theme of this conversation, I think the ultimate camera package that seems to do everything, from experience shooting with it, is the C300 Mark II. It has the filmic quality of an Arri Alexa, making it a more than adequate B Camera for it, for commercials, films and TV, but also with all the features needed on the exterior to make it an amazing run and gun tool for the Doc and otherwise applications. It has 4K internal recording capability, Canon Log color, 1080p60 for slow motion, built in ND filters, etc......I feel this is the most versatile camera package out there, with the most appealing image quality to match. However it exceeds the price of the cameras discussed in this thread, by a good chunk...SO...we have to look at alternatives, and this is where things get a little weird.... The Canon C100 Mark II is definitely not a C300 Mark II. But it offers a ton in it's price class. It has all the bells and whistles of the C series cameras making it a very capable all in one system, with everything you need. This is a camera that you can pickup and go. No question. The image quality is not as filmic to me, as the C300, but is a very capable and elegant look, compared to a lot of cameras out there. Personally I think this camera is a must for the professional videographer, doing a lot of doc, or commercial style shooting and I'm sure you've heard similar assessments in this and other forums. The Dual Pixel Autofocus is a revolutionary feature as well to this camera! However from a narrative film perspective, I prefer a more filmic look, which I feel this one doesn't produce inherently, lets say compared to a Blackmagic camera or C300 Mark II (or Alexa, if you want to go there). But of course, with work, can probably be accomplished with grading. The other missing feature to this camera, is 4K. I know...everyone says we don't need 4K now...and that's totally true, and if I were buying a camera for 1000-1500, I'd say don't worry about the 4K now, just get something when you need it...but when you're looking at a camera, specifically like the C100 Mark II, priced at around $4500, it becomes an investment, which means having something a little more long term, and as 4K emerges into a standard, you want to make sure that your camera at that price level is at least a little future proof. And that's where I hesitate with moving on a C100 Mark II. Then we go to the mighty Blackmagics! Now I've spent a lot of time drooling over the footage on these cameras. esthetically, these cameras produce the closest look to what I look for in this price category, but I do have to say each of them has a bit of a different look to them, so lets break that down for a sec. BMCC, BMPCC - These were the first ones. I feel these are the best ones. They seem to have the least amount of issues on the image side, from what I've experienced and seen. It's not the best at low light, compared to the Canon's but totally use-able. I even had a BMPCC for awhile, and did a natural/available and low light test with it. Here's the link if you want to check it out... It's not scientific at all, but you can see what can be done with this camera in a number of available light situations. At the time I didn't know that the native ISO was 800, so I was changing ISO settings based on the scenes I shot. But as you can see, it's filmic and the grain is organic looking enough. Depending on your tastes of course! The draw backs to these specific cameras are with the BMPCC, it's only HD, and with the BMCC it's 2.5K sensor not 4K. However at this price point, I don't think it's as much a show stopper. And these cameras just produce amazing filmic image quality. They also record RAW, which is another plus to these cameras. Offering a load more dynamic range. So from the image perspective, I think all the characteristics of these cameras, are a plus. These cameras have often been used as B cameras for Alexas as well. Especially the Pocket, which can be rigged in places where a camera might not normally fit. The not so great challenges of these cameras are the crop factor, especially with the EF version of the BMCC, not being able to use speedboosters which of course changes the crop factor from 2.3 to 1.5 (Super 35), because of it's mount type, which severely limits lens choices, especially in wide options. The BMCC MFT though offers more lens options, but if you own a lot of EF glass, you won't be able to control aperture since it's a passive mount. Which makes the BMPCC the most flexible option with an Active Mount, and MFT compatible, so you should be able to control aperture on EF glass as well as autofocus. Another challenge is getting all the necessary accessories to these cameras, which has been discussed thoroughly already so I don't have to get into that, but there are some ideal accessories, and there are other things, where you'll have to get more creative to kit it out, depending on your needs. But all in all it's basically a sensor, that you have to build into a camera. The last downside, I think with this camera, is no slow motion. It does a maximum of 1080p30. For folks doing more filmic work, you would think that would be a feature more of interest, but I'm guessing it's a technical limitation to the camera's hardware. BMPC4K - This camera was the next in line. I"ve been reading a lot of mixed reviews on this camera. Basically a 4K version of the BMCC. So it has all the features and issues of the above camera with two exceptions. It has 4K which is great! And it's got a Super 35 size sensor, so no crop factor issues. And it comes in EF or PL. No MFT, which is a bit of a bummer, but if you have EF or PL glass you're all set. But how's the image? From what I can tell...not as good as the 2.5K BMCC. I found the BMPC4K footage to not look as filmic, for starters, but most importantly I saw two big show stopping issues. One is that highlights were not as detailed on the BMPC4K as they are in the BMCC. They seemed to blowout as easily as a DSLR. Second issue...when I was playing around with one, I noticed that the camera only goes at 800 ISO (please correct me if this is something I'm mistaken) and the BMPCC and BMCC can do 1600 and at lowlight exhibited some pretty major fixed pattern noise. Those issues alone make this camera to me, un-usable. Ursa Mini 4K and 4.6K- Now we come to these gems. The answer to all of our gripes on the camera limitation front. Good ergonomics, same image quality, built in audio, 4K or 4.6K options, good sensor size, high frame rate options, professional lens mount capabilities, Super 35 sensor size. All we've been asking for. But here's why this camera is a no go for me, at least for now.... It seems that these cameras have a number of issues in both image quality and hardware. Things like the dreaded magenta cast, which I hear is improving with firmware upgrades, more of that fixed pattern noise from the BMPC4K! Audio noise in the audio inputs, is another issue. And many other weird issues here and there, which I hear maybe as easy as swapping the camera for another at the store as a solution, but still! It seems they rushed this camera to ship, and are now paying for it. So it seems that we need to wait for about as long as it took the BMCC and BMPCC to mature. Promising but not ready...today. BMMCC - So this camera to me is the most frustrating and exciting from the batch, because it sounds like a totally functional camera, but lacks in the user interface. It's got 1080p60 and the flexible size of the Pocket camera, and It sounds like the image quality is great, but like the other posters have mentioned, it sounds like a nightmare to operate. Even at controlled filming environments, we want to be able to access operations on the camera quickly. It sounds like the buttons and menus and overall operations of this camera are non intuitive and slow. With the same theme of the earlier cameras. It's a great naked sensor and brain that needs to be built into a camera. I don't think I would mind as much, with that factor in mind, but if the buttons are hard to hit and it's hard to access the menu options quickly, controlled shooting environments or not, this poses a real challenge, that might not be worth it. So this is sort of my take on the cameras discussed on this thread, from loads of time operating the cameras, or researching heavily on footage examples and reviews. I still haven't replaced my 5D. I felt given all the factors I laid out, I'd rather rent camera bodies for now, for specific projects, rather then invest in a specific camera since I feel like we're close to hitting all the marks, but not quite. I also want to wait because I've heard there are some new things being announced in both Canon and Panasonic camps this fall that might be worth waiting and taking a look, so I'm planning on getting something probably this fall or winter. If I had to make a choice today, given that I do mostly music videos, short films, and some commercial work. I'd probably get a C100 Mark II. It works with my existing Canon EF glass, has 1080p60, great dynamic range, low light, built in audio and ND filters. I can work with this footage, and with a combination of even more filmic glass, can make the image more filmic, if I need to. I think I would rather work harder in that avenue then have to work with hobbling a camera together with many parts and stuff to get it to a place, where it's functional. I don't even feel I have to do that with a Arri Alexa even though you have to kit that camera out, I feel like the camera itself is still intuitive and functional. I love the BM image quality, but it's really not a camera, in the sense of how Arri, RED, and Canon cameras are. If I had to get a BM camera today, I would probably go back to buying a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, and rig that up as best I can. I think the button positions are more accessible than the BMMCC, and feels more like a camera, and I don't need to put a monitor on it, to control it's functions. That's just my 2-cents.

I just checked out some example footage. I've recently steered away from DSLR's, even on the photography side, but wow...the image quality on this is pretty amazing, based on a quick search on Vimeo I just did. I wonder if the upcoming 5D Mark IV due to be announced next month, will have comparable video quality? $6000 is slightly above my budget, so I'm looking for something more in the $3000-$4000 range, if possible....

How's the image quality of the 1DX Mark II compared to the 5D Mark III?

I am in the same boat that you were when you started this post. I'm trying to decide to go Blackmagic or canon. I mostly do narrative short indie stuff and music videos. For any doc or commercial stuff I usually rent. Now that I've sold my 5DmkIII I'm trying to decide. I'm concerned if the C100 gives a cinematic enough image for my type of work. I love the face that it has everything you need and it's ready to go and often times my work even narrative or music video can be run and gun and playing around with available light. I know the Blackmagic achieves the asthetic I want but I'm not into getting all the gack to make it like a C100. The other thing is that from all the work I've done with different cameras I've now figured out each of their asthetic looks and when I'm hired or working on a project usual pick a camera for the project and sometimes that might look like Blackmagic for a short film, c series Canon for an interview or profile piece and even a Sony for a music video. Each camera seems to have its quirks and sacrifices in this price class which makes me hesitate in investing in a particular camera. For instance 4K, slo-motion and a filmic look are things I would want in a camera. The Ursa has too many issues I've read about in quality control, the Blackmagic 4K camera doesn't have slow motion or even a 60i slo mo workaround like you can with the original C100; the C100 has everything except 4K and that's fine most of the time but feel weird since most of the cameras in that price range or lower have it. Sony is a bit of a nightmare to get the colors right so it's more post work...etc..etc.. I wonder if I just need to keep renting until I find that all encompassing camera that I feel I can do everything with.

Lintelfilm - Did you end up buying a new camera, and if so, which one did you end up getting? I"m in the same boat now, and was curious to hear what you concluded on!

This is interesting! I was noticing this a little bit in example footage I was looking at but wasn't sure if it was just me being picky or not. Ive worked with the C100 mk1 on a shoot and found the image quality to be filmic and appealing but want to avoid an image that looks more video like. I work in Post Production and work with a lot of Alexa footage so I lean more towards the most filmic look I can achieve and most of the work I would be doing with this camera would be narrative short film and music video and not documentary style or interviews, except for maybe occasionally. I do however occasionally shoot my shorts and music videos in a run and gun fashion if I have limited resources and so that's why I thought maybe the c100 or mark II was the best choice since it comes with everything you need and the built in ND's sound amazing. ive looked at Blackmagic cameras and feel I like the image quality the best with there stuff as it comes so close to Alexa log footage however it looks like it requires so much extra gack that it ends up costing more then an FS5 I feel. Which I'm not in the position to purchase at the moment. Based on the creative criteria I mention do you still feel like the c100 or c100 mark II is the right fit for the type of productions I'd be doing with it or should I be looking at a different camera all together...?

Hi all, I've narrowed down my choice in purchasing a new cinema camera to either the C100 or C100 Mark II. I'm having trouble deciding between the two mainly because the C100 is at such a killer deal for $2999 with Dual Pixel Autofocus while the C100 Mark II is now at $3999. My question is, are the improvements in the C100 Mark II worth the $1000 difference? Would love to get some opinions! I'd mainly be using this camera for Music Videos and Short Films, with occasional commercial work. Thanks in advance!

I'm not a fan of the original A7S as i found the slog profiles to be REALLY noisy, compared to other log profiles and footage I've worked with on Arri, BM and Canon. However I did see marked improvement in the slog profiles in the area of noise with the A7S II. The image was quite nice actually and certain profiles definitely got rid of the signature greenish cast you see in Sony footage sometime, so it definitely looks like Sony is aware and working on it. But...my biggest gripes with the Sony DSLR cameras, such as the A7series, was that it just didn't hold up like the 5D on a lot of more practical features. For instance, battery life was pretty bad. I know that all mirrorless systems, suffer from that compared to the Canon DSLR's but those Sony's ate batteries for breakfast lunch and dinner! Also of all the mentioned cameras, I often struggled with judging exposure especially when using Slog 2 or 3. I felt like there were'nt enough tools to help judge exposure, and the rear LCD was not so accurate. I think connecting an external monitor, would probably help in this. Also I hear there are overheating issues, as well. So although it produces probably the best image quality from the DSLR/Mirrorless camera department, I felt like it wasn't as sturdy and plug and play as Canon. I also had a lot of trouble getting my Canon glass to play nice consistently with the Metabones. But with all of that said, I felt I was acheiving some very nice footage, but I think I had to work a little harder to achieve it. I have Canon EF and FD glass. Given that both adapt well and are compatible with most cameras, I was thinking about keeping my Canon lenses for now. I think the EF Blackmagic models, play well with them, and work natively without any metabones. The more I read and discuss on this thread, the more I'm feeling like the C100 Mark II might be the camera for me. It's a little more expensive, but it seems to have all the checkmarks, except for 4K, and I guess if 4K were to come up, I could always borrow or rent to accomplish that particular project, and as previously mentioned, it's the same sensor as the higher end Canon C series cameras. It's making a lot more sense.....

Wow! Some really interesting perspectives. This is great! Here are some of my thoughts/questions... Fuji X-T2 - I actually have one on pre-order to replace my X-T1, for my stills work, and excited to hear about it's upgraded video capabilities, but after looking at all the video test footage that's been posting online, I wasn't too impressed by the image quality. Sure it looked clean and 4K like, but I felt like motion rendering was a bit weird on that camera, and I felt like it had that "high shutter speed" motion look, even when the shooters were shooting in the right shutter speed for 24p. It makes for a very video look to it, that I don't enjoy. Adding the FujiFilm Simulations, looked like it helped a lot and sounds fantastic, but I didn't find the videos to be aesthetically pleasing to me. But that's just me and more of an image preference thing. My go to for image quality in video tends to look more towards how motion is and how fluid and filmic it looks. I often feel this characteristic alone, determines whether it looks like your shooting on a DSLR or cinema camera. And this case, I felt like the footage looked very DSLRish..... 5D Mark III with ML - I'm intrigued by this option but also afraid. I've installed Magic Lantern before on my 5D and didn't have much luck with stability. I found that there was many contrasting tips on how to run a stable ML camera and workflow setup, and found the resources and information quite confusing online. The last time I ran a "stable" build, I had issues with white balance. Regardless of my WB settings, my footage would come out orange. Of course I could correct it in post, but I also had issues monitoring through my LCD with accurate exposure. I'd be curious to here if there's a tried and true way to setup and run the 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern, where I could be getting more stable operation. I do however agree with some of the posters mentioning the workflow concerns, and instability in a more critical shoot situations. I often times will be directing and DPing, so I want to have the most reliable and stable camera system, so I can focus on the creative aspect of the shoot. But for those that have had success with ML, I'd love to hear your tips, as I love the idea of keeping this 5D and making it better! C100/C100 Mark II - I'm very intrigued by this option, after hearing all the praises on this camera from this thread! It seems to answer a lot of my bullet points, and image quality seems to be at the top of it's game as well as reliability and functionality. It seems like the best option for just firing up the camera, knowing when you hit record, it records, and it just does what they say it does. No extra secret features to unlock! Post seems equally easy on it, and if I want to bump up the quality even more, then I can slap an external recorder on it. I also have to admit, I like the ergonomics of this camera the best. It seems like it's just substantial enough to run and gun with your hands, but also big enough to rig up on the shoulder or a stablizer. It also has that professional look and for the occasional time, I get hired to shoot on a gig, I feel like clients will dig it. I am concerned about it's lack of 4K capabilities at that price point, though which is why I've hesitated on it. I swore off 4K shooting for a long time, thinking I would never need it, but after shooting 4K on the C300 Mark II, I was really pleased at the quality, and re-framing capability. With all these other cameras from the 1-3K price range, they all seem to have 4K now, so I'm just worried about investing 3-4K in a HD only camera. But it seems that the other options, come at other compromises that may be more detrimental in the shooting process and that the C100's image quality and reliability make it the best choice? Thoughts?

Hi all, I realize this subject has been discussed in different forms, at various times on this forum, but I thought I'd get a fresh perspective in 2016 on how everyone feels as a good solid alternative to the 5D Mark III, specifically for video. Originally I bought the 5D, so that I could have a solid photography and video camera. But recently I switched camera systems, to the Fuji for all my stills work, so right now, I've been using the 5D more or less for video. However I'm growing tired of seeing the soft footage, extremely shallow depth of field, making it harder to pull focus, and lack of dynamic range, especially when playing around with such cameras as the Sony A7S II and the Blackmagic Cameras. Professionally I work in post production and work with a lot of Arri Alexa footage, so I'm used to working with a very filmic look. So astetically I strive to shoot footage of similar characteristics. Outside of working in post I like to shoot short films, music videos and mostly narrative works. I feel like I can do better in this day and age than the long in the tooth 5D. Here are some features I'm looking to have in a new camera.... 1. Super 35 (APS-C size) sensor as I find it easier to work with this sensor size since it matches with most cinema camera formats and looks the most cinematic to me, as well as easier to work with especially in the area of focusing. 2. Capability of recording audio internally through a mic input or mic inputs 3. Focus Peaking and other helpful metering or scope/grams on the rear display 4. Clean output for external monitors or recorders 5. 4K recording internally 6. 1080p60 for slow motion 7. Log profiles (like S-log, Log-C, V-Log, etc.) 8. Compact enough to hold in my hand and walk around with no rig, or have the necessary and available accessories to rig it up with shoulder, rods, etc. 9. Battery life that lasts more than 30 minutes. So these are the fundamentals I've been looking for in 1 camera to shoot narrative video on. Budget wise I'm trying to keep under $3000. So far I've seen that the contenders are, the Canon C100 or Mark II (slightly above my budget), Sony A7S II, The Blackmagic fleet of cameras, The Sony A6300, and the Panasonic GH4/G7. I see that all of them hit various points on my list, but have there fair share of issues whether it be lack of certain features or reliability concerns. Blackmagic - Right off the bat I have to say working with the BM cameras in the past, I feel they come to the closest in looking Alexa like, especially when in Log mode, but as we all know those cameras seem to have a fair share of issues that follow. So I'm very hesitant to bring a camera like that into a critical shoot situation Canon - I've worked with the C100, C300 and C300 MkII. I would love to own a C300 mkII, but it's way out of my price range, so I have to snap back to reality and look at the C100, however I have to say that the image quality on these C series cameras are amazing, but I feel really weird about buying a camera of this price range that doesn't have 4K capabilities. Seems a but expensive, for a strictly HD cam. Sony - I rented a Sony A7S II for a weekend and loved the image it produced but felt like I was teetering on the edge of issues. Battery life was horrible on it, grading the sony footage was not the easiest at all especially with Slog 3 footage. Ergonomics were a bit weird. And I got varying degrees of reliability with focus using the metabones adapter with my Canon glass. However I did in the end feel like the image quality was far better than my Canon 5D footage but felt my 5D was tougher and more long lasting in the field, so to speak..... I have also been hearing loads about this Sony A6300 as I've been very intrigued and have been hearing that it's the "little brother to the A7S and includes log profiles for less than $1000?!? But example footage seems a bit video looking and I didn't like the esthetic look of the footage I was seeing. But that could have just been the footage I was looking at. very curious to hear other opinions about this camera in particular. Panasonic - I shot with a GH4 about 3 years ago and felt like images were a bit to sharp for my taste, that the skin tones were weird looking and hard to grade, and motion rendering seemed also a bit strange, like shutter speed was set incorrectly, but yet it wasn't. However I feel like out of all the cameras above, it seems to fit all the check marks, in some way or close enough, and has he best bang for the buck. And seems to be a fan favorite for all around good solid video work. But can the image be tweaked to look as cinematic as Canon or Blackmagic? So that's it on my thoughts. I would love to hear your thoughts and recommendations on what I should replace my 5D Mark III with, based on these points I mention above! Thanks in advance and look forward to the discussion!

Very nice looking camera. Have it on pre-order already but I'm mainly looking at it, for the stills, however I'm VERY curious on it's video capabilities, as I've been looking to replace my Canon 5D Mark III for video work. But I too have noticed some weird motion rendering in the example videos from the X-T2, footage I've seen so far. I've noticed this on the Sony a6300 in some footage as well. It's almost like the shutter speed is higher then 50 for 24p footage making it not so filmic and blur. The black and white stuff however looks really class! Either way I'm getting it, as I have the X-T1 and love it, but feel like this X-T2 answers any gripes I have with the X-T1. Can't wait to try it out.

Hi Andrew. You bring up a big conundrum, I've been tackling. Because I do a fair share of still photography, I wanted to purchase a body that I could use for stills in addition to video. I tested out the 70D last weekend in NY, and was surprised at how good the focus system was and how fast I could get sharp pictures, as well as the auto focus in video mode. Ultimately here was my plan. To get a Canon 70D and a Panasonic G6 With this option I'll have three cameras to use banking on each of their high points - With my 5D Mark II I currently have, I can shoot all my nighttime and low light scenes for video, and also continue to use it as my portrait and fine art photography camera. - With a Canon 70D, I can use it as a street photography camera, for it's speedy shutter and focus, for action photography, if I ever needed it, and for any steadycam/glidecam work using the video autofocus system. - The G6 I would use for slow motion stuff since it supports full 1080p60 and is dirt cheap with loads of capabilities. The other option was to sell my 5D Mark II and just get a 5D Mark III. But the price is so prohibitive for me, right now, I was looking at these alternatives, and thought this could give me the best of both worlds. As far as the GH3 thought. I've always leaned towards liking the Canon color better than Panasonics. I've always found it more pleasing and easier to grade with, than the Panasonic. I'm testing a GH3 I rented, this weekend, and although the image is quite good I'm having a hard time achieving good color settings to say match the color I have on my 5D...which by the way is based off of your Canon 5D Mark III settings vault article. Thanks for that by the way! So I'm curious...do you recommend the 7D over the 70D? What don't you like about the 70D? Would be curious to hear your take on this and your recommendations on what I am ultimately trying to do and if you have any settings recommends as well!

Hi all, Is anyone out there using the VAF Antlaliasing filter for any of the canon bodies and can tell me how their experiences have been? I'm in the middle of a purchase decision, and thinking about buying a 70D as my second stills and video body to my Canon 5D Mark II. I really like the 70D's speed of focus and the video autofocus system, but when I shot with it the other day for video I was so disappointed by the amount of moire and aliasing I experienced. Just curious..if anyone's used the filter and had good or bad experiences?

Hi all, I'm a long time user of Canon cameras for both stills and photog. I rented a GH3 this weekend, to check out all the praise regarding this camera. One of the things I found helpful on this site when I was playing around with 5D's is Andrew's 5D III Settings Vault post on the main site, with his Neutral and Faithful settings. I'm wondering if anyone has any advice on how to color match 5D's with GH3's. There will be situations where I will record video in low light and shallow depth of field situations on my 5D, as opposed to using the GH3, but would imagine using the GH3 for everything else, and I wanted to get some advice on the most effective way of matching the cameras. Right now, they look distinctly different, in color, and sharpness. Anyone?