Shield3

My #1 beef was shooting longer takes - you could view the video through the EVF or rear LCD - but never toggle between them. Drove me freaking nuts. I would have to stop myself and say "Do I want EVF only video monitoring 10 minutes from now?"

Yes I am aware of the MLV audio - I shot RAW for 2+ years on the 5d3. Shot it in the very beginning and spent countless hours syncing audio in post - remember the "beep" when it starts recording, and the scratch camera audio time not syncing in post? I went through all those headaches - later builds were much better of course. Any camera might lock up with a 3rd party battery; not sure what the point of that is. I think you can find used C100 II's for under $4k - I did. Just have to be patient.

That's strange - with fast glass I found the C100 II to be better in low light, or darn near impercetable. Please don't compare a 18-135 STM @ F/5.6 vs. the 5d3 raw @ 50 1.2. We're talking 4.5 stops of light here - I'm sure most of the footage you've seen out of the c100 was with much "slower" lenses. The c100 II was usable up to about ISO 8000 IMO, and the 5d3 raw perhaps 3200. All depends on if you're exposing for the shadows, highlights, applying NR in your raw workflow, etc. Just my opinion, but the c100 II is really, really good in low light. Not A7s territory of course, but man.

Properly exposed C-log on the C100 II looked to me, with the right lens, every bit as good as the 5d3 in raw. I shot the latter for 2+ years (started in about May of 2013). At the end of the day there's just way too many compromises with the 5d3 raw - tedious workflow (comparatively speaking), camera lock ups, audio sync headaches *if* ML raw even decides to record audio (yes I've used modern nightly builds). Reliability? Don't even compare the two. No instant backup, no ND filters, no XLR audio, no Autofocus, shorter record times, more expensive (1000x or faster) CF cards, super dodgy 3x zoom mode that locked me up often. If I'm shooting something I can do 10 takes on the 5d3 would be a good choice. If it's a bride walking down the aisle, 100 out of 100 times I'd grab the c100. If I need continuous AF, good audio, long battery life, long record times, quick turnaround, (you see where I'm going here) I'll grab the c100. With the Sigma 18-35 1.8 it's like 27-54 2.8 of full frame, and you can still throw that 85 1.2 and blow the hell out of the background on both cameras. Hell in the summer I had the 5d3 OVERHEAT shooting ML raw. Never seen the c100 hiccup ever. That image does have the magic sauce, but so does the c100 in C-Log. I prefer it over the 1dc due to all the headaches. No reliable 1080p30 or 1080p60 raw on the 5d3; c100 II has this. I hate looking at sports shot in 24p, don't you? I can go out with the 10-18 STM, 18-135 and 55-250 and shoot just about anything. Dead silent AF with face tracking, great audio, great image and reliable. No menu diving to toggle the WB, ISO, F/Stop, better focus peaking and punch in while recording. An actual EVF instead of strapping on a damn loupe! But hey...if you must have static shots with the FF DOF and raw, the 5d3 is the only thing in this price range.

It's the art version, but the E mount lens is far different than the EF (Canon) mount version. E-mount won't do you any good but the AF is silent. The AF is pretty noisy on the art Canon EF mount version though.

Wedding videos are still worse.

We may have a different opinion of "modern". The 28 1.8 USM was released in 1995. On a side note, I have the Sony E-Mount Sigma 30 1.4, which is different than the EF mount, but it's a nice little lens. The Sigma 18-35 1.8 SINGS on the C100 IQ-wise. AF is a bit noisy, but shoot MF or use external audio and you're golden.

"LOG mashes skintones together, with very little separation between distinct shades, so that when the 150Mbit/s data rate is applied to the final H.264 file, the compression becomes the important factor (mushing the tonality and blending blocks of colour together as one)." Not sure if I'm missing something, but exposed properly even the lowly 35 / 24 megabit c100 II in C-Log doesn't appear to "mash the skintones" for me. Perhaps the V-LOG is just that much flatter? Don't know.

That VG900 was a sales disaster IIRC. When released there were no FF E-Mount (FE) lenses, so it had to be shot in crop mode with native glass. Or you could use the LA-EA3 (MF only) or the LA-EA4 which would AF your A-mount glass, but limited the AF points and stuck at F/3.5 (as usual). Had Sony made that a 12 MP sensor with a 4k readout with 1080p oversampling it'd have sold in droves. It tried to be too many things - a 24MP E-Mount camera and a FF video camera. Does the a99 II have the silent shutter mode a la the A7x series? Also there is no better camera (for stills) IMO from an ergonomic perspective than the Sony a77/a99 series. Just perfect in that regard.

Not to argue with myself, but IMO that looks better than the a7s footage I shot. You ever really look at a99 original footage? It's the softest pile of horseshit ever.

Watching that Subaru video makes me very angry. Angry because the a99 ver 1 looked about 1/1000th as good in video mode. This camera looks spectacular, and Sony pissed me off with the version 1's video. Still bitter 5 years later. I am going to knock my a6500 off the end table now. Oh wait, I won't, it'll break and I'll have to wait a month for Precision Camera to fix it. C100 Mk2 gets it pretty good - I assigned a button to quickly toggle AF on and off - I can track my son's baseball players running down the first base line and it'll track all the way. Of course there is, of course, no perfect camera, and I am limited to that damn center box for AF. The 1dxII I thought was worse in AF mode - but it could have been the extra anchor point of the EVF stuck on my face vs. holding the camera (1dxII) at arm's length.

Well using AF in video mode isn't for slackers; sometimes you just need to. Especially if you want to shoot things that move. I might want to be at F/8...or F/1.4. Don't know if it's changed, but the biggest problem is you can't even "PUSH" focus in Manual exposure mode - you have to toggle back to the damn Program Auto settings (i.e.F/3.5). Even the 5d3 that wouldn't AF in video really at all I could "Push AF" to my actual "in use" exposure settings and begin rolling. It's a problem, period. With my A99 I I had the 24/2 lens and was able to put a piece of tape and hold the aperture wide open - it would AF all day in live view / video mode. It's a self-imposed limitation that makes this one, for me, simply out of the question. Not everyone is shooting controlled shots with their gear. People rock back and forth with interviews, and you can forget tracking a bride down the aisle unless you're sure you want F/3.5. P mode AF only SUCKETH, period. But 11 FPS @ 42MP is pretty damn impressive. Yeah it's a disgrace that it overheats. Just unacceptable.

I think the big downside to that and all SLT cameras is the "stuck at F/3.5 in AF mode" issue. You've proven you can work around it, and man does it look better than the original a99 I had (which looked "VHS-like"). Shot well and nice use of the slider or panning in post. Not sure most cameras today with a large (s35 or larger) couldn't have done this however, and I know based on the cost of the body and those 3 lenses you probably had $6k in just camera/body gear.

And the dual record feature for instant backups, or relay recording, or the punch in while recording ability, the fact you can set the EVF to B&W only (or both it and the LCD). I have my punch in set to enable peaking. I wish they would have set the waveform in the viewfinder as well, but that's really the only downside. For me personally in high contrast scenese I overexposed C-log by about 2/3rds to 1 full stop and get really nice results in post. I do try to stick to the native 850 ISO and use the built in ND whenever possible. I love my little A6500 for quick snaps and a much smaller footprint, but man do I ever have to think when I'm using that thing. Sony has got to copy Canon and come up with a quick menu of the most used settings - the C100 I have my framerates, media record mode (AVCHD/MP4), metering options (spotlight etc) and the APS-C mode all quickly accessible. I'm not sure I'd get that much more out of a 4k C100 unless it oversampled like 5k/6k and then I'd worry the rolling shutter would be a problem. The C100 is just amazing. If you're getting one, I highly recommend the 10-18 STM and (believe it or not) the 55-250 STM. Both of those are cheap and punch above their weight, even if not "fast" lenses.

My pick is the C100ii used if you can find one for $3k. Part of the image is FOCUS, and it has the DPAF. Part of the image could be 30p/60p, which it has (and the 1dc does not in 4k). Love the 5d3 raw image as well but man it's just too flaky and I don't trust it 100%. Audio is part of the overall image too, as well as built in ND's - so to me XLR/ND, Canon C-Log, reliability and gorgeous 1080 24/30/60 make the C100 the winner. Battery life, great EVF and EF mount (and face tracking with some EF-S lenses) just add icing to the cake. Add a cheap recorder for more flexibility in post. Skin tones too. Also long record times without overheating, and the simplest damn joystick to instantly toggle between ISO/WB/shutter/F-stop. I don't really have to think that much when I pick up the C100 II - I like that. But I haven't shot the BMPCC or some of these older Sony/Red cameras - so what do I know?

The codec on the 5d3 isn't what killed it. It's the shit pipeline Canon put in between the 14 bit data coming off the sensor and before the data is written to the card. The codec itself is fine; it's doing a fine job lightly compressing the crappy "baked in" data its getting. Case in point, the 1dc in 1080p24 mode didn't look any better, and neither does the 1dx II (and they are using MJPEG). Whatever Canon does to that image (going from 14 bit raw to the 8 bit output) is what kills the image. Codec is the least of your problems - the c100 original had a puny 24 Megabit AVCHD file and walked all over the 3 aforementioned cameras in 1080p24. The lowly XC-10's 1080p24 does as well; same codec I believe in 1080p mode (ALL-I or IPB). Moral = line skipping / binning is not your friend.

Just bought this 10 minutes ago - thanks Andrew for all the hard work. A6500 will here tomorrow. My pdf is showing "version 2" for those that are interested.

I thought both shot in C-log looked very similar after grading and the 1dc downscaled. I think the c100 has more detail than the 1dc even in 4k though; they are different animals. They both have that MOJO for sure though.

I had no intentions of getting another one - long story short one was offered to me with 4 batteries, a 18-135 STM, the box and all accessories for $1950 cash. All legit with receipts. I couldn't jump on it fast enough - it was the Mark II and the seller was a professional photog - just needed rid of it. I have felt somewhat guilty, but he told me he priced it half off just to move it. Twice in my camera buying career I've gotten very, very lucky - last year was a XC-10 with 2 256 GB CFast cards for $1200. Otherwise, I normally take a bloodbath / beating buying and selling gear.

Threw together a few clips I shot from center field last summer (C-log). I'm sure it could have been graded better but I thought it turned out pretty good.

This is helpful; I'll try this; I agree something is going on with the midtones when I shoot with the contrast all the way down. Thanks!

Call me crazy but I felt like my c100 was easier to get "more pleasing" results from C-Log, at least for me, compared to dialing down / in Canon standard. It's all subjective I guess.

Curious to see how you guys get the skin tones back. Maybe it's just too blown out? Ok is this any better skin tone wise?

Don't know how often you shoot 10 year olds but getting junior to sit still that long was torture. So yeah, the original shot (with one fill light) was about a stop overexposed. The shot on the left is untouched Canon standard with the contrast dialed down; the right is just me adjusting the highlight/shadow/contrast/sharpening sliders. You like the skin tones on the left better? I don't. I'm just showing how quickly it can be sharpened up and the highlights pulled down and shadows lifted in post. Just want to be clear though - you prefer the overall image on the left including the skin tones? The right looks much better to me; my son has somewhat rosy cheeks. Left (default) looks dead and devoid of any DR. The sharpening is too much I will admit on the right. Here's a TIFF - by all means I would love to see how you guys grade this so I can get better. Shouldn't be more than 1 stop over exposed (his face) so I'd love to see what changes you guys make. I use Lightroom for stills and Premiere for video. 1dc__00000_03420923.TIFF

I shot this to show Mr. Dugdale what about 3 minutes moving the sliders around in Premiere did to my 1dxII footage (from standard). I think I oversharpened it slightly, but this was with the 35 1.4 @ F/4, ISO 800, 4k24. I also probably overexposed slightly but man it's hard to get any of my kids to sit still so you get what you get. WB set to 3300k. No comments please on the Youtbe page itself (but feel free to comment here). The end is a 200% punch in from the original footage. Looks far better than what Doug was showing. Shrug. Dave is a very nice guy by the way and I have been talking to him quite a bit via email. Shawn