BenEricson

Hell yeah. These are great. The fringing around the high contrast blown highlights is a weakness of this camera, looks like you are solving it before post. Thought some of this was pretty nice looking. Cool to see real world footage. Lowlight looks nice. Corporate stuff with clean looking colors.

The XC15 with the audio console looks killer. It looks like the ghosting issue has been solved as well? May have to pull the trigger on purchase if so. Is C-LOG 2/3 available on the XC10 as well?

We're talking about a pretty low priced lens, the price is unlikely to really fall more than it has. Ebay is tell all anyway, and yeah its around 450. The 17-55 is better for certain stuff. For outdoor shooting, it's really nice to have that much longer focal length. The 18-35 is also amazing, but no IS.

Canon glass holds in price pretty amazingly. I don't see that lens being worth less than 350, even after years of use. So yeah, it pays for itself in one shoot. IS is huge. It goes from needing a monopod/tripod to being able to shoot handheld. Yes, if you're shooting on a slider, ronin, or locked off, it's not the right lens. A great DOC run and gun lens though.

Any chance you could host some of that C-LOG footage? I have been using the c300ii at work and it has a magical color quality. It kinda looks like the XC10 is similar in that regard.

I love how everyone hated on the c100ii and is now moving to it. The camera really is so nice, I guess the price drop really sealed the deal. The 24-105 is amazing. That would probably be the first lens I would buy for that camera. I would sell the GH4 and buy the 80d or maybe the 5dmkiii. The Canon color/stills is much much better than the GH4. The next lens I would buy would probably the be the 30mm F2 IS or the Sigma 18-35 1.8. If you need something longer, maybe go for the 70-200 somewhere down the line.

You editing with a spinning drive? I have a 2012 matte screen. I can cut 4k Pro Res/With Looks at 1/4 or 1/2 quality no problem. 1080 is nothing...

The way the sensor picks up color is unreal. Obviously that's optimal lighting, but it does great in mixed lights, interviews of course. A c100ii and a pocket camera seems like a cool combo. You could mention that the FS5 can't touch the C100 on ergonomics, auto focus, or baked in color. They both have strengths and weaknesses. Someone who is used to the 60d wants a better camera will probably do very well with the C100ii.

Seriously, the C100ii is such a beautiful image. A friend of mine just bought one. The colors are just so dialed. A tiny bit of noise doesn't even bug me when the color looks this good. Also light weight and a ton of fun to shoot with. https://vimeo.com/178928164

I shot with the pocket for a while. I always thought I was steady but would need to warp stuff if shot handheld. Such a great camera though. If you ever get a chance, try the Sony F3. The size is huge compared to the pocket but the image is very similar oddly enough. The added weight, xlr, and nd does come in handy.

Nah, you subconsciously notice it. The difference in motion is huge, but hard for someone to pick out in reasons why it looks better. I shoot a of skateboarding, the 16mm stuff on any level has always looked and felt a lot better than any digital stuff.

The problem with the smaller cameras is they need a lot of weight added to them. The handheld look on a shoulder mounted 16mm camera just looks amazing compared to any smaller digital camera. The Ronin look is cool but definitely played. It changes how everything looks. A rig can look just as good if not better a lot of the time, especially for doc work.

The footage looks good, but still has this kind of sickly look to the whole piece, especially in the greens. When you add the right contrast, the skin tones get bad, that's why the only shots with heavy contrast don't have people in them. The whole piece is not only flat but really unsaturated. I REALLY want to love the A7Sii, it checks a lot of boxes, but the colors are tough. I bought the Sony F3 a few months ago and I have been super happy. We use the C300ii at my work, which has probably one of the nicest looking and easiest to grade images ever. There's a lot of options. If you're going to buy two cameras, you could go for the 5D4 and a C100mki. I think that would be under 6k. Having a nice solid camera with audio is huge.

Hah, that's a C100mkii...

Kinda looks like a cellphone with nice colors...

So many people say this. All depends if you need the features. The Sony FS7 also has less features than the C300ii in many respects. Auto Focus is HUGE on that camera, so is the color and the native EF lens mount. You can throw on another 600 for the metabones adapter to the FS7 price. Curious, what does the F5 offer that the FS7 does not, and vise versa. I know there's the PL mount option for better glass, and color space will be better on the F5, (although Sony owners will say color is fixable in the grade. Is there anything additional?

Anything that can run 16mm or larger stock can shoot a better looking film than a consumer DSLR.

I assumed this was 4K/422/10 Bit, but is this only 1080p/422/10bit?

I just checked FS7 prices. Were they always 8500? Seems pretty close to C300ii, a F5 used is cheaper...

Exactly. Convergent Design is actually really really good about updating the firmware. The monitor is incredibly intuitive and has every feature you would want/need out of a pro monitor. That setup seems like a steal to me.

Agree with this. The 7Q with the Sony Raw feature is under 1800, the FS700R is under 3 grand. I've seen really nice stuff done with this setup, but the color can definitely be frustrating. I'm currently using the F3, have access to the fs700/recorder. I think the F3 image looks much nicer, but at the same time, doesn't have those crazy resolutions or frame rates. 4/120fps for that price is no joke. I would most likely buy a Ursa Mini if it had internal ND filters. I find messing with internal filters to be just as bad as the size as the fs700/7q. If you want, I an host some S-Log 2 raw files for you.

I've seen you mention this a lot. I've used the FS700/7Q quite a bit with no problems. I've used the 7Q on the F3 as well. Always been 100 percent reliable. I always go straight to Pro Res. The workflow is incredibly smooth. Yes, the setup is big, but a monitor like that is so handy. If you shoot a lot of interviews, this would probably be a great choice. Obviously if you need a smaller kit/run and gun, the FS7 or C300ii is probably a better choice.

It sounds like the Sony FS7 gets asked for a lot and has industry recognition. Personally, I think the C500 producer much nicer images, the C300ii as well.

Crazy clean images.

I don't think anyone is surprised. Anyone, whether pro or beginner, will produce better looking color with the Canon. Here's a couple stills from a recent project. Not exactly beauty lighting like above, but the first interview I lit with 1x1 panel through a 5/1 and a handheld battery LED for backlight. The second is natural light. Super quick setup, works for doc work. I would imagine ARRIs through some diffusion in a studio setting will produce skin like the ones above. I'm actually editing some F5 footage right now. The C300 looks better in worse lighting. You have to try harder to get a better image with the sony cameras, whether that be in lighting/color correct etc. The canon nails it.