Lintelfilm

You obviously cut that bit from the unboxing video. I know you were excited but there are some things that don't need to be shared ...

I'm really not convinced by that camera. Weirdly I prefer the colours from the previous Cinema EOS cameras (yes theoretically it can be graded to almost anything but in practice it never quite works like that). And in low light it's really kind of poor. It's not much like the other CXXX cameras in anything other than form (and perhaps actual dynamic range!). Still, if someone gave me one as a birthday present I'm sure I'd make it work. Actually I lie. No I wouldn't. I'd sell it and buy a C100 MkII, an Ursa Mini 4K, an A7S MkII, an XC10 and a whole load of lenses and lights. I'm still waiting for Nikon to release a Cinema EOS competitor. You'd think the extra number of lenses they'd sell would make it a no-brainer. I guess they just don't have the video-industry experience of Canon. Don't those two statements kind of contradict each other?! I'd love to stick to one camera for 5 years, you'd know it so intimately (but no I haven't found the right woma... camera yet). There are actually people out there who still favour the GH2 over the GH4 and I can kind of see where they're coming from - it does have a special something. Upstream Colour still looks great.

Hey guys, I'm planning to upgrade my BMPCC and GH4 to a more pro-friendly set-up later this year. I'm trying to decide between the C100 MkII and Ursa Mini 4K. I shoot short docs and promo videos, mostly for online distribution. Mainly I want a hassle-free setup and a more reliable image (I regard both of these cameras as providing that, with the caveat of the Ursas low-light ability and lack of ND's) I'd be grateful for your thoughts on real world advantages/disadvantages between the two. Obviously they're very different cameras. I'll list the main things I like/dislike about each below: Ursa Mini 4K: - Sensor produces my favourite digital image in the sub-$10,000 bracket: clean and modern, with gorgeous bold, nuanced colours - but with a filmic feel (largely down to global shutter, codec and decent highlight rolloff I think). - Pro setup (for confidence and easy "out of the box" shooting): XLR, nice monitor, no cage/speedbooster/etc add-ons needed. - ProRes codec (in reality I'd rarely shoot RAW). Negatives: Low light, no ND's, large file sizes, cost goes up as you add CFast cards, EVF, shoulder thingy. 12 Stops DR I can live with and is same as C100 anyway. C100 Mark II: - Despite Canon's extreme conservatism I still believe it's the best all-rounder available. Everything about it is designed to give you confidence when shooting and make life easy: image is fault-free, small file size, ND's, XLR's, DAF, EF native, etc, etc. - Image: It's the only 8-bit 4:2:0 image that I genuinely really, really like. I love the colours. It can often look a bit plasticy and commercial, but it doesn't have to. I'd add a Video Assist or Ninja Star to get 4:2:2 Prores files when I want them (this is my major bugbear with the C100 MkII - I don't care about 4K but it annoys me that they didn't do 10-bit out. If the GH4 can do it - and the Blackmagic Pocket can do it in-camera! - why not the C100? My externally recorded ProRes files will be unnecessarily large for 8bit really. It just seems a waste. - Form factor. Although I like the shoulder-mounted camera movement aesthetic, for my approach I much prefer the Cinema EOS ergonomics. It's a great mid-point between fully featured pro camera, pro-looking for when you want to impress a client or subject, but small, discreet and unintimidating too when you need it. Negatives: Codec - I love grading (I'm not particularly great at it but I still really enjoy it), so after the BMPCC I worry I'll be underwhelmed by both the Canon's internal codec and external 8bit 422. It's also expensive for what it is "on paper" and I doubt it'll hold much value due to inevitable march of 4K. A note on lenses: As much as I'd love to shoot on lovely primes all the time, the reality is that image stabilised zooms make life more simple and I've grown to love them. I use all Nikon mount glass atm, so this plan will probably mean an overhaul of my lens kit too. I imagine building toward something like: Tokina 11-16 2.8, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, Tamron or Canon 70-200 IS ... and eventually Sigma 18-35mm and 50mm, and an 85mm prime of some sort. If I go down the Ursa route I'll probably prioritise nice manual primes a bit more (though I know the EF mount isn't that versatile there are still lots of nice options out there, and though I love lens character I tend to prefer it when it leans toward a clean, modern look (e.g. Ziess ZE and Sigma Art series). With the C100 I'll want to make use of the DAF and more use of image stabilisation, so will stick more to electronic lenses. So you see my conflict - it feels like I'm not just considering two different cameras but two different approaches to filmmaking. One is more run and gun documentary, appealing to my practical side, and one is all about the image. But neither are massively deficient (low-light on the Ursa scares me a little though - I can't always carry and set-up lights). Huge thanks for any input ...

What about a Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera, video assist and X or Y gimbal? I guess light, wide lenses are a bit of an issue. That and the fact Blackmagic will be announcing their replacements at NAB 2016 before either are even in stock anywhere...

Shhh! You're not allowed to say that! Only film and video professionals who use cameras every day to deliver solid results on time and pay the bills say that kind of thing! Start moaning about image quality and specifications quick, before someone sounds the alarm!

I like you jcs. You have a level head and a good temper. It's rare here.

Yup the 18-35 really makes a 2.8 zoom look dull. I don't care too much about shallow DoF but over a stop of light is hard to swallow. I'm going to have a look for some busted AF Nikkors myself. We may find ourselves in a bidding war Mattias!

Sorry this is a bit off-topic but I'm looking for a pair of longer zooms to compliment my Nikon mount 11-16 and 18-35. I'm leaning toward tamron - how do yo like those Nikons?

Vindication! I thought the 5 reasons video looked better than the Last Test, but I doubted myself because I worried it might have just been knowing it was shot on Red that made it look better in the second video! Matt (I'm the cheeky chap on YouTube who said the first one looked like 8bit h264 by the way).

Mattias can you explain why the RED suited your needs when the URSA & 1DC didn't (and your BMCC for that matter)?

I too graduated from a 550D to a GH4 (via a D5300 and G6) so am well aware of the advantages. In fact I'm also an artist by the way (10 years in art school for my sins). However shooting RAW on a 5DIII is a million miles away from shooting h264 on a 550D. A million miles. I'd recommend a BMPCC/BMCC over a Magic Lantern'ed 5D if you weren't after stills as well, but I don't think you should be intimidated by the workflow. From my point of view RAW - or at least 10bit ProRes - is the only way to go if you're serious about getting creative with the visual side of video. It's digital film. I do documentary stuff now so can't handle the Magic Lantern workflow but the BMPCC in ProRes mode is a great compromise. As soon as it's available here in the UK I'm going to buy a BM Video Assist to pair with my GH4 so that will also give me 10bit ProRes - that may be worth considering yourself instead of buying a new camera? Personally I really like the GH4 for stills. For video I use a Speed Booster and (90% of the time) a Sigma 18-35mm, but for stills I have a Leica MFT 25mm f1.4 which is great. I do like the NX1's colours a little more than the GH4 but I don't think there's enough of a difference between them to justify swapping. I chose the GH4 over the NX1 because its such a workhorse in terms of features and useability. Having said all of that I generally much prefer the images and (now it's fully rigged-up) useability of my BMPCC. You can get a used 5DII for about $800 and a 5DIII for about $1600 here in the UK. In terms of image quality alone (and particularly what can be done with it creatively in post) RAW video from the 5DII and III is way ahead of ANY of the other hybrid cameras. Unless you think fake 4K resolution in 8bits is more important than true 1080 with 14bit of colour depth. Most pros I've come across who have replaced their 5D's with a Sony A7 camera or GH4, etc, have acknowledged that it was largely for ease of use, and that they still prefer the the 5D RAW image. The NX1 is a great camera but it's not perfect. None of them are.

Paddy, to me your kind of work (and what you say you need) screams Canon 5D (2 or 3). Superb stills - and for the experimental/art video RAW is an obvious choice and fine to use in controlled scenarios.

Dinner for One tonight Andrew? I'm imagining you sitting round a table set for several people, but with a different camera at each place. Happy new year mate!

What are the obstacles to implementing 10 bit internal recording in hybrid cameras? Is that a heat issue too? I'd also like to know why the GH4 is still the only hybrid that outputs 10bit via hdmi. Is it a technical obstacle stopping Sony, Canon etc or are they protecting their higher end video cameras? Why the C100 Mk II doesn't have 10 bit out I have no idea. I guess it would make the C300 totally obsolete but it kind of does already once you add a recorder...

Atomos always advertise their recorders as capturing a 10 bit file, even if the camera only outputs 8bit (e.g. 5D, A7S). You have to go to the camera manufacturer to find what the output bit depth is. I can't find anything saying its 10 bit out from Canon so I'll assume it isn't...

My top XC10 Mark II feature requests: 1. EVF 2. Constant f2.8 lens (Perhaps by not making it as long as the current one - but could they make up for that by implementing a 1080p digital zoom similar to the FS5?) 3. 10bit out! 4. More pro feeling body 5. More function buttons 6. Improved manual focus ring

The first few shots I used a gorillapod pro. The rest is just handheld with a z-finder and a touch of lock n load in FCPX.

Sorry can't figure out how to embed from my iPad ...

Agreed. Moire is so aggressive in RAW mode its even visible in grass and tree branches. It's a very ugly kind of artefacting too. Pro res HQ is such a huge jump from 8bit codecs anyway and Personally I enjoy grading from the Log more. I love my BMPCC. This is the first thing I ever shot with it. Love at first grade: https://vimeo.com/106840010

As Ebrahim said the C100 MkII is a great camera too. Superior to the C300 really. It's significantly better in low light, offers 50p and the colour science is improved noticibly. Of course the C300 has a slightly stronger codec but paired with a Video Assist or Ninja Star the C100II is smaller, cheaper and outguns it. It's often sold with a free ninja Star too. Expensive for what it is on paper but it is a canon so that's a given really.

An old favourite, also GH3:

They're nice shots and I don't want this to sound mean but to me your NX1 shots just look low contrast - low dynamic range with the shadows lifted until they aren't true black (no detail, just grey, and no "punch"). Furthermore the colour looks 8-bit with a generic "film" LUT applied, and the in-focus details look overly sharp. Colour depth, dynamic range and strong codec are not what these images say to me. The XC10 has the latter 3 in abundance. It's a question of taste I agree, but to say the XC10 "sucks" in comparison to the NX1 is to dismiss dynamic range, colour depth, motion cadence, image integrity/robustness, camera use-ability, rolling shutter performance, and the huge benefit of using a camera that "just works."

A couple of months ago Faith Fuller of Desktop-Documentaries.com (a site aimed mainly at doc-making noobs) asked me to write an article recommending a few "ready to shoot" camera packages in the $2500 price range. You guys know I don't have vast experience when it comes to cameras but I basically whittled it down to a choice between a GH4 with a 12-35mm, and an XC10 (this is for documentary shooting remember so useability was high on the list of requirements). If you want to take a look it's here (I also go into the general 2015 video camera landscape a bit): http://www.desktop-documentaries.com/best-documentary-video-camera-2500.html I went for the XC10 as the overall best choice (obviously acknowledging that ultimately it comes down to what you want and need the camera for though). Personally I use a GH4 with 0.71x speed booster and a BMPCC with the 0.58x SB. For myself I would choose my fully rigged out BMPCC over the GH4 or XC10, but recommending that set-up to noobs isn't really fair. Unless you're using a speed booster, I see very little advantage of a GH4 over an XC10 (speaking purely of video and disregarding stills capability) and even with a speed booster the only real advantage is shallow DoF. By the way, does anyone have any opinion on how nicely XC10 footage plays with mid-spec computers? The XC10 stuff I've graded and edited was OK on my 2013 i7 iMac but I didn't do a lot. Is it comparable to ProRes in terms of smooth editing? Honestly, for the work I do I do wonder sometimes about selling my GH4 and BMPCC and just buying an XC10. It would make my life sooo much easier, with very few downsides (loss of shallow DoF basically).

Oh well if you heard that it sucks I'll retract my comment. And I'll buy one of the many other 4:2:2 4K 305mbps with good low light, lovely colour science, small form factor and IBIS that are available. And chuckle to myself about how 90s the XC10s image looks. Yeah, I'll do that.

Not even a mention of the XC10 Andrew? Personally I'd rank it highly on all of these lists but I think even its critics would acknowledge its place here. Beautiful colour, strong codec, decent low light, great handling. For me it's the most interesting "enthusiast" level camera released this year. Unassuming specs but very powerful for capturing strong real world images.