independent

Of course it looks good, it's pretty close to the 1dc, clog be damned. But slow motion (and cute music) are naturally crowd pleasers. A bit of a cheap trick, really. 24P, under challenging light, with movement, capturing motion - those are the stress tests.

Give Blackmagic credit. First, they're a relatively tiny manufacturing operation. They deadlifted their chances of success in a tough market. Samsung left, for crying out loud. Digital bolex, done. A few others tried too, and failed. Blackmagic brought innovative products at an accessible price point - many of us are direct beneficiaries of that. Years ago, I replaced my red scarlet with the fresh BMCC, which had a better overall image with far less fuss. And the camera was ready to shoot at a cost 1/10th of the price of the red scarlet, which itself was the cheapest real cinema camera at the time. And even if you don't like their prroducts, you still benefitted indirectly from that. Blackmagic is an industry disrupter. They put a lot of pressure on a lot of companies (Red immediately responded with a failed 4K for 4K campaign) and raised the quality and features of competing products. Don't forget the fact that Blackmagic also offered a class grading software free with Davinci resolve (again disrupting the industry) as well as integrating a NLE into it (again disrupting the industry). All their moves have helped the independent filmmaker. Yes, they've had delays (not nearly as bad as RED) and some minor flaws (that other companies had too), but these are the growing pains of a small company. They don't have the resources that Canon and Sony have for QC and supply chain management. If they raised prices that would obviously help, but they're intentionally pricing their stuff very aggressively. They're probably operating at a loss or very slim margins to stay in the game. If they go under...that would be a painful loss. Because they are approaching products with an intelligence and practicality that are sorely lacking in the competition. The ursa mini 4.6k is not for extreme low-light situations, or autofocus, or drone work, but for traditional filmmaking, there is nothing out there that provides a comparable image at its price point. This forum has a lot of dslr/mirrorless users, who complain a ton about their image. What's funny, so many of their complaints are answered....with blackmagic cameras. Color science, simple straightforward menus, no overheating, motion cadence, filmic, thick codecs, etc. It's all right there.

You're one generation away from the 1dc losing competitiveness. Even the c100 ii I think is done, or they'll have to rebadge the c300 ii and shift the entire line. 1080 is over. 4K has come to the mainstream consumer pipeline; now the next step is the quality of that 4k and other feature like autofocus, low light, stabilization, etc. Next, we'll see the new sonys, blackmagics, Panasonic, etc. - even new canons, but in the c-line or xc-line. $5k next year will buy you a lot. The 1dc is a great camera, but the rest of the market is catching up with image quality, while surpassing it with features. There's no sacred cow in tech - everything gets left behind eventually. Always invest more in talent-

Instead, rule out your understanding of "operational."

I'm not surprised. Aside from the unreliable promo videos, with questionable grades, I expect the actual quality of the video to be similar to the 1DX II, aside from the difference in crop and frame rates. Then again, the 1DX II is almost double the price of the 5D IV, so it's reasonable to expect some differences. The 5D IV is at a similar price point to the Sony a7r II, which has its own drawbacks. Color science versus crop factor? Either will be a deal breaker for some, or minor obstacles for many others. Still, the 5D IV has the best implementation of video autofocus on the market, quality 4K (despite the crop), good colors out of the box, rugged body and proven reliability, and of course the widest range of available lenses. Right now, there are only two small cameras with usable video autofocus that doesn't have some MAJOR operational limitation (a6300): The Sony a7r II and the 5d IV. Glad to see more tools out there.

If you're shooting in an apartment, you have control over lighting, movement, blocking, etc. So your priority should be the best image quality. For low budget, I'd say it's the Blackmagic Ursa Mini 4.6K. It does have a couple issues: don't shoot past f8 to avoid magenta corners (but you control lighting so no big deal) and some reports about noisy audio preamps - but that doesn't matter, because you should be using better audio for a feature anyways. Even a couple hundred bucks will get you better audio than what's in $10K, $20K cameras. Just remember, all of these cheaper cameras have drawbacks. But for a feature? The URSA Mini 4.6K will be the easiest to get a filmic and cinematic look for its price range. It does not look like "video" because of its dynamic range, motion cadence, grain structure, thick codec, etc. Personally, I think even the Canons DSLR's don't quite look filmic or cinematic. Even the 1DC. It's praised for skin tones among the small cameras, but you should check out how the ursa mini 4.6k captures people's skin. Obviously as human beings, we're tuned to those details more than the whiskers of a cat. And the blackmagic just takes it to another level as far as transparency, detail, tonality - it hangs with the big boys like RED and Alexa. You should get a high quality monitor or the best 4K TV (hey you're in Korea ;)) you can find, and check out the footage. We did, and we were blown away. But it's not the best camera for any situation. But it comes down to your story, crew, and your own preferences. In fact, I would spend a few hundred dollars to rent a couple cameras for even a weekend....Have the DP, camera op, DIT, even editor, and of course the director, to figure out what works the best for you guys. Go on a date before getting hitched. Could save you a ton of money down the line.

Well, heavier loads are better carried on the shoulder. Even a fully kitted out red epic on a monopod gets unwieldy - been there. Some have had luck with ones with a foot to pivot or a small base for increased stability. Either way it was hard to get controlled camera movement. You won't get anything close to steadicam results for shoulder mounted setups, but good camera operators move with a smooth gait. A good a/c helps immensely too. Also, a properly balanced shoulder rig makes a difference, and the increased mass tends to smooth out "jitters" that one tends to see with the lightweight dslrs. I think Daniel peters had a telling video that compared a Sony a7sii with stabilization and an ursa mini (none) and the ursa looked smoother because of the mass, balance, and shoulder rig. A shoulder rig make a lot of sense when you want to shoot fast (practical) and/or convey an immersive/doc aesthetic. So even if might not be perfectly stable, it might be perfect for the situation. Still being used heavily from indies to Hollywood.

The key difference between this and a monopod is that the monopod is fixed to the ground at point of contact. That's where it gets its stability, which is fine for photography, and for static shots in video, e.g., photo/video journalism. But for motivated camera movement? Then yes, you would need something like this, or an easy rig, steadicam. The latter especially for heavier loads or long takes. It's a clever setup for light loads or short takes, as is the monopod on belt variations, brings back memories of stick-on-my-dick jokes that stopped being funny when you were sporting bruises in your groin. But I love the DIY approaches. Who cares what you look like, or how goofy it is. Christopher Doyle was running around shooting with a pillow taped to his chest to stabilize his camera. Jennifer Connolley was strapped with a heavy, ridiculous-looking, crazy-ass rig for her selfie take in Requiem For a Dream. And she had to perform like that. That's the talent looking ridiculous for the film, not the crew that nobody gives a shit about. Get the shot.

It's takes a village to raise a child, but it only takes two idiots to burn down a forum with their verbal diarrhea.

As a former red owner and operator, be aware of the full costs of your shooting kit, outside of the brain/camera body. Almost every RED accessory is proprietary and much more expensive than its corresponding part in another ecosystem. As far as the cameras being "dated," most of their features hold up, because they were really ahead of its time. Other manufacturers have caught up in some ways, but the dynamic range, redcode, resolution, etc. are all pretty competitive or even preferable. A lot of people, including David Fincher, Peter Jackson, and Steven Soderbergh, like using it. Look at Red's track record as far as theatrical release and broadcast. Alexa is more common, but there's a major price difference there as well. But you should treat it like a full production camera and have the budget to support it. You shouldn't go Red because you think it's "cheap." It won't be.

Second rule: who fucking cares. So the OP sold his 5D and is mulling his next options....and this thread ended up being a circle jerk of bragging about cheaply bought 5D's?

It's hard to predict, but Canon is pretty good about protecting their lines and market segmentation. They did push the dual pixel autofocus and 4K 60P pretty hard on the 1DX II.

It really depends on your needs. A documentary could mean dodging bullets or establishing shots and interviews. A music video and narrative, the same. The content should dictate what kind of camera you use. Then consider the production costs and needs. Your crew, lighting and sound. Different cameras have different needs. Lastly, post production costs and delivery matters. All of these should factor into your decision. But honestly, your demands are broad enough to NOT buy. There is no magical camera that rules them all. All of them involve compromises. It's not a sexy answer, but put your money into talent and crew. A lot of camera ops and sound mixers/boom ops are also available as wet hires. They bring their own gear, and they're skilled at using them. Many of them market themselves with their gear, so you can also vet them based on what cameras they have and use. It'll be a lot better than throwing a new camera at some guy and telling him to figure it out, because you read that it was the bees knees on an Internet forum. Think about the quirks of all these cameras. Ergonomically, menu-wise, and some things that you have to know only if you understand the full process of capturing and delivering that image. That only comes from experience, so put your money towards experience and skill, and the only thing more important than that is letting the content dictate everything. It'll make you a better storyteller and filmmaker.

Does it have fast and accurate continuous autofocus, which is the 1dx II's best and most important feature?

You really need to stabilize this camera. Tightly control its movement, or limit it to slow, deliberate moves. Perhaps ironically, I think it's a terrible run and gun camera, despite its small size, for those reasons. I'd put it on sticks, even. I'd focus on framing and composition to help tell the story, like "Ida."

I like RED but I wouldn't automatically think it's an upgrade from Blackmagic. I don't know about the new sensors, but my Scarlet was a lot worse than the BMCC in low light. Not even close - the was much better s/n from the Blackmagic, and the actual noise pattern was very organic on the blackmagic, not the Red. I'm sure you could have cleaned it up a bit in post, but the RED isn't something you can get away with underexposing at all. Again, maybe the new sensors are different, but I bailed out of that RED ecosystem full of expensive propriety support gear. I'm not surprised that Blackmagic is having some issues - RED did too. There's actually a much easier way for Blackmagic to exercise better quality control, service, and reliability, etc. It's price. They have been the cheapest (and have been) for their market segments, and the best image quality per price ratio, and in fact have disrupted the industry in some ways because the competition is lowering prices and offering similar products. Blackmagic has been trying to offer pro-level gear at consumer prices. Their game is pushing resolve and post-production products, not protecting lines of cameras. I'll say this, it's a lot more realistic to expect Blackmagic to fix some of their issues than Sony or Canon to offer cinema features in their consumer cameras.

It's actually pretty simple. Do you need autofocus? Then C100 II or 1DX II. Do you need the 4K and much better codec(s)? URSA mini 4.6k. They're actually very different cameras, so just go with what you need or want. Keep it simple.

How do the dual pixel autofocus compare?

When the RED Epic came out, a few photographers here in NYC were using them on shoots and pulling stills. They looked great. 1DX II apparently looks pretty good, motion jpeg, but if you're looking to get high quality stills over 1-3 seconds like you said, you might as well use the 14-16 burst mode on the 1DX II.

Other than the XLR inpputs and built-in ND's, in what ways was the C300 II better than the 1DX II?

Completely contrary to facts. Apple faced and still faces the very same issues. Jobs himself was famously quoted as saying apple shouldn't be afraid to cannabilize it's own product lines, because if it doesn't, somebody else will. Every major consumer electronics company with integrated product lines faces this issue. Product lines stagnate, die, are reborn - all dictated by profit maximization. That's happening with Apple, like it is with Samsung, Sony. I wanted a MacBook Air with a retina screen. Apple didn't give that me. I had to spend more to get a pro. They came out with a MacBook retina, except it was powered like an iPad. I'm not happy. Apple doesn't care, because they're in the business of making money. You're making the same complaints about canon. They don't care what you specifically want. They care about making money. Also, the 1DX II is not the most expensive dslr camera from canon. The 1DC retails for more. $2K more. It's a different camera. The 1DX II doesn't need to have all the features you want. It is the best 1DX, however. What it isn't is the 1DC, which exists to provide those "cinema" related c-features. You're trying to tell canon to do what seems obvious to you. But your incentives aren't the same. They make decisions to maximize profits. You want them to give you the camera you want. They really don't care. Its sucks, but really, it's useless bitching. Every company is trying to post short term profits. Its just reality in the 21st century. Or, try writing them a nice handwritten letter.

Oh the crazy Japanese. Oh wait, Apple does it too. Oh wait, so does any consumer electronics company. It's called economics in the 21st century, with mass production, globalization, etc. Ah, the days when you had two sets of clothes, one pair of shoes, and it cost you 6 months salary to buy that "television?" You're demanding a perfect camera so you won't have to buy another camera again for the rest of your life. If you want that bargain, then you'd have to make it profitable enough for that company. Buy that Alexa. No? Then you have to deal with compromises and shop at h&m like the rest of the masses and follow the seasonal trends. Look, even apple is struggling because the 5s is good enough for too many people. Ironically, their phones became too good, satisfying consumers as well as pushing their competitors. So Apple now has pressure because consumers are spending less money than expected. That's the power you as a consumer wield. These are consumer electronics companies, and you are the consumer market. There's really only one way to clearly communicate to the company. Buy or don't buy. That's why blackmagic is a welcome addition. Competition lowers prices and drives innovation. There will never be that "perfect" camera if you have the purchasing power of a consumer. Technological advances and expectations will always keep you wanting.

Don't kill me for saying this, but when I was looking into this camera a few weeks ago, I talked to two different editors who I've worked with (one works for a top advertising agency, another for a big tv show here in NYC) about these canon cameras, and c-log came up. One said, "it's overrated" - the other said, "don't shoot any of those canons in c-log." I could have sworn he mentioned some specific picture profiles but I don't remember. They both do CC-ing, the latter does extensive grading. I just took their word for it because they're good at what they do. Later, I looked online and there seemed to be complaints about banding, compression artifacts, etc. about c-log, whether it's due to the 8-bit codec or something else. Again, I don't have firsthand experience, and I'll try to get some more information from people who work with the footage for a living. I'm not saying who's right or wrong, but I just think there's a potential issue here (drawbacks of c-log) that might affect this 1DX II v. 1DC decision for some people.

I'd love to see more tests, but I don't see a 3-4 stop difference. regardless it's reasonably clear what the trade-offs are between these two cameras. If we're talking pure image quality, not features, but solely resolution (4K), dynamic range, color science, I think the better comparison would be the the 1dc and blackmagic ursa mini 4.6k, within the same price range. The 1dx mark ii is just a different beast. It's possibly the most versatile image capturing camera in the world right now. Not necessarily the most cinematic.

That's why cameras, like any tools for artist and artisan, are both a personal (what's important to you) and professional choice (what you need it for). There's no wrong or right, as long as you make the decision eyes wide open.