C100 MkII vs Ursa Mini 4K

[Inazuma]

If I were you I would go with the C100 Mk II, however you will definitely miss the malleable 10bit image from Blackmagic. I'm going to upload some videos from my c100 II to Andrew's new thread later. 

[Lintelfilm]

And what about to wait for GH5? I hope that there will be some more info about it soon. I also plan to buy a new cam this year and I can not wait if some news leaks :-) . I think that Panasonic is aware the bad low light capabilitiy and GH5 is going to be improved as they are facing Sony A7...

I'm a great fan of hybrid cameras and their uses for the kind of work I do. But I'm at a point where if my business is going to grow I need to be able to turn jobs around quickly and painlessly. That means as few worries as possible, as few extra steps as possible with reliably good, professional results. Things like Low light performance, ND filters, XLR jacks, AF, two SDs, native mount, etc etc ... It all adds up and has a knock-on effect for the success of the shoot. I really like my GH4 and as hybrids go it's the most video friendly I've ever used, but I,m screwing bits to it left, right and centre.

[Policar]

Do your clients ask for 4k? If not I would go with the C100.

It sounds like you're going to love the C100. As regards image, it doesn't do anything particularly badly or particularly well. It's a safe bet. The color is really nice, though, and it makes people look good. Canon is second only to Arri in that respect, and arguably they handle skin tones even better. Very sharp, too. The learning curve is there, but fairly simple (mind your super whites and don't throw them out in post because highlight dynamic range is not super generous, use your waveform monitor, learn the focusing aids) and once you get past the learning curve, operating, even as a lone gun, becomes a transparent experience. Likewise in post, but I find skipping Canon Log entirely–unless you're shooting b cam for an Alexa shoot and really need the flexibility–and using WideDR keeps things really simple as you can forget about LUTs and the weird Canon pseudo-log (necessary for retaining tonality in 8 bit space and nicely executed, but like... annoying to grade compared with Log C) and just play with a low contrast rec709 image until it looks good. 

A lot of what people look for in hobbyist communities like this one or reduser is the ability to emulate what the pros do on a lower budget... sort of hunting out and mastering a complex workflow for the sake of mastering it or finding a weird hack or alternative. From an editor's perspective, its like using Avid on your short film just to use Avid... But, ironically, a lot of "pros" are after simplicity above all else, only they have more resources to draw on and can hire a great DP and a great colorist and they're picking people rather than gear and software... and wouldn't pick the same gear and software without access to those people–goodness knows I wouldn't want to work with an Alexa unless I had enough people in camera department to support it. Canon's baked in look and pineapple form factor does a lot of that work for you... it's less flexible, it's less fun, but it's reliable and looks great consistently. And if you don't have Company 3-level skill set and two ACs and a loader, well, you can't really afford to use a more convoluted workflow and complex camera unless you have a LOT of time (or very little work)...

The C100 is a safe investment. If you want to tell a story or shoot a doc without a big crew but still get a good image it makes that experience way more transparent. That's also why it's unpopular on some online forums... if your hobby is in the intricacies of shooting and grading esoteric formats, a nice AVCHD image that can only take so much abuse in post but only really needs a little bit of abuse in the first place is... 

Boring.

By which I mean, quick and painless. Great for business. Less fun for a hobbyist DP/colorist. (Really fun for a hobbyist director/DP, however, and perfect for pros without huge wallets.)

I like the black magic camera if you have a lot of light and are shooting vfx plates because of the resolution and lack of skew. But it has even worse highlight roll off and I find the fixed pattern noise to be highly problematic above 400 ISO. Also rigging it is trickier... the only complaints I hear about C300s and C100s from a rigging perspective are from pro ACs, who are forced to rig the pineapple as though it were an Alexa. As regards rigging, all it needs is a lens (and an LCDVF if you get V1 and not Mk II). 

 

[User]

Everything is a compromise but the C100 MkII is a great base to create finely detailed images with GREAT colour. It may be a little over priced but I'm willing to pay more for a camera that is fairly well thought out compared to others that are not. Personally I'm sick of camera companies fucking with their customers. We all are.

In trying to select a new camera for a doc project out here in Asia, I found myself viewing clips on my smaller monitors and then decided to throw the same clips up on a big screen from a beamer and this is what really drove home the Canon images for me. COLOR. They just look great. And, the C100MkII also has great sound with controls which for me is critical. The DAF is your best friend during run a gun. Focus peeking is amongst the best I've ever worked with. 1080 60p slowed down 50% still looks great.

People love to bash the codec but so far I've very pleased with the results if you nail exposure and there are plenty of onboard tools to help with this.

Choose lens that compliment. This is critical. I, and many, like it partnered with the Sigma 18-35mm as a fast wide. I'm also using the Canon 16-35mm f4 when I want wide deep dof during movement. Canon 24-105 (for a run and gun), Canon 100mm f.2.8 IS for interviews. I would love to start using legacy glass to see what is possible in the future and when I'm back to the West.

At the end of the day it's about what you actually need the camera for? This camera is a great all-arounder and in the right hands will sing with the best of them.

[Lintelfilm]

I've not used any black magic cameras but I absolutely love our C100 Mark II. I owned the Mark I which I wasn't crazy about, but the mark II solves all of the problems I had with it. 

I can't overstate how much I love the AF. More often than not when I want to grab focus on a static shot now, I just enable AF for a moment and let the camera grab it. Much faster than me punching in.

The image is my favorite of any cameras i've used, and while it might not be the most gradeable footage out there, its certainly better than the Canon DSLR's I've used. I much prefer working with the image in post to the A7s and a7rii. I've seen some people get great color from those cameras, I just couldn't do it. At least not consistently. 

Cheers Zach. Yeah it's a great image considering it's only 8bit 422. That's the camera in a nutshell I think - it's no more and no less than you need. It's not valued enough, the way Canon do modest specs very well. I just wish they didn't charge so much!

If I were you I would go with the C100 Mk II, however you will definitely miss the malleable 10bit image from Blackmagic. I'm going to upload some videos from my c100 II to Andrew's new thread later. 

I'll look forward to seeing those.

I'd love to hear from someone who has shot and graded externally-captured ProRes on a C100 extensively. I'll do a bit of Google digging ...

[Lintelfilm]

Do your clients ask for 4k? If not I would go with the C100.

It sounds like you're going to love the C100. As regards image, it doesn't do anything particularly badly or particularly well. It's a safe bet. The color is really nice, though, and it makes people look good. Canon is second only to Arri in that respect, and arguably they handle skin tones even better. Very sharp, too. The learning curve is there, but fairly simple (mind your super whites and don't throw them out in post because highlight dynamic range is not super generous, use your waveform monitor, learn the focusing aids) and once you get past the learning curve, operating, even as a lone gun, becomes a transparent experience. Likewise in post, but I find skipping Canon Log entirely–unless you're shooting b cam for an Alexa shoot and really need the flexibility–and using WideDR keeps things really simple as you can forget about LUTs and the weird Canon pseudo-log (necessary for retaining tonality in 8 bit space and nicely executed, but like... annoying to grade compared with Log C) and just play with a low contrast rec709 image until it looks good. 

A lot of what people look for in hobbyist communities like this one or reduser is the ability to emulate what the pros do on a lower budget... sort of hunting out and mastering a complex workflow for the sake of mastering it or finding a weird hack or alternative. From an editor's perspective, its like using Avid on your short film just to use Avid... But, ironically, a lot of "pros" are after simplicity above all else, only they have more resources to draw on and can hire a great DP and a great colorist and they're picking people rather than gear and software... and wouldn't pick the same gear and software without access to those people–goodness knows I wouldn't want to work with an Alexa unless I had enough people in camera department to support it. Canon's baked in look and pineapple form factor does a lot of that work for you... it's less flexible, it's less fun, but it's reliable and looks great consistently. And if you don't have Company 3-level skill set and two ACs and a loader, well, you can't really afford to use a more convoluted workflow and complex camera unless you have a LOT of time (or very little work)...

The C100 is a safe investment. If you want to tell a story or shoot a doc without a big crew but still get a good image it makes that experience way more transparent. That's also why it's unpopular on some online forums... if your hobby is in the intricacies of shooting and grading esoteric formats, a nice AVCHD image that can only take so much abuse in post but only really needs a little bit of abuse in the first place is... 

Boring.

By which I mean, quick and painless. Great for business. Less fun for a hobbyist DP/colorist. (Really fun for a hobbyist director/DP, however, and perfect for pros without huge wallets.)

I like the black magic camera if you have a lot of light and are shooting vfx plates because of the resolution and lack of skew. But it has even worse highlight roll off and I find the fixed pattern noise to be highly problematic above 400 ISO. Also rigging it is trickier... the only complaints I hear about C300s and C100s from a rigging perspective are from pro ACs, who are forced to rig the pineapple as though it were an Alexa. As regards rigging, all it needs is a lens (and an LCDVF if you get V1 and not Mk II). 

 

Well said! I think this sums up my entire attitude really.

I just think I may really miss a robust codec. I need to get hold of some C100 ProRes footage to play around with.

I'm actually currently editing/grading someone else's C100 AVCHD footage for a job I'm doing at the moment (alongside yet another person's GH4 footage - they are really quite comparable). The C100 is, as we all know, massively superior in low light. And the colours are very nice. And the grain structure is very nice (much nicer than GH4). But in daylight, there's not a lot to tell them apart.

Everything is a compromise but the C100 MkII is a great base to create finely detailed images with GREAT colour. It may be a little over priced but I'm willing to pay more for a camera that is fairly well thought out compared to others that are not. Personally I'm sick of camera companies fucking with their customers. We all are.

In trying to select a new camera for a doc project out here in Asia, I found myself viewing clips on my smaller monitors and then decided to throw the same clips up on a big screen from a beamer and this is what really drove home the Canon images for me. COLOR. They just look great. And, the C100MkII also has great sound with controls which for me is critical. The DAF is your best friend during run a gun. Focus peeking is amongst the best I've ever worked with. 1080 60p slowed down 50% still looks great.

People love to bash the codec but so far I've very pleased with the results if you nail exposure and there are plenty of onboard tools to help with this.

Choose lens that compliment. This is critical. I, and many, like it partnered with the Sigma 18-35mm as a fast wide. I'm also using the Canon 16-35mm f4 when I want wide deep dof during movement. Canon 24-105 (for a run and gun), Canon 100mm f.2.8 IS for interviews. I would love to start using legacy glass to see what is possible in the future and when I'm back to the West.

At the end of the day it's about what you actually need the camera for? This camera is a great all-arounder and in the right hands will sing with the best of them.

Very helpful, thanks. Do you use a wider lens than the 16-35mm f4? Interesting that you have the 18-35mm and the 16-35mm (for the IS I presume?). How limiting do you find the f4.0 aperture on the two Canon zooms? As I say I'd imagined going for the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS, which seems like a popular choice (though not an "L" lens, if that really means anything ...) 

[User]

 

Well said! I think this sums up my entire attitude really.

I just think I may really miss a robust codec. I need to get hold of some C100 ProRes footage to play around with.

I'm actually currently editing/grading someone else's C100 AVCHD footage for a job I'm doing at the moment (alongside yet another person's GH4 footage - they are really quite comparable). The C100 is, as we all know, massively superior in low light. And the colours are very nice. And the grain structure is very nice (much nicer than GH4). But in daylight, there's not a lot to tell them apart.

Very helpful, thanks. Do you use a wider lens than the 16-35mm f4? Interesting that you have the 18-35mm and the 16-35mm (for the IS I presume?). How limiting do you find the f4.0 aperture on the two Canon zooms? As I say I'd imagined going for the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS, which seems like a popular choice (though not an "L" lens, if that really means anything ...) 
 

No sweat Lintelfilm, happy to help. We have a decent forum here.

I've got the 14mm 2.8L (21mm equivalent) but have mostly parked it for the 16-35mm f4. The 14mm doesn't really sharpen up till f8. The 16-35mm f4 is very sharp the whole f range so that is more useful to me. Plus the zoom.

Yes the f4 of the 2 zooms can be bring me to switch out for a faster lens despite the great ISO of the C100 MkII. I normally grab the Sigma at this point. I never really shoot over ISO 6400. Not yet anyway.

I gave the 17-55mm a good look but it feels like an update is just around the corner. Plus I hear it can be a dust magnet and out here the dust is just over the top. The 24-105 seems a half decent compromise. But I'm not exactly wild about having to swap the 24-105mm during shooting to get wider, but ah well.

Here are a few clips I found a long the way that helped give me a half decent impression of what the camera could render with different lenses:
 

 

https://vimeo.com/66462804

https://vimeo.com/75135055

[Lintelfilm]

We have a GH4 and C300 II- the C300 II color, especially skintones is excellent (I did tweak it- not using the out-of-the-box settings). The AF is very, very useful (including assisted MF). The C100 II is a major upgrade from the GH4 in terms of color, AF, low light performance, and pro audio (XLR). A useful test is to show talent/clients multiple cameras and not tell them which is which. Canon cameras are chosen more often than not (if we had an ARRI camera, would be interesting to see how it does against Canon).

I haven't seen a lot of C300 Mk II footage but what I have looks pretty different to the other Cinema EOS cameras to me. Certainly it doesn't appear to be as good in low light. Is that right? What ISO's are you happy using it up to?

[AaronChicago]

Cheers Zach. Yeah it's a great image considering it's only 8bit 422. That's the camera in a nutshell I think - it's no more and no less than you need. It's not valued enough, the way Canon do modest specs very well. I just wish they didn't charge so much!

I'll look forward to seeing those.

I'd love to hear from someone who has shot and graded externally-captured ProRes on a C100 extensively. I'll do a bit of Google digging ...

Can't speak for everyone but I've found using external recording with the C100 useless. I do see a slight improvement in noise pattern at 400% zoom, but that's all. I can't spot any differences in real time at 100% with/without grading. It's outputting 8 bit into a 10 bit wrapper so it doesn't really offer TRUE 10 bit recording.

[Lintelfilm]

Can't speak for everyone but I've found using external recording with the C100 useless. I do see a slight improvement in noise pattern at 400% zoom, but that's all. I can't spot any differences in real time at 100% with/without grading. It's outputting 8 bit into a 10 bit wrapper so it doesn't really offer TRUE 10 bit recording.

Wow, OK. Good to know. Thanks.

Maybe I'll wait (and save up) for the Mark III. 

What I wish I'd done from the start is bought Canon Speed Boosters, then I could be buying Nikon (using EF-NF adapter) and investing in Canon lenses. As it is I'm stuck with MFT zooms if I want IS. As great as the 12-35mm 2.8 is, it makes the GH4 even less usable in low light. Perhaps the GH5 will have IBIS and improved low light ability. I can only dream ...

Or maybe my business will take off this year and I'll just buy every video camera I can find!

[Policar]

 

I'd love to hear from someone who has shot and graded externally-captured ProRes on a C100 extensively. I'll do a bit of Google digging ...

My old job was mostly shooting C100 as a b camera for an Alexa on features. Occasionally shooting with an Alexa. Often grading the two to match. Also worked with 35mm, Red MX, C300, C500, Epic, F5, F55, F3, GH2, GH3, GH4, dSLR (including 5D RAW), black magic, A7S, etc., too, and intercut them in all sorts of ways.

The external recorder eliminates macro blocking, which is surprising rare in well-lit footage. A dolly move through dense foliage will bring it out in AVCHD, but it takes a lot. At very high ISOs the C100 loses a stop of dynamic range in the shadows without the external recorder... too fuzzy and jumpy to be useable... and in prores it's noisy but looks pretty good and you can get most of it back with NR. But at base ISO the external recorder only matters for theatrical exhibition where even slight macroblocks might be visible or maybe green screening or if you're really futzing with your footage. I think the C100 Mk II splits the difference and handles shadows much better without the recorder, but the recorder isn't necessary.

Never have problems with banding or color or chroma clipping or anything using reasonable settings. I'm sure you can dramatically underexpose and ruin your image or possibly overexpose a sky enough in Canon Log to get a little banding, but it's sort of a mystery to me that 8 bit images are stigmatized for banding. I never see it. With dSLRs I do. 

You need to learn to expose, though. The Alexa lets you underexpose a lot and you get a lot of noise (it's actually a really noisy camera, particularly balanced to tungsten) but it's sort of "film grain" noise. The C100 has almost as much shadow detail, but quite as much richness in the codec so you get better tonality by avoiding extreme underexposure, and you lose some of it in AVCHD anyway. The Alexa has almost unlimited highlight detail and that's where intercutting became a problem. You can shoot a 14+ stop scene with the Alexa.... Canon gives you 12 stops. And by default exposure that's all in the highlights where you see a difference. So if you're used to shooting with the Alexa or film it will be a problem and just blasting HMIs through sheers in windows won't roll off as nicely and you'll need to film with the Canon. It'll feel more "video" when it clips. That said, nothing (not the Dragon, not Sony, though they have better DR than Canon by a bit) comes close to the Alexa or film for highlight rendering... so unless you're spoiled by those you'll be fine but you don't have your 5/5 under/over that most DPs anticipate. Think more like 6/3 or something.

Banding and "8 bit artifacts" are not a real problem with Canon Log or WideDR. They're a result of poorly implemented color space in dSLRs and Premiere being incompetent. I'm sure you can force the camera to exhibit banding. It takes effort, however, and it's pretty invisible. 

A few more tips since it seems you're interested in using it as an Alexa b cam. Shoot your wides on the Alexa if you have a super high DR scene and just zoom in tighter to avoid the highest contrast areas with the C100. Or use ND grads. Do use an external recorder when mixing the two and do shoot Canon Log (otherwise WideDR is easier IMO). With the weaker codec and even when shooting to an external recorder, overexpose a stop or two unless it means clipping. The Alexa can push two stops in post (it won't look good), but with the thinner AVCHD codec or even 8 bit prores you need to avoid underexposing. The Canon reds are a bit orange and blues a bit teal vs the Alexa color palette so use the hue vs hue window in Resolve and push those colors selectively to match, being careful to avoid changing skin tones, which are similar on both, and greens are similar, too.

I can't upload the footage I shot since I don't own it, but the short answer is the external recorder is only useful for low light or vfx or if anticipating delivering a DCP. The compression artifacts in Canon's AVCHD are much less than vimeo or youtube will introduce on its own.

If you like dual system sound, the lack of HDSDI is a problem, however.

[Lintelfilm]

My old job was mostly shooting C100 as a b camera for an Alexa on features. ...

Thanks man, this is really great info. What you say all adds up based on what I've seen of the C100. I think you're right about the MkII "splitting the difference" too. It's definitely better in low light - in terms of DR and colour. I'm wanting it mostly for documentary style stuff - so although good photography is very important to me, it's not the end of the world if skies clip etc. 12 stops is fine. I get frustrated with my GH4's under-12 stops of dynamic range (I don't use V-Log) next to my BMPCC. But With BMPCC footage I always crush it down to what is probably about 12 stops anyway because I like inky blacks and bold colours. As you say as long as I expose properly with the C100 I should be OK. The C100 stuff I'm grading at the moment has a noticeably more useable detail in the shadows than the GH4 (though I don't know what profiles the shooters used).

The C100 MkII by the way has had it's colour tweaked a little - the red/orange, blue/teal thing I'm familiar with from MkI footage is definitely less pronounced. I prefer the MkII colours a fair bit. They also stay intact into higher ISO's I think ...

[jcs]

I haven't seen a lot of C300 Mk II footage but what I have looks pretty different to the other Cinema EOS cameras to me. Certainly it doesn't appear to be as good in low light. Is that right? What ISO's are you happy using it up to?

While sensors have some effect on noise performance, the biggest effect on noise is in-camera NR. The C300 II defaults to NR off. Turning it on reduces noise while softening the image a bit. I'm sure Neat Video would work better, however ISO 25600 could work in some situations.

Sony has a lot of compute power optimized for NR (the real secret of the A7S/II IMO, not so much the sensor). For ultra low light, the color quality difference between the C300 II and A7S/II won't be as visible; the A7S/II makes more sense.

That said, we shot a night scene with the C300 II and one LED light and it worked well- noise, when visible, is filmic (in camera NR off).

I need to do more tests with camera settings and Alexa LUTs- it looks like Canon tuned the C300 II to better match ARRI, which is a good thing.

[caseywilsondp]

I use all Nikon mount glass atm, so this plan will probably mean an overhaul of my lens kit too.

my only advice: don't overhaul your lens kit if you don't have to. I'm not sure what nikon lenses you have, but in my experience they are beautiful, and imperfect in a way that can add an organic feel to an otherwise sterile digital image. just get an ef adapter! (of course that won't help you with image stabilizing...)

[BenEricson]

On the topic of Canon color… This is beautiful. Shot with the 5D3. Also professionally graded, I believe NR was applied. The canon greens are so nice, the skin tones in a practically lit interview looks so nice as well. A sony FS7 etc would take forever to get close to this.

Going out and shooting test footage, the c100mkii probably won't wow you, but when you're paid to shoot all day and get coverage, the camera is just amazing to work with. 

Those two pieces linked above look amazing. The highlight handling on the canon is so great.

 

 

[Jimbo]

Hi Lintelfilm,

Ah choices, choices!

I'm in a similar position to you. I use GH4s for my business with a mixture of native and Nikon lenses. I love the cameras but after 4 years of DSLRs I desire a camera built for video from the ground up. My main gripe with the GH4 is I get nervous if I have to go above ISO 1600, I know that I am then degrading my image beyond what I want for my brand. Fast lenses only get you so far.

Differently to you I film mostly events (80% weddings) so between these cameras it would be a no brainer for me to go for the C100 Mark 2. It's the complete package and I can just tell the ergonomics and workflow would save me time, and as we know time is money. However, I think it would be ideal for your work too, and the image is cinematic enough if you have a narrative up your sleeve. Looks like there has already been a price drop in the US for the Mark 2 and I'm excited to see if it drops any further after NAB and that extends to the UK. That's when I'll make my decision. My only concern is this would be a 3-4 year investment for me and 4K is coming whether we like it or not. I wouldn't want to miss a single job because I didn't have 4K, especially as I start taking on more commercial work.

Completely agree with Casey regarding lenses, definitely don't ditch your Nikons (they're beautiful for all the reasons he mentioned and can be adapted to almost anything), just start with a single workhorse lens for your new camera and take it from there.

Would love to know what you decide and why!

[AaronChicago]

Agreed with Jimbo and Casey. Just get maybe a 17-55 for Canon to use with AF when necessary. The other times Nikon will work great on the C100. I still use my Nikon primes when I'm on a tripod or have a chance to pull focus.

[joema]

Hey guys,

....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 recommend you also consider the Panasonic AG-DVX200: http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/dvx4k/

I looked closely at the C100 Mk II -- it is a fantastic camera, but (before the recent price reduction) it was significantly more expensive, did not have 4K, could not do a smooth power zoom, and required extra lenses. I ultimately got an A7RII plus 28-135 f/4 cinema lens and am happy with that.

My documentary group got a DVX200, and it is really good. Sensor is micro-4/3 but it holds up pretty well in fairly low light. Here is a night shot we did:

https://vimeo.com/user4747451/review/151164510/7771fb51fa

OTOH the $1k price reduction on the C100 Mk II changes things a bit. That is very tempting. It's "only" 1080p, but good quality 1080 is very good. The interchangeable lenses give a lot of flexibility.

However I've gotten used to the editing flexibility that 4K gives, and it is pretty nice.

[User]

I'm constantly reviewing material after big day and nights out in the streets. The C100 MkII with the Sigma 18-35mm just smokes! The colour, detail, look and feel. Crazy good.

[User]

Sony FS7, FS5, A7Rii and Canon C100 Camera Test:
https://vimeo.com/150603420