C100 MkII vs Ursa Mini 4K

[Mattias Burling]

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

The C100 looked really good imo.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I believe the C100II is the one for you. It's a beautiful camera. The best I've ever used even compared to the Epic, the perfect medium between a Cinema camera and DSLR. I also much prefer it to the C300I. Image is definitely much nicer than GH4 but the audio and lowlight and ergonomics are the dealbreaker here. 

Start with the 18-135mm STM IS as the kit lens. You'll be surprised how excellent this lens performs, better than the 24-105mm F4L which it replaced for me. Canon has some other extra-cheap high-end performers like the 

-Ultra Wide Angle 10-18mm STM IS for 250$I
-18-135mm STM do-it-all kit lens with the best IS I've used. 
-50mm F/1.8 STM prime with cinema-quality optics at >2.8, at 100$
-40mm F/2.8 STM Pancake Prime for 150$
-55-250mm STM IS Super tele with super IS for 250$

They just make the best cheap lenses for s35 compared to any other company. The 10-18mm is a must have for the C100.

All of them work with IS, DPAF, Silent AF/IS, Iris control, Distortion/CA correction, etc

If a constant iris general purpose is required the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the one. IS is super. Stay away from the 24-105mm F4 for the C100, i have no idea why they couple it as kit lens with the camera. It's just not a good range or optics or even a constant iris and the much cheaper 18-135mm is all-around better (I was surprised seeing a C100II feature that effectively turns the 18-135mm a constant iris by adjusting gain in real-time whilst zooming, works flawlessly) 

It's a camera package that just works. No media, lenses, power, EVF, LCD, recorder additional costs. 

***The external ProRes is virtually useless for 99% of the work. No difference at all except when 500% punching in on a heavily moving subject which nobody does. It's the same image. Excellent in camera to SD files. 

[Taranis]

The C100 looked really good imo.

I wonder how the FS700 + 7Q RAW would look like compared to these. I know it's old and hard to handle, but let's say I have all the time in the world and my priorities are color and DR, and I like having 4K, isn't the FS700 a good choice then? I was waiting for the URSA Mini 4.6K but I can't say I liked what I've seen so far.

[Lintelfilm]

I'm going to take my time with this. I'm on the same page as you Ebrahim - I love the C100 Mark II image and usability. But right now it doesn't make financial sense for me. I'm going to wait until later in the year to see if business keeps coming in and it drops in price a little. 

I'm going to get myself a couple of M43 IS zooms in the meantime and see how I get on. 

While we're on the subject I wonder can anyone help me - I'm confused about working out depth-of-field equivalence for different sized sensors (i.e. calculating the equivalent f-stop).

Say I buy the 12-35mm f/2.8 for my GH4 - in UHD that's a 2.4X crop. Do I use the same formula for focal-length equivalence to calculate the full-frame depth of field equivalence? E.g. f/2.8 X 2.4 = f/6.7? 

How do you work out S35 equivalent DoF? 

Because I've always used speed boosters on my BMPCC (0.58x) and GH4 (0.71x) and both result in roughly the same (and quite close to S35) 1.7X crop, I've been lazy about understanding this. If I'm going to use MFT glass I need a formula, because without speed boosters the BMPCC and GH4 have less similar (and quite significant) crop factors.

Thanks guys.

[Lintelfilm]

I believe the C100II is the one for you.

Cheers Ebrahim, please see above ...

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

It's quite simple to calculate the equivalence. A simple matter of x by x. 

If you have a GH4 camera (2.3x crop). A 50mm f/2.8 lens on it will be equivalent in zoom and depth of field as a 115mm f/6.4 lens on a full frame camera, however it will still have the brightness/exposure of a f/2.8 lens on FF. Just the field of view and depth of field are multiplied and the brightness/exposure is not. 

A 50mm f/2.8 on a GH4 will have the same FOV/DOF as a 75mm f/4.2 lens on a S35 camera. (here you multiply by 1.5x, comes from 2.3/1.5=1.5)

So

To get the FF equivalent, multiply the crop factor by 2.3x. 

To get the S35 equivalent multiply by 1.5x

What about a speed booster? The SB gives a 0.71x crop factor. 

So 2.3 x 0.71 = 1.63x. That's your resulting camera crop factor when coupled with a SB. A 1.63x camera. 

Then calculate as you would normally for a 1.6x camera. 

A 50mm f/2.8 on it = an 80mm f/4.5 of a FF

A 50mm f/2.8 on it = a 55mm f/3 (1.63 \ 1.5 = 1.08, basically none, consider it a s35 and calculate from there. Many S35 cameras are 1.6 and even 1.7 and 1.4)

 

And regarding the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens. 

On a GH4 in UHD (2.4x crop) it will have the same look as a 29-85mm f/6.7 lens on a FF camera (but with a 2.8 brightness), it will have the same look as a 19-56mm f/4.5 lens on a S35 camera. (multiplied by 1.6 as 2.4/1.5 = 1.6, so the 2.4x sensor is a 1.6x crop of a s35 sensor)

[Lintelfilm]

It's quite simple to calculate the equivalence. A simple matter of x by x. 

If you have a GH4 camera (2.3x crop). A 50mm f/2.8 lens on it will be equivalent in zoom and depth of field as a 115mm f/6.4 lens on a full frame camera, however it will still have the brightness/exposure of a f/2.8 lens on FF. Just the field of view and depth of field are multiplied and the brightness/exposure is not. 

A 50mm f/2.8 on a GH4 will have the same FOV/DOF as a 75mm f/4.2 lens on a S35 camera. (here you multiply by 1.5x, comes from 2.3/1.5=1.5)

So

To get the FF equivalent, multiply the crop factor by 2.3x. 

To get the S35 equivalent multiply by 1.5x

What about a speed booster? The SB gives a 0.71x crop factor. 

So 2.3 x 0.71 = 1.63x. That's your resulting camera crop factor when coupled with a SB. A 1.63x camera. 

Then calculate as you would normally for a 1.6x camera. 

A 50mm f/2.8 on it = an 80mm f/4.5 of a FF

A 50mm f/2.8 on it = a 55mm f/3 (1.63 \ 1.5 = 1.08, basically none, consider it a s35 and calculate from there. Many S35 cameras are 1.6 and even 1.7 and 1.4)

 

And regarding the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens. 

On a GH4 in UHD (2.4x crop) it will have the same look as a 29-85mm f/6.7 lens on a FF camera (but with a 2.8 brightness), it will have the same look as a 19-56mm f/4.5 lens on a S35 camera. (multiplied by 1.6 as 2.4/1.5 = 1.6, so the 2.4x sensor is a 1.6x crop of a s35 sensor)

Great thanks Ebrahim. I thought it was something like that but the bit where you convert GH4 UHD crop to S35 had me tied up in knots. Anyway, the 12-35mm 2.8 being a S35 equivalent 19-56 f/4.5 is fine by me. I want something for run and gun that mostly keeps things in focus but still has a touch of cinematic DoF. It's decent wide open it seems so f/4.5 ticks that box. Thanks again.

[IronFilm]

Thanks. I suspected this - though I'm not sure what it's like recorded to a Ninja etc. I use my GH4 & BMPCC much as you suggest - the problem being that the GH4 is poor in low light, doesn't have ND's and is restricted to slow MFT glass for IS. Not deal breakers, but I long for something that I can rely on to perform in all situations. It's a shame Canon charge a premium for it. Perhaps I'll just add a used C100 Mark One to my kit and see how I like it.

I think Aaron's right that I can't really justify the Ursa 4K for the work I do. Maybe I'll pick up a BMPC4K (same sensor) when they drop in price just to play with myself...

 

Using a Ninja with the C100 will still be only 8bit files.

The URSA 4K doesn't excite me too much, it is the 4.6K I drool over.

Though I went for the heaps cheaper option (you can get it for US$1500 now) of a Sony PMW-F3. With an Atomos Samurai Blade I get 10bit 422 from it (can even do 12bit 444 with it if you use another recorder, such as the PIX-E5. And 60fps FHD slow motion, which the C100 mk1 can't do). This puts it waaaay ahead of either C100, and at a much lower price.

[syrcular]

Lintelfilm - Did you end up buying a new camera, and if so, which one did you end up getting?  I"m in the same boat now, and was curious to hear what you concluded on!

[Kubrickian]

On January 13, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

If a constant iris general purpose is required the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the one. IS is super. Stay away from the 24-105mm F4 for the C100, i have no idea why they couple it as kit lens with the camera. It's just not a good range or optics or even a constant iris and the much cheaper 18-135mm is all-around better (I was surprised seeing a C100II feature that effectively turns the 18-135mm a constant iris by adjusting gain in real-time whilst zooming, works flawlessly) 

It's a camera package that just works. No media, lenses, power, EVF, LCD, recorder additional costs. 

***The external ProRes is virtually useless for 99% of the work. No difference at all except when 500% punching in on a heavily moving subject which nobody does. It's the same image. Excellent in camera to SD files. 

I would like an 18-135 just for the face detection, but I haven't been let down by the 24-105 on the C100MII. Just be sure to enable the in-camera lens distortion correction for the wide end. Here's a horse grooming tools web video I shot on it. 

 

[Lintelfilm]

On 7/11/2016 at 7:19 AM, syrcular said:

Lintelfilm - Did you end up buying a new camera, and if so, which one did you end up getting?  I"m in the same boat now, and was curious to hear what you concluded on!

Yeah I went for the C100 MKII. Couldn't be happier.I'd love it to be 10 bit 422 internal but the colour and codec is extraordinary for 24mbps 8bit 420.

Internal ND's, Dual pixel AF, great audio, small camera, 60fps, amazing low light, good DR, ergonomics I love. It just works.

I also bought an XC10 to compliment it and that provides 4K, 422 (& 10bit external). Incredible stabilization, excellent HD. The new firmware addresses the focusing niggles well. 

Together they make a massively reliable and painless all-round  professional kit. They're built to be video workhorses and deliver beautiful images.

I'd love an Ursa 4K but for the documentary-like work I do it'd be a luxury item. Canon hits the middle ground between cinematic image and use-ability very, very well.

I haven't quite managed to sell my BMPCC yet though ... still love that image!

[syrcular]

1 hour ago, Lintelfilm said:

Yeah I went for the C100 MKII. Couldn't be happier.I'd love it to be 10 bit 422 internal but the colour and codec is extraordinary for 24mbps 8bit 420.

Internal ND's, Dual pixel AF, great audio, small camera, 60fps, amazing low light, good DR, ergonomics I love. It just works.

I also bought an XC10 to compliment it and that provides 4K, 422 (& 10bit external). Incredible stabilization, excellent HD. The new firmware addresses the focusing niggles well. 

Together they make a massively reliable and painless all-round  professional kit. They're built to be video workhorses and deliver beautiful images.

I'd love an Ursa 4K but for the documentary-like work I do it'd be a luxury item. Canon hits the middle ground between cinematic image and use-ability very, very well.

I haven't quite managed to sell my BMPCC yet though ... still love that image!

I am in the same boat that you were when you started this post.  I'm trying to decide to go Blackmagic or canon.  I mostly do narrative short indie stuff and music videos.  For any doc or commercial stuff I usually rent.  

Now that I've sold my 5DmkIII I'm trying to decide.  I'm concerned if the C100 gives a cinematic enough image for my type of work.  I love the face that it has everything you need and it's ready to go and often times my work even narrative or music video can be run and gun and playing around with available light.  I know the Blackmagic achieves the asthetic I want but I'm not into getting all the gack to make it like a C100.  

The other thing is that from all the work I've done with different cameras I've now figured out each of their asthetic looks and when I'm hired or working on a project usual pick a camera for the project and sometimes that might look like Blackmagic for a short film, c series Canon for an interview or profile piece and even a Sony for a music video. 

Each camera seems to have its quirks and sacrifices in this price class which makes me hesitate in investing in a particular camera.  For instance 4K, slo-motion and a filmic look are things I would want in a camera.  The Ursa has too many issues I've read about in quality control, the Blackmagic 4K camera doesn't have slow motion or even a 60i slo mo workaround like you can with the original C100; the C100 has everything except 4K and that's fine most of the time but feel weird since most of the cameras in that price range or lower have it.  Sony is a bit of a nightmare to get the colors right so it's more post work...etc..etc.. 

I wonder if I just need to keep renting until I find that all encompassing camera that I feel I can do everything with.

 

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, syrcular said:

I am in the same boat that you were when you started this post.  I'm trying to decide to go Blackmagic or canon.  I mostly do narrative short indie stuff and music videos.  For any doc or commercial stuff I usually rent.  

Now that I've sold my 5DmkIII I'm trying to decide.  I'm concerned if the C100 gives a cinematic enough image for my type of work.  I love the face that it has everything you need and it's ready to go and often times my work even narrative or music video can be run and gun and playing around with available light.  I know the Blackmagic achieves the asthetic I want but I'm not into getting all the gack to make it like a C100.  

The other thing is that from all the work I've done with different cameras I've now figured out each of their asthetic looks and when I'm hired or working on a project usual pick a camera for the project and sometimes that might look like Blackmagic for a short film, c series Canon for an interview or profile piece and even a Sony for a music video. 

Each camera seems to have its quirks and sacrifices in this price class which makes me hesitate in investing in a particular camera.  For instance 4K, slo-motion and a filmic look are things I would want in a camera.  The Ursa has too many issues I've read about in quality control, the Blackmagic 4K camera doesn't have slow motion or even a 60i slo mo workaround like you can with the original C100; the C100 has everything except 4K and that's fine most of the time but feel weird since most of the cameras in that price range or lower have it.  Sony is a bit of a nightmare to get the colors right so it's more post work...etc..etc.. 

I wonder if I just need to keep renting until I find that all encompassing camera that I feel I can do everything with.

 

This is why I ended up picking the 1DX Mkii. Loved the idea of Blackmagic, but not the implementation. Was never sold on the Sony look. The 1DX MkII pretty much checks all your boxes, and in a relatively small footprint that I can fly on my Gimbal, use on my jib or slider. It's also good handheld or with a monopod. If you are use to the 5DMkII it should be pretty easy to work with.

[syrcular]

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

This is why I ended up picking the 1DX Mkii. Loved the idea of Blackmagic, but not the implementation. Was never sold on the Sony look. The 1DX MkII pretty much checks all your boxes, and in a relatively small footprint that I can fly on my Gimbal, use on my jib or slider. It's also good handheld or with a monopod. If you are use to the 5DMkII it should be pretty easy to work with.

How's the image quality of the 1DX Mark II compared to the 5D Mark III?

[DBounce]

6 minutes ago, syrcular said:

How's the image quality of the 1DX Mark II compared to the 5D Mark III?

By all accounts the 1DX MkII represents Canons best senor to date. 

[syrcular]

I just checked out some example footage.  I've recently steered away from DSLR's, even on the photography side, but wow...the image quality on this is pretty amazing, based on a quick search on Vimeo I just did.  I wonder if the upcoming 5D Mark IV due to be announced next month, will have comparable video quality?

$6000 is slightly above my budget, so I'm looking for something more in the $3000-$4000 range, if possible....

[independent]

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. 

[Policar]

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

By all accounts the 1DX MkII represents Canons best senor to date. 

Until it has Canon Log it's not a useful professional video camera, though. Canon Log has a two stop push to protect highlights and delivers nearly 12 stops of DR (vs 7-9 on other Canon dSLRs, including the 1DX II) and is leagues ahead of technicolor's horrible look. The sensor might be great, but it's a stills-only camera so far as anyone serious about "cinematic" video is concerned. For sports it could be okay... 

The 1DC seems nice. Canon Log etc. but still no "cinema" or "video" features as regards ergonomics so kitting it out makes it big and expensive. I mean how do you focus and meter with that thing.

This doesn't mean you'll get bad results and the images you posted of the Brighton pier are very nice, you have a good eye clearly, but they were taken under unchallenging lighting conditions and that's just a photogenic area (I used to spend a lot of time there). But under challenging conditions your DR will be severely capped in the highlights and clients might want flexible footage you can't provide. But for personal use it delivers a nice image it seems and the stills capability is awesome. Those are really nice shots, better than what I was shooting when I lived in Brighton.

When I say "professional" I mean it more as a derogatory term than anything. Amateurs are free to do what they want, pros (especially those using ultra low end cameras) are delivering to clients, who are typically clueless. More accurate might be hacks and artists than pros and amateurs and this site is definitely more geared towards artists and tinkerers...

[mercer]

Slightly off topic, but not really... I have been messing around with some downloaded C Log files from the XC10 and I am really impressed. It's a blast to grade with so much color latitude for an 8 bit small sensor camera. But I was wondering... Is C Log customizable or is it like Raw and ProRes from BM, flat and as is?

[Policar]

6 hours ago, mercer said:

Slightly off topic, but not really... I have been messing around with some downloaded C Log files from the XC10 and I am really impressed. It's a blast to grade with so much color latitude for an 8 bit small sensor camera. But I was wondering... Is C Log customizable or is it like Raw and ProRes from BM, flat and as is?

You can customize Canon's scene file settings using the given gamma curves and matrices from standard, cinema, wide dr, eos, and canon log to create customized looks and with quite a lot of power (adjusting each color's relative balance, gamma, IRE clipping point, knee, noise reduction, sharpening, etc.).

However cinema locked is... locked. And I just use those settings. It is undoubtedly the best gamma I've used for getting an image with decent dynamic range and tonality from an 8 bit signal.