Canon C100 Mark II vs Ursa Mini 4.6K

[Jafro]

Hey Guys !

I was wondering if anyone with some experience with both cameras could help me make up my mind.
I've been searching a lot lately for my next big purchase and im having a really hard time deciding.

I've always used Nikon cameras and i currently use a Nikon D750.
The image from both the Canon C100 Mark II and Ursa Mini 4.6K are the best within the 5-8k price range in my opinion.
Although 4K isn't something I must have it would be nice to have the extra resolution in post, but the most important thing for me is just the best 1080p image possible.

I was leaning towards getting the Ursa Mini but I've been hearing a lot of bad stories online and bad reviews in regards to sensor issues, FPN and a magenta cast issue.
Also Blackmagic seems to have really terrible customer support from what I've been told, the lens compatibility also seems very poor.
Since this is a pretty big investment for me I cant afford to end up having a faulty camera that's why I've been looking at other options and came across the C100 Mark II which seemed like a good choice also, my only worry is that it doesn't do 4K or more than 60P.

So my question is in terms of overall image quality and workflow how do both stack up against each other?
Coming from a Nikon D750 is it really worth spending 5K on the C100 Mark II? Should I just wait it out to see if the issues with the Ursa Mini get fixed, or should i just keep my money and save up for something even better like a FS7.

Thanks in advance !

[Hanriverprod]

http://www.kinefinity.com/?lang=en

[IronFilm]

Save up extra for an FS7?!?! Hmmm...  not really, it is more or less roughly the same ballpark price as an URSA Mini 4.6K once you add up the total costs.

Plus you've got an FS5 as a cheaper option.

 

Also in that general price region is the Kinefinity Terra 6K and 5K.

Secondhand Sony F5 cameras are getting very cheap now too.

If I was you and in no rush, I'd wait for reviews of the Terra 5K to come out.

[Jafro]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Save up extra for an FS7?!?! Hmmm...  not really, it is more or less roughly the same ballpark price as an URSA Mini 4.6K once you add up the total costs.

Plus you've got an FS5 as a cheaper option.

 

Also in that general price region is the Kinefinity Terra 6K and 5K.

Secondhand Sony F5 cameras are getting very cheap now too.

If I was you and in no rush, I'd wait for reviews of the Terra 5K to come out.

Thanks for the info !

Well from what I searched around where im from(Portugal) an FS7 would usually be 9000€ just for the body with Lens and accessories it'll easily reach around 11,000€.
The Ursa Mini would only be around 8000€ to be fully operational.
The C100 Mark II I could get operational for around 6500€.
Although the Kinefinity seems like a good option in terms of specs I haven't really been impressed with the images I've been seeing online for the KineMini and KineMax plus i doubt it'll be available for purchase here in Portugal anytime soon.
The Sony F5 is still too expensive, for that price id be better off saving up for something like a Red Scarlet-W i think.

Thanks again for the feedback.

[Inazuma]

I had a c100 ii for a couple months and I don't think the image is anything to write home about. It's definitely very sharp but the d750 has better colours and similar/better DR. 

If you can afford the Ursa mini 4.6k then you should be able to afford the Sony FS5. I would make a decision between the two and plus the kinefinity. Surely you can import one?

[User]

You haven't mentioned what type of shooting you plan to use the camera for. Have you?

I wonder if Inazuma will report this post? Time will tell.

[Inazuma]

27 minutes ago, User said:

You haven't mentioned what type of shooting you plan to use the camera for. Have you?

I wonder if Inazuma will report this post? Time will tell.

I don't think I've ever reported a post... why would I start with such an inoffensive one?

[Oliver Daniel]

These two are very different cameras. 

If it's low-end doc/interview/corporate work, C100. 

Narrative/music video/commercials... Ursa Mini 4.6k. Although I'd wait a year for it to mature as there are issues. 

Terra looks brilliant too. 

[Liam]

Ls300 could be worth a look too

[AaronChicago]

I've owned both and they're very different cameras. The DPAF and weight are huge selling points for the C100ii. Nice colors as well. I just got tired of the weak codec and moved on. Blackmagic have great customer support. They're always willing to interact within 24 hours of contacting them. There have been a lot of issues with the 4.6K regarding the magenta corners but they're WAY overblown on forums. Your chances of getting a good unit are favorable at this point. If it's not a good one they'll replace it. They've stated that they know what is causing the issue and it will fix it ASAP.

The new firmware 4.0 coming out with the 4.6K is going to be amazing. They're adding all new resolutions for ProRes. 2K, 2.5K, 3K, 4.6K. Right now you can only shoot 4.6K in RAW. ProRes is only available currently (in the Ursa) at 1080 and UHD.

[Jafro]

Thanks a lot for the quick feedback everyone !

The camera will mostly be used for Music Videos, most of which tend to be very Run and Gun and a with a very small crew, interviews too.
I tend to travel a lot and we record very often so manageable file sizes is also a concern.
 

5 hours ago, Inazuma said:

I had a c100 ii for a couple months and I don't think the image is anything to write home about. It's definitely very sharp but the d750 has better colours and similar/better DR. 

If you can afford the Ursa mini 4.6k then you should be able to afford the Sony FS5. I would make a decision between the two and plus the kinefinity. Surely you can import one?

I saw a lot of FS5 footage also but I was hardly impressed by it, the C100 Mark II seemed to have much better colors.
I've been using the D750 for a little over a year now and from what I've seen online with the C100 Mark II the overall image seemed much better but hey that could just be my eye playing tricks im not sure.

 

3 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

I've owned both and they're very different cameras. The DPAF and weight are huge selling points for the C100ii. Nice colors as well. I just got tired of the weak codec and moved on. Blackmagic have great customer support. They're always willing to interact within 24 hours of contacting them. There have been a lot of issues with the 4.6K regarding the magenta corners but they're WAY overblown on forums. Your chances of getting a good unit are favorable at this point. If it's not a good one they'll replace it. They've stated that they know what is causing the issue and it will fix it ASAP.

The new firmware 4.0 coming out with the 4.6K is going to be amazing. They're adding all new resolutions for ProRes. 2K, 2.5K, 3K, 4.6K. Right now you can only shoot 4.6K in RAW. ProRes is only available currently (in the Ursa) at 1080 and UHD.

Aaron seeing as you've used both Your feedback is really appreciated.
The thing that has worried me the most about the Ursa Mini 4.6K is simply risking getting a faulty unit and the fact that the Lens compatibility seemed very low.
Any idea if they'll be improving on the amount of lens available?
I work with Stabilized lens and for the type of shooting I do they tend to be life savers whenever I need to stabilize footage in Post.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Both cameras are really good. I used The CANON extensively but only played with the Mini for a day shoot. 

Choosing between these two particular cameras really srictly comes down to your applications. 

Just talking about the image, you say 1080p is your goal. The Ursa has a 4K sensor you downsample to HD in post, the C100 has a 4K sebsor downsampled to 1080p internally, i.e,, both perfectly clear 1080p images with rich full RGB colour information. The C100 compresses it to snall AVCH files to cheap SD Cards, while the ursa records it in raw or prores to expensive CFast 2.0 cards. Ursa has more highlight headroom in my tests, has a more pushable image, if i was shooting a ''film'' i'd shoot on the ursa just for the fact that I CAN mske crazy grades, the C100 has smaller battery running for ages, not a brick, it has internal ND filters, has perfectly usable autofocus, and has a much lower price and weight. It will be replaced soon and depreciate in value while the ursa will have more time, the c100 doesnlt have annoying issues, sound is higher quality through the XLRs, no fixed pattern noise and picking up a defective unit, 
no les compatibility bugs, no weird noise at 400+ ISO. Which takes us to a VERY important point, the c100 can shoot at 10.000 ISO vs 400 on the ursa. His makes a whole different shooting experience, the camera is made for being used in alexa/red application, highly lit studios and film sets.

Using both if i had to get either camera I'd choose the C100 because my clients demand no more IQ, I want to put my SD card, small supplied battery, Cheap STM lens and shoot, grade smsll AVCHD files, shot at any ISO abd has good synced audio and NDs for daylight shots. Great colours. 

If I were shooting a feature film in a highly lit environment, power supply, cost for media, mattebox, raw handling, I would shoot on the ursa and enjoy the extra dynamic range, filmic, thick colours, and I would deal with noise by neat video or so, 

Would i shoot a wedding on the ursa? Hell no. 

[Jafro]

1 hour ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Both cameras are really good. I used The CANON extensively but only played with the Mini for a day shoot. 

Choosing between these two particular cameras really srictly comes down to your applications. 

Just talking about the image, you say 1080p is your goal. The Ursa has a 4K sensor you downsample to HD in post, the C100 has a 4K sebsor downsampled to 1080p internally, i.e,, both perfectly clear 1080p images with rich full RGB colour information. The C100 compresses it to snall AVCH files to cheap SD Cards, while the ursa records it in raw or prores to expensive CFast 2.0 cards. Ursa has more highlight headroom in my tests, has a more pushable image, if i was shooting a ''film'' i'd shoot on the ursa just for the fact that I CAN mske crazy grades, the C100 has smaller battery running for ages, not a brick, it has internal ND filters, has perfectly usable autofocus, and has a much lower price and weight. It will be replaced soon and depreciate in value while the ursa will have more time, the c100 doesnlt have annoying issues, sound is higher quality through the XLRs, no fixed pattern noise and picking up a defective unit, 
no les compatibility bugs, no weird noise at 400+ ISO. Which takes us to a VERY important point, the c100 can shoot at 10.000 ISO vs 400 on the ursa. His makes a whole different shooting experience, the camera is made for being used in alexa/red application, highly lit studios and film sets.

Using both if i had to get either camera I'd choose the C100 because my clients demand no more IQ, I want to put my SD card, small supplied battery, Cheap STM lens and shoot, grade smsll AVCHD files, shot at any ISO abd has good synced audio and NDs for daylight shots. Great colours. 

If I were shooting a feature film in a highly lit environment, power supply, cost for media, mattebox, raw handling, I would shoot on the ursa and enjoy the extra dynamic range, filmic, thick colours, and I would deal with noise by neat video or so, 

Would i shoot a wedding on the ursa? Hell no. 

Thank you so much for the insight very helpful !
I think for the type of work I do i'm starting to lean more towards the c100 Mark II

In your opinion, since i am coming from a Nikon D750 would it be wise to invest in a C100 Mark II or simply stick with the D750 and save up for something that can give me 4K and higher fps like a FS7 or a C500?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

If you still have your d750 , this camera really is underestimated, the image in terms of colours, dynamic range, clean codec and high isos, it's gorgeous, just a bit softer than full HD. There's always a rule about buyinh cameras, if the current one is sufficient for your clients, and they don't demand higher image quality, then stick to what you have and are used to shoot with, until they ask for 4k or so, then you'd buy a better camera than the one you'd buy now out of camera lust, i.e., a 4k c100III with C300II-like Dpaf and CLog2/Clog3 vs a 1080p C100II. Or then you'd might be able to step up to a Sony f5, a C300II, a Canon 1dC/Xii, FS7, and whatever else is available at the time your clients ask for something more. 

[Django]

I'm also looking to upgrade from the D750, which indeed has nice colors & DR but is soft (a la 5D III) and can't be pushed much in post. i tried the ursa mini 4.6k (which btw is useable up until 1600, it's the regular 4K that has base iso 400) and has by far the best image for the asking price. 4K 10-bit internal Raw/Prores recording with 15 DR stops gives you a crazy good image that's super flexible in post. BUT the camera weighs a ton once it's rigged up with just handle, v-mount battery, evf. no ND filters and those CF2 cards cost a leg. It's really a RED/ARRI type cine camera, not meant for small crew run&gun.. The C100II is i find way overpriced for essentially a 2012 cam with added dual pixel AF. the image it spits out is nice and sharp but that 24meg AVCHD codec is weak and of course no 4K. The best investment today for run&gun video imo is the A7S2 / FS5 & 1DX2. But in september it could be different since Canon should be announcing the 5D4 and hopefully C100 III (with 4K). Sony is also rumored to come out with the A9 and perhaps A7R3. These new Sony's would have equivalent or better dual pixel AF (which i feel is the current/next big thing to have in video). So if you can wait it out, there should be some interesting products coming out by the end of this year..

[User]

I want you to, just for a second, imagine a camera operator, who is constantly fussing with their camera, so much so that they are not connected to their subjects and the environment around them.

For run and gun single operator projects under difficult conditions, I do not believe there is a better camera than the C100 MkII. It's has everything to help you and gets out of the way so you are not always fucking with the camera. As such, one is able to keep an decent omnipresent eye on the action... and this in itself, will elevate your work. Think about it, what is the point if you are able to colour correct the hell out of half-cooked content?

[Michael Coffee]

26 minutes ago, User said:

I want you to, just for a second, imagine a camera operator, who is constantly fussing with their camera, so much so that they are not connected to their subjects and the environment around them.

For run and gun single operator projects under difficult conditions, I do not believe there is a better camera than the C100 MkII. It's has everything to help you and gets out of the way so you are not always fucking with the camera. As such, one is able to keep an decent omnipresent eye on the action... and this in itself, will elevate your work. Think about it, what is the point if you are able to colour correct the hell out of half-cooked content?

I love BM, but... this:)

 

 

[Michael Coffee]

And the dual pixel AF looks amazing

 

[AaronChicago]

13 hours ago, Jafro said:

Aaron seeing as you've used both Your feedback is really appreciated.
The thing that has worried me the most about the Ursa Mini 4.6K is simply risking getting a faulty unit and the fact that the Lens compatibility seemed very low.
Any idea if they'll be improving on the amount of lens available?
I work with Stabilized lens and for the type of shooting I do they tend to be life savers whenever I need to stabilize footage in Post.

Which lenses do you have?

50 minutes ago, User said:

I want you to, just for a second, imagine a camera operator, who is constantly fussing with their camera, so much so that they are not connected to their subjects and the environment around them.

For run and gun single operator projects under difficult conditions, I do not believe there is a better camera than the C100 MkII. It's has everything to help you and gets out of the way so you are not always fucking with the camera. As such, one is able to keep an decent omnipresent eye on the action... and this in itself, will elevate your work. Think about it, what is the point if you are able to colour correct the hell out of half-cooked content?

This is true. The C100ii is the most hands-off camera I've ever used. If you're in situations where you don't have time to make adjustments then it's a life saver.

8 hours ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

VERY important point, the c100 can shoot at 10.000 ISO vs 400 on the ursa

Yes I forgot to put low light as an advantage for C100. It's incredible. The 4K ursa is mainly usable at 400 ISO but the 4.6K is perfect at 800 ISO and usable at 1600 ISO. That is still a far cry from 10,000 ISO but if you're using fast lenses it's not a big problem.

[User]

39 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

This is true. The C100ii is the most hands-off camera I've ever used. If you're in situations where you don't have time to make adjustments then it's a life saver.

But I absolutely agree with Aaron in that I wish there was more meat in the C100 MkII file sizes. Everything is a compromise. But have a decent set of glass, watch your exposure/ white balance and light when necessary and the image will hold together in the grade. How could it not.

We already know that a 'cinematic' image will drawn the audience in, but it is the story will hold them there. And actually, some might argue that sound is 70% of a film. That seems a whole other discussion.

And on a side note, some might reason that there are now so many people producing content, that time really needs to be spent developing unique ideas (and approaches to them) that will cut through the sea of mediocrity. A camera seems half the ticket... and like our old friend Herzog states, it can be better to get a job in a strip club or as a truck driver than to work on uninspiring gigs that do nothing to excite the imagination and/ or build character. But I digress.