Canon C100 Mark II vs Ursa Mini 4.6K

[Andrew Reid]

So your price range is 5k-8k?

Used C500 = $6k

Odyssey 7Q+ = $2k

Sorted.

[User]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

So your price range is 5k-8k?

Used C500 = $6k

Odyssey 7Q+ = $2k

Sorted.

It seems to me that your days of making do with less... are over.

[John_Harrison]

Using an external recorder with the C100 really improves the image quality. It's still 8bit, but having ProRes instead of avchd makes a big difference. About a month, I was at a screening of student thesis films, which were being projected in a theater with a 4K projector. Some of the films were shot on Alexas, and some where shot on REDs others where shot on F5s and FS700s. Many of the films were shot on the C100, and to be quite honest, it was hard to tell the difference. In the right hands that camera can do amazing things. 

Also: I was assistant camera on a shoot with a C100 not that long ago, and over the course of a 12-hour day in the hot sun we only changed the battery once. You won't get that kind of performance out of an URSA mini. 

[Jimmy]

I would strongly suggest trying to get a hands on with these cameras..... I went from DSLR to FS700/O7Q and the size drove me crazy and I sold it, but some people much prefer it.

You might find you want to stay with DSLR, in which case a 1DX-II or the upcoming 5DiV might be better?

[Dave Maze]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

So your price range is 5k-8k?

Used C500 = $6k

Odyssey 7Q+ = $2k

Sorted.

In the US of A I have not found a used C500 for under $7-8k. I've actually been watching for the last few months. Idk how you found it for $6k. 

[User]

I've been watching also and nothing. But from I remember of Andrew's write up, it sounds like it came missing the top handle ($900) and idk, from a camera dealer freind, though I wouldn't want to speculate. In any case I'm excited to see where he pushes it.

[Oliver Daniel]

4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

So your price range is 5k-8k?

Used C500 = $6k

Odyssey 7Q+ = $2k

Sorted.

4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

So your price range is 5k-8k?

Used C500 = $6k

Odyssey 7Q+ = $2k

Sorted.

[dbp]

Haven't used the mini, but to this day, the C100 has been the most pleasant "get out of the way and shoot" camera I've ever used.

A joy to work with. Quality was always great, despite the weak codec. Doesn't need much tweaking in post because the Canon color is so pleasant out of the box.

[Jafro]

Thank you everyone for the great feedback you guys are really helping out !

The combo I use is the Nikon D750 + Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 and in terms of lighting everything is Aputure.

The C500 I have yet to find one in that price range, but then again if im going to invest so much in a new camera id much rather get a new unit with warranty, and somewhere close in case there's any problem I can just hop to the place i bought it and get it fixed.

 

3 hours ago, Jimmy said:

I would strongly suggest trying to get a hands on with these cameras..... I went from DSLR to FS700/O7Q and the size drove me crazy and I sold it, but some people much prefer it.

You might find you want to stay with DSLR, in which case a 1DX-II or the upcoming 5DiV might be better?

Yeah size is a concern, Id hate to have something like excess weight slowing me down.

Starting to lean more towards the C100 II but haven't really made up my mind yet.
 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Kinemini 4K? Rock solid camera, great image quality, 2K Cineform, competent hfr, the ability to add a speed booster, and decent low light performance. 

[IronFilm]

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Jafro said:

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.

In terms of what the FS7 can do it is way way way ahead of the C100.

 

The difference in cost between an FS7 and URSA Mini 4.6K is so small. You'll make it back quickly by getting more work with the FS7.

The reference to the F5 is its secondhand prices, which is as cheap as a new FS7 now .

4 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Kinemini 4K? Rock solid camera, great image quality, 2K Cineform, competent hfr, the ability to add a speed booster, and decent low light performance. 

Yeah especially as they're selling their BT models for three thousand  now

[TheRenaissanceMan]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Yah especially as they're selling their BT models for three thousand  now

$2500 last I checked. $3500 with all features unlocked.

[j.f.r.]

On June 13, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Jafro said:

The camera will mostly be used for Music Videos

100% buy an Ursa Mini 4.6k. imo it's probably the best camera ever released. Having used RED EPIC and URSA MINI 4.6k, I would choose Ursa Mini 4.6k. Better highlight and amazing ProRes codec. Red Epic is an excellent camera but requires more light (controlled situations) and the highlight roll off is nasty, clips much easier. Now the Red Dragon is another beast, hands down better camera than the Ursa, but also much more expensive.

 

 

Ursa Mini 4.6k is probably one of the best video cameras I have ever seen, Amazing. If using for Music Video I would definitely buy that over the C100 which makes no sense......

On June 14, 2016 at 11:13 PM, 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. 

Ursa Mini 4.6k does ASA 1600, I have no idea what you are talking about..........

 

Also Canon C100 is a great camera, but is no match when compared to the 4.6k image and dynamic range of the Ursa. C300 Mark II is only camera than compete, but then again it cost at least twice as much if not more.

 

 

* Also this high iso talk too me is comical, Sony A7s I can shoot 4k Resolution at 50,000 iso CLEAN. If you want High Iso definitely look at A7s, Sony FS7 or even FS5. Nothing from Canon can compare to those high Iso Cameras.

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

$2500 last I checked. $3500 with all features unlocked.

Yup exactly. Crazy good value!! We live in an amazing future. :-D

Can't wait to  see reviews of the Terra 5K 

[Django]

Recommendations are a little all over the place with just about everybody's favorite cam being suggested.. they're all valid choices as it's really a question of budget and type of use needed. Cine cams (BM, Kine etc) obviously have the best IQ with high DR, resolution and Raw/Prores codecs. But they need accessories, end up being bulky and require heavy workflow. Then you got the Canons & Sonys with various models at according price points. If you're going that route just get the best money can afford. FWIW i was leaning towards Sony (A7SII/FS5) for the 4K & slo-mo but just might pick-up a C100 (mk1 + DPAF) after testing one yesterday (thanks to this thread!). The dual pixel and ergonomics do make this cam an effortless experience which can never be too underestimated. C-log is really something special although I'm also a big fan of S-Log2/3 (it's kind of like film stock preference at this point). Lack of 4K and the 8-bit recording is the obvious elephant in the room but in actual use the C100 footage is actually quite impressive despite the specs. I've been playing around with it's footage on a iMac 5K and not only does it grade fairly nicely (for AVCHD) but it surprisingly holds up ok in full screen (whereas 5D3/D750 become a soft mushy mess on 5K display). Pretty sure this all has to do with the C100's image being 1080 downscaled from 4K sensor, as talked about in another thread this effectively may mean a much higher quality image as far as sharpness and color info then you're regular HD DSLR. Now of course true 4K cams have their clear advantage so if you're looking to invest for the next few years, C100 (I/II) is probably not a great idea, actually many would argue it's already obsolete but if you can live with 1080, it's definitely a step up from DSLR and when you factor in ergonomics & workflow, it's actually a very good choice/deal..

[Hanriverprod]

bm is struggling to fix the magenta issue on the um4.6.

The new kine terra with handgrip (which holds batteries) will be like the size of a dslr for 5k and global shutter. And also I don't know why you would have an issue with kinefinty camera images, they are raw and you just grade them the way you want. I think the images look organic and very close to film, moreso than red and blackmagic, near alexa.

[j.f.r.]

8 hours ago, Django said:

Recommendations are a little all over the place with just about everybody's favorite cam being suggested.. they're all valid choices as it's really a question of budget and type of use needed. Cine cams (BM, Kine etc) obviously have the best IQ with high DR, resolution and Raw/Prores codecs. But they need accessories, end up being bulky and require heavy workflow. Then you got the Canons & Sonys with various models at according price points. If you're going that route just get the best money can afford. FWIW i was leaning towards Sony (A7SII/FS5) for the 4K & slo-mo but just might pick-up a C100 (mk1 + DPAF) after testing one yesterday (thanks to this thread!). The dual pixel and ergonomics do make this cam an effortless experience which can never be too underestimated. C-log is really something special although I'm also a big fan of S-Log2/3 (it's kind of like film stock preference at this point). Lack of 4K and the 8-bit recording is the obvious elephant in the room but in actual use the C100 footage is actually quite impressive despite the specs. I've been playing around with it's footage on a iMac 5K and not only does it grade fairly nicely (for AVCHD) but it surprisingly holds up ok in full screen (whereas 5D3/D750 become a soft mushy mess on 5K display). Pretty sure this all has to do with the C100's image being 1080 downscaled from 4K sensor, as talked about in another thread this effectively may mean a much higher quality image as far as sharpness and color info then you're regular HD DSLR. Now of course true 4K cams have their clear advantage so if you're looking to invest for the next few years, C100 (I/II) is probably not a great idea, actually many would argue it's already obsolete but if you can live with 1080, it's definitely a step up from DSLR and when you factor in ergonomics & workflow, it's actually a very good choice/deal..

No one is offering a better camera, most myself included is offering the best camera. Ursa Mini 4.6k with Battery is definitely manageable and not big at all. No way in the world would I buy a 1080p camera today with 4k pretty much being needed from every producer doing projects. You buy that C100 and need to deliver 4k you just bought an expensive paper weight..... 

[Django]

1 hour ago, j.f.r. said:

No one is offering a better camera, most myself included is offering the best camera. Ursa Mini 4.6k with Battery is definitely manageable and not big at all. No way in the world would I buy a 1080p camera today with 4k pretty much being needed from every producer doing projects. You buy that C100 and need to deliver 4k you just bought an expensive paper weight..... 

well i guess i'm fucked cuz i just bought that c100 today! seriously though i can tell you none of my clients have yet required 4K and i've got some pretty damn big clients on the corporate side (i'm not in the US though). and i doubt i'm the only one left delivering 1080p in 2016. in 6 months or a year things could be different. my mate has an A7S2 and has only yet delivered 1080p with it. if i need 4k tomorrow i can borrow or rent whatever 4K camera the budget allows. as for Ursa Mini 4.6K, did you read my previous post? cuz i state quite clearly it's the best IQ for the money. but a rigged up UM 4.6K will run you $7-8K minimum, has a native iso of 800, no ND's etc... and that's without counting the magenta issue plaguing 99% of the units out there. weight wise, i'm sorry but with the EVF, handle and V-mount battery it weighs a ton and would be super impractical for a wedding type event..  i got the C100 for run & gun. stripped down it's friggin tiny yet offers NDs, waveform assist etc..  got it for dirt cheap too so i couldn't pass on the deal (basically the price of a nice lens) at some random camera store that had no clue about video stuff.. they didn't even realise it had dual pix upgrade. i'm not oblivious to the fact i'll probably outgrow it sooner then later, just didn't wanna drop loads at this point on gear i'm not 100% feeling (i.e current Sony / BM products). that's just my opinion though, to each their own...

[dbp]

I would be curious how many people are required to deliver 4K to their clients. I'm not big time time by any stretch, but it's still always 1080p for me. No one has ever mentioned requiring 4K.

 

 

[Jafro]

Its getting harder to choose with so many valid points from everyone ahaha

4k isn't a necessity since none of my clients need the video delivered in 4K, 4k would simply be nice to have for the extra resolution in post.

The Ursa Mini image is fantastic but it comes with too many set backs, limited lens compatibility, sensor issues, weight and limited ISO are things id rather avoid.
The C100 Mark II seems like the best fit for me, but we'll see how things go.. Right now im trying to decide whether I buy the C100 Mark II now or keep saving up till the end of the year and just get a Sony FS7.