Canon C500 Is it worth 7K new?

[Dogtown]

I noticed that B&H, and most other north American camera sales houses are selling brand new Canon C500 EF cameras for only $6,999

Sounds like a great deal? Add an Odyssey Q7+ and you're 4K ready. 

 

Broatch

[Jimmy]

Maybe I can answer that with a video:

 

[IronFilm]

Depends on what you're looking for and what you want. 
You could for instance get a Sony FS5 for less (which will also give you 4K raw with the Odyssey, & once stripped down would be a far nicer casual run & gun camera).

An URSA Mini 4.6K or Kinefinity Terra 5K is also cheaper.

So yes, the Canon C500 has had a big price drop, and almost kinda sort of is creeping into entering the start of the "ok good value" category, but there are still quite a lot of other good options out there in that price range and cheaper if you're wanting a 4K raw camera.

[AaronChicago]

It's a great camera, and the image is excellent. But, in my opinion it doesn't have enough features that are relevant in 2016 to warrant $7,000. If it had DPAF I'd say yes definitely.

[Jimmy]

There is a warmth to that video I posted that just reminds me of film so much (beautiful saturated oranges/reds).

I know looks can be dialled in, but skintones can sometimes suffer... The C500 raw seems to allow for those beautiful warm colours and maintain the skintones.

Maybe it is just a great, great grade... But it really shocked me when I saw that was from a C500. I genuinely thought it was film.

[Dogtown]

I think with the option of great 1080 HD internal, and then coupling with an Odyssey Q7+ the codecs available are amazing for the price point! Then you could add a Zacuto Gratical Eye, and still be under $13k with a brand new camera under warranty. I'm just not sure about the C300 MarkII? Then I also like the Sony F5 (used) 

I've seen great footage from both the C500 and the F5, I do like that canon MOJO in respect to a more film like looking image, seems you need to do a little more with the CC on the Sony cams. 

 

 

[Kino]

The C500 produces beautiful, filmic imagery and is outstanding in low-light compared with most cinema cameras.

Musicbed used to shoot their "Artist Spotlight" series on the C500 (before they switched to RED) and there are some really nice examples of 4K and HD footage there. You should definitely check out their Vimeo channel:

I'm sure you've seen the Hurlbut C500 tests, so I'm not going to post them here. As demonstrated in those tests, the DR in 4K mode is lacking compared with the best of the modern cinema cameras. But I don't think the more limited DR takes away from the overall image quality, considering that the C500 has a smooth and pleasing highlight roll-off (as visible in the above clips). Shooting in the 12-bit 2K RGB 4:4:4 mode also yields DR benefits in addition to numerous advantages in color grading, as seen in Human Voice:

Here is yet another kind of 4K look or grade from the camera that is punchier than the Musicbed shorts (set to a fitting Schubert piece we've heard before on the Barry Lyndon sound track):

Meanwhile, an example of HFR (up to 120fps) can be found on the documentary Why We Ride, which was shot on the C500:

For $7K plus the $2K Odyssey, it makes for a great package and is competitive with other cameras in its price range, so long as you don't mind carrying the camera and the recorder everywhere you go. If you're only shooting events/docs, I would just pay a few thousand more for the C300 II as it has the DPAF and records 4K internally. The C300 II also has a newer sensor and better C-Log options for an expanded DR in 4K.

[Dogtown]

Kino, thank you for posting these fine examples of images from the C500. I think the color pallet coming from this camera is wonderful, the 2K those last three spots were shot in was WOW! Knowing you need some great glass to focus the image on that sensor to get the WOW, I wonder what new options there are that won't be twice as much as the C500 + Odyssey?

And a big thank you Jimmy, that Man Beast was beautiful, I had seen a behind the scenes on the making of that when the C500 first came out, along with Steve Poster's, Rhythm of Life (stunning in 4K)  

 

I'm shooting now with a Sony F3, along with a Zeiss ZF kit of primes, along with a Nikon 35-70 and a Nikon 80-200. I love the image i'm getting with this kit, but want to up the game and capabilities next year.

 

Broatch  

[BenEricson]

 

16 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Depends on what you're looking for and what you want. 
You could for instance get a Sony FS5 for less (which will also give you 4K raw with the Odyssey, & once stripped down would be a far nicer casual run & gun camera).

An URSA Mini 4.6K or Kinefinity Terra 5K is also cheaper.

So yes, the Canon C500 has had a big price drop, and almost kinda sort of is creeping into entering the start of the "ok good value" category, but there are still quite a lot of other good options out there in that price range and cheaper if you're wanting a 4K raw camera.

I would say the FS5 is more comparable to a c100ii. It's not in the Pro commercial market like the C500. You could shoot a nice looking feature film on the C500. It has the cinematic look that the FS5 does not have.

15 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

It's a great camera, and the image is excellent. But, in my opinion it doesn't have enough features that are relevant in 2016 to warrant $7,000. If it had DPAF I'd say yes definitely.

Really? The FS5 is brand new and can't really compete with the C500s color, native EF lens mount, and 4k/60.

3 hours ago, Dogtown said:

I'm shooting now with a Sony F3, along with a Zeiss ZF kit of primes, along with a Nikon 35-70 and a Nikon 80-200. I love the image i'm getting with this kit, but want to up the game and capabilities next year.

I'm also shooting with the Sony F3. We use the Canon C300ii at work. I love the F3, the C300ii definitely beats it with the size, auto focus, better color in mixed lighting situations, but the F3 comes really close. I think the C500 might be the next camera I buy. Would definitely drop the cash on the C300ii, but no 4k/60p is definitely limiting for the future. You sure can shoot a nice looking interview with the C300ii. Easiest route to the best looking colors. 

[Dogtown]

Those are some great pros and cons Ben, and when it comes to those inpatient we need to roll now clients, knowing that when the client gets to post they will have what they need for a quick edit. I find most of my clients need a what you see is what you get delivery with little time for CC in post, unless it's for broadcast or commercial, so I find myself shooting a PP profile with the F3, and WDR with the canon's. I'm leaning to picking up more commercial work, along with some short feature work this coming year, so I want to be able to offer the 4K and a better over all picture. So many options out there, but I'm leaning towards this C500 set up.

 

Broatch

 

[Policar]

Canon love/hate aside, consider the workflow and ergonomics, as they are worse for the C500 than any other Canon cinema camera. You need an external recorder to shoot 4k, the ergonomics are really odd for a high end cinema camera, there's some weird color stuff with RAW and external recorders (that has led to some bad experiences with color and unreliable recording on high end projects I can't mention and for which the internal video or video from competing cameras compared favorably in surprising respects as a result).

And the C300 Mk II is better in every way for a lot cheaper although its color is Arri-like rather than Canon-like. (And not as good as Arri.)

But then look at what Cronenweth did (and consider what it says about the much-vaunted Red that Social Network and Gone Girl look worse if anything at such a high budget) and consider you're getting a C300 plus occasional 4k for clients who need it... and it seems like a good deal.

Then again, a low end commercial rate is about $4k/day plus camera rental, so the camera will pay itself off in a day if you need 4k.

It is the least "Canon" of the Canon cinema cameras, though, for better or worse. Nice color but be careful about chroma clipping when using an external recorder and make sure it's reliable, be careful about rigging, and realize that the C300 Mk II offers so much more for less than twice the price. The C500 is insanely sharp per pixel btw. 

I wouldn't touch an FS5 with a ten foot A7S. The FS7 is nice, however, though I think it looks more like video.

Low light is awesome. Canon does analogue gain like Panasonic does with the Varicam, but Panasonic only offers 800 and 5000; Canon offers 850-20,000 ISO with analogue gain so the low light and DR and internal NDs and whatever are a dream. So low light should be about as good as the new Varicam, which is to say far better than the Alexa and Epic.

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, BenEricson said:

I would say the FS5 is more comparable to a c100ii. It's not in the Pro commercial market like the C500. You could shoot a nice looking feature film on the C500. It has the cinematic look that the FS5 does not have.

Be very careful about mixing up imagery created by the camera vs by the person / lighting / grading / set design / etc.

As when you look at imagery made when the C500 came out it would almost all be made by near top level pros. 

While the FS5 is more enthusiastically taken up by many newbie pros / indy film types, who at each level of the production have nowhere near the same level as what is done with the C500. So how much of that final "cinematic look" comes from the camera as you think vs coming from literally everything else?

[AaronChicago]

6 hours ago, BenEricson said:

22 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

It's a great camera, and the image is excellent. But, in my opinion it doesn't have enough features that are relevant in 2016 to warrant $7,000. If it had DPAF I'd say yes definitely.

Really? The FS5 is brand new and can't really compete with the C500s color, native EF lens mount, and 4k/60.

The catch though is having to use a big external recorder. It's not a deal breaker for some but I think the standard form factor of the Cx00 cameras is ideal.

[IronFilm]

53 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

The catch though is having to use a big external recorder. It's not a deal breaker for some but I think the standard form factor of the Cx00 cameras is ideal.

To get the most out of the C500 you need the exact same external set up! And the FS5 form factor is even better when starting out. 

[AaronChicago]

44 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

To get the most out of the C500 you need the exact same external set up! And the FS5 form factor is even better when starting out. 

Sorry, that's what I meant. You need external recorder for C500 for those features.

[sudopera]

With these and probably future price drops it seems this could be a F35 for the new generation. DR a little lacking, but more than compensated with beautiful imagery.

[BenEricson]

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Be very careful about mixing up imagery created by the camera vs by the person / lighting / grading / set design / etc.

As when you look at imagery made when the C500 came out it would almost all be made by near top level pros. 

While the FS5 is more enthusiastically taken up by many newbie pros / indy film types, who at each level of the production have nowhere near the same level as what is done with the C500. So how much of that final "cinematic look" comes from the camera as you think vs coming from literally everything else?

I understand that. I'm not even going off of those examples, just my own in experience with the Sony sensors vs the Canon sensor/look. It's frustrating to hear people recommend the Fs700/7Q for a feature or interviews. 

The C500 with the 7Q pumps out 4k Pro Res HQ files with that beautiful Canon look. Our work went from the FS700/7Q to the C300mkii. The difference in color and overall feel is night and day. It's literally easier to light, easier to color correct, etc. The FS700/7Q is a specs monster, but even the original C100 puts out much nicer color. You can hand off the Canon files with a ready to go baked in look. 

I've just gone through the frustration of the Sony sensor and the color it produces. There's a lot to be said for a camera that just works, with beautiful color out of the box and ND filters.

Gotta mention again, the Cine Alta is not the same as the FS700 or the FS5. The F3 is in a whole different league with color. 

[Dogtown]

Talking sony and Cinealta, what's your feeling on the F5 and F55, these are the other two Sony cameras worthy of a look, maybe used as the new price is still a bit high. That new Zeiss 20 100 might be a nice lens for the C500 coming in at $9,900. Always an investment dollar wise the higher end camera packages. The last time I spent a lot was back in the Panasonic HDX900 day, that camera was $29K and then you needed two zooms!   

[IronFilm]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-PMW-F5-with-2x128gb-sxs-nikon-mount-and-PL-mount-/122061521942

Holy crap, a Sony F5 has fallen to extremely outrageously low prices!!! :-o :-o :-o Man, wish I had 10 grand spare... :-o :-o :-o

So yeah, if a person could score a deal like that then they should go for it over a Canon C500 I reckon.

[Dogtown]

I do luv the F5-F55 just something about the color, especially when in mixed lighting temperatures that the Canon seems to handle better? I"ll have to do a side by side before I buy my next camera.

 

It's great to get all the feedback from other forum members! Makes you think twice before putting down the cash.

 

Broatch