C100 MK II + 5D MK II RAW? Goodbye GH4

[jasonmillard81]

I purchased a GH4 a few years back under the guidance and direction of some helpful members here.  I have like the camera in many aspects and learned that I am probably more implicitly biased to video and photo look of FF cameras.  I am a complete amateur/hobbyist but appreciate the technical side of the artwork and the discussions that go on here.

 

I am going to sell my GH4 soon and want to replace it.  

 

What I do:

1. Personal photography/video for myself/family/friends

2. Mini video documentaries for my history and special education students where I may interview people etc.

What I liked about  the GH4:

*Superior sharpness/clarity compared to my 5d MK iii I sold to purchase the GH4

What I dislike about the GH4:

*#1 is definitely ISO performance, I understand that I can purchase neat video or get LED lights but again this is not my profession although I'd like the ability to deliver as high quality content I can doing this by myself

*I miss the FF look and bokeh

Options:

A7R II (seems to be a better camera than a7S II for 50/50 video and stills) - I like the MP count since I'd like to print and frame photos but dislike Sony colors with a passion

5D MK IV - I think the video is fairly comparable to the 1DX II but not as clear/sharp as I'd like even at 4K

C100 MK II + 5D MK II (use ML raw at times for video) - I think I like this combo the best since it would provide great video/audio on the c100 II and good photos with the 5d

I really love Canon colors and have yet to see too many images that do a good enough job.  I like that the C100 II has built in ND filters and I can mount my Rode NTG 2 on it for good audio.  I wish there was a hybrid DSLR that could be both photo/video but it seems like I am leaning toward separate tools for separate functions.

 

I love the video look on this Netflix documentary:  

I believe this was mostly shot on a Canon C300 Mark II

Questions:

Which of the above choices do you think would fit my needs the best? Are there any other options/combos that may be better suited and I should look into?

[dvcrn]

I am with you. I am very much a hobbyist but love the technical side of it all. Here is my take

• A7RII - very good and on top of things from the technology side. Menu and colors "meh"
• 5DIV - good but that crop in 4k kinda disqualifies it
• C100II + 5DII - good, but for that money why not just get the 1DXII? 

Canon colors are amazing - yes, but Canon is a controversial topic here. They cost a lot of $$$ if you want good video while competitors give you better options for less. 

I personally would say: Keep your GH4 for a little longer and wait until the new kids are out. GH5 and EM1II look freaking amazing. For bokeh and FF look, you can always get faster / wider lenses and a speedbooster. You'd be surprised how much bokeh you can get out of MFT with the right glass! (Plus I love Olympus rendering of skintones) 

But let's look at Sony. I am sure that they will push something against the new GH5 / EM1II soon. Maybe something with internal 10bit? Very likely though it might take a while longer. 

If you want a new camera right now that does pictures and video in a superb way:

• 1DXII if you have the money (or a used 1dc if you don't mind no dual pixel AF)
• A7RII. Great 4k without crop, amazing for stills, adapter friendly E-Mount for all your Canon lenses AND enough megapixel to make APS-C mode with APS-C lenses a great addition

I personally would get the 1DXII if I had a lot of money to burn, but realistically speaking the A7RII might be the better option. If you do more videos than stills, get the A7SII and if you don't need 4k right now, the first A7S (with the option to get 4k through an external recorder). 

I currently own a small MFT camera with fast lens for photography that I carry around almost everywhere, and a Canon 80D because of Dual Pixel AF. I personally am either going to:

• Upgrade to the EM1II / GH5 if the reviews are good, with a speedbooster to share the Canon lenses with MFT. If AF is good, sell the 80D (but I doubt that)
• Sell the MFT, grab the A7RII, again with APS-C mode and adapter to use my Canon lenses, then slowly acquire more FF glass (preferably canon for sharing with the 80D or completely sell the 80D as well.)
• (Win the lottery and get a 1DXII)

[mercer]

I've noticed there are a lot of folks considering a return to Canon... I am one of them.

Honestly, if I were you I would go with your gut. The MKii/C100ii combo could be great. After working in M4/3rds land for a while, you may want to consider picking up an 80D for your photography needs plus the video is pretty good on that camera. I know it's only APS-C, and you're looking for full frame, but that Super 35mm look will feel liberating after using the M4/3rds. Plus the touchscreen DPAF in video is supposed to be great. If you enjoy that, then maybe consider the C100ii... Of course, with the current sale of the C100ii, you may want to jump on it, if you are fairly certain you'd like to go that route. 

[DEFI63]

Pourquoi ne pas acheter le sony FS5 .

Cordialement 

jmarc

[Axel]

6 hours ago, jasonmillard81 said:

I love the video look on this Netflix documentary:  

(The Beginning Of Life)

I believe this was mostly shot on a Canon C300 Mark II

I see what you mean. It's the famous Canon color palette. Obvious virtue. I know I repeat myself, but I recommend to be suspicious with unique features and obvious virtues. What contributes to these skintones are good profiles and the right (Canon) glass. Let me cite Andrew Reid from his article Summoning the Devil:

Quote

Colour is so important. It’s the difference between a beautiful actress looking healthy or ill. It’s the difference between a hazy blue sky at dawn and a plain old grey one in the afternoon, the difference between zero emotional response and a sublime spine tingling one.

.. and he refers to the Sony A7rii of course of which you write:

6 hours ago, jasonmillard81 said:

A7R II (seems to be a better camera than a7S II for 50/50 video and stills) - I like the MP count since I'd like to print and frame photos but dislike Sony colors with a passion

Believe me, I hate them psychotically. Fortunately, by best friend loves Sony and Canon and has some kind of color blindness, because he can't see what distinguishes them colorwise. I am getting a lot of A7rii & FS7 footage to edit and grade from him, and I occasionally borrow the A7rii. Though I admit that nobody can link to a Sony clip in which the skin is as good as in your Netflix example, I know you can get very close. So close, indeed, that even for the ugly hater, me, the difference ceases to be relevant. Take this clip:

It's shot with not very good settings (you wouldn't dial up saturation and sharpness). But yet, with just the tiniest bit of secondary CC (I saved it as a one-click-filter actually) you could make this skin look very healthy and alive. To a degree, I promise, where original Canon footage looks as if it needed some work when cut side by side. Would have been impossible with Sony lenses in this case!

The same principle can be applied to all advantages and disadvantages of the cameras you compare. Perhaps you should make a table including your accustomed GH4. Think hard about the weaknesses and how you can compensate them. The best camera is not the camera with the best specs but the one you know by heart and whose flaws you successfully overcame.

[IronFilm]

It mystifies me all these people considering Canon, if you do a 50/50 mix of stills/video and you want great internal colors then get yourself a Nikon D750. 

It performs really really well:

And you get a much better stills camera too than a Canon 5Dmk3!

Or if you'd like 4K get a Nikon D500, which gives you near Nikon D5 stills performance, all at a small portion of the price of a Canon 5Dmk4. 

And I bet Nikon will bring 4K to their affordable lower level cameras before Canon does. 

[Axel]

@IronFilm

Yes, Nikon is seriously underestimated. Privately, I have the Nikon D3300 (~$ 400) for stills. Someone told me it was useable for video, so I gave it a try.  Well, it almost is useable. 

Virtues: 

> Colors are a revelation, particularly in portrait mode. So beauitful ...

> No moire

> 1080 50p

> apparently very good DR

Weaknesses:

> hard to focus, no video-usable AF, no video-usable focus-assistants, poor resolution of display

> profiles can't be edited, i.e. to get a flatter image to facilitate CC

> Image looks a little soft, but pleasing

The first weakness could be worked around, to some extend and to some expense. The second not, a.f.a.i.k. 

 

[IronFilm]

8 minutes ago, Axel said:

Weaknesses:

Got to remember you're talking about the absolute cheapest Nikon DSLR, you list a set of weaknesses for Canon's equivalent and it will be even worse. 

[Axel]

2 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Got to remember you're talking about the absolute cheapest Nikon DSLR, you list a set of weaknesses for Canon's equivalent and it will be even worse. 

Probably. I had the 7D years ago. Loved it. Don't need full frame. Nikon F was my first camera. If for stills you do everything manually (and aren't a sports photographer), I'd say any preference between Nikon and Canon is a matter of personal taste. But I may err.

[mercer]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

It mystifies me all these people considering Canon, if you do a 50/50 mix of stills/video and you want great internal colors then get yourself a Nikon D750. 

It performs really really well:

And you get a much better stills camera too than a Canon 5Dmk3!

Or if you'd like 4K get a Nikon D500, which gives you near Nikon D5 stills performance, all at a small portion of the price of a Canon 5Dmk4. 

And I bet Nikon will bring 4K to their affordable lower level cameras before Canon does. 

Yeah Nikon is great. I have always wanted a D5500 for that Flat profile. If the D500 ever drops dramatically in price, I may be a customer... I like the 4K image and the 1080p supposedly has some form of IBIS. 

But as of now, if I was going to spend more than $800 on a DSLR, my money would go to Canon... Just for the DPAF alone.

For run and gun, one man band productions... It's a priceless feature and it's unlikely Nikon, Sony or Panasonic will catch up to the quality of Canon's DPAF anytime soon... And when they do, Canon will be onto the next generation that will blow away their first attempt.

[dvcrn]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

But as of now, if I was going to spend more than $800 on a DSLR, my money would go to Canon... Just for the DPAF alone.

For run and gun, one man band productions... It's a priceless feature and it's unlikely Nikon, Sony or Panasonic will catch up to the quality of Canon's DPAF anytime soon... And when they do, Canon will be onto the next generation that will blow away their first attempt.

And that's the reason I bought a 80D. 

I just really wish they would stop restricting their lower cameras with video features to "protect the c-line". I would immediately go full canon

[AaronChicago]

I think you'd make a wise choice in getting 2 separate cameras. I never understood the need for using one camera for both unless it's just for fun or travel.

[mercer]

4 hours ago, dvcrn said:

And that's the reason I bought a 80D. 

I just really wish they would stop restricting their lower cameras with video features to "protect the c-line". I would immediately go full canon

Yeah, they can be really frustrating, but damn do they know how to build a camera. I recently bought an eos-m10 for next to nothing and although the video quality is a little 2012, the camera is a joy to use. The tilting LCD is really nice and it has one of the best implementations of focus peaking I have ever used.

I have a couple ef lenses but no camera to utilize the DPAF with. I'm considering saving up for a C100ii but I probably couldn't put together that kind of extra cash until next summer or fall, so this is why I am considering an 80D. Also, it seems to have a higher bitrate than the normal Canon DSLR... Around 100mbps... Is there a noticeable difference?

[jasonmillard81]

Thanks for the replies.

 

The Sony a7r II video posted here does look pretty good but invariably I always feel that people look like zombies and their real world vibrant colors that Canon captures look "muted" on Sony.  However, I did see this video on the yet to be released Sony A99 II that showcases a much improved color palette:

 

My question about getting a single DSLR is how do you get decent sound without needing a rig of some sort, which for an amateur like me is not wanted at all.  I want to plug a mic into my camera and capture audio that is of acceptable quality to the majority of viewers, I'm not doing narrative work where I want to make a movie but basic interviews etc.

 

I will have to look into Nikon but I am assuming it is recommended for my photo needs and not video?

[IronFilm]

59 minutes ago, jasonmillard81 said:

I will have to look into Nikon but I am assuming it is recommended for my photo needs and not video?

Nikon is not just better for photos, but if you look a bit deeper into it (such as the YT vid I shared) then you'll realise it is the best choice for video from a DSLR as well.

[BenEricson]

11 hours ago, Axel said:

I see what you mean. It's the famous Canon color palette. Obvious virtue. I know I repeat myself, but I recommend to be suspicious with unique features and obvious virtues. What contributes to these skintones are good profiles and the right (Canon) glass. Let me cite Andrew Reid from his article Summoning the Devil:

.. and he refers to the Sony A7rii of course of which you write:

Believe me, I hate them psychotically. Fortunately, by best friend loves Sony and Canon and has some kind of color blindness, because he can't see what distinguishes them colorwise. I am getting a lot of A7rii & FS7 footage to edit and grade from him, and I occasionally borrow the A7rii. Though I admit that nobody can link to a Sony clip in which the skin is as good as in your Netflix example, I know you can get very close. So close, indeed, that even for the ugly hater, me, the difference ceases to be relevant. Take this clip:

It's shot with not very good settings (you wouldn't dial up saturation and sharpness). But yet, with just the tiniest bit of secondary CC (I saved it as a one-click-filter actually) you could make this skin look very healthy and alive. To a degree, I promise, where original Canon footage looks as if it needed some work when cut side by side. Would have been impossible with Sony lenses in this case!

The same principle can be applied to all advantages and disadvantages of the cameras you compare. Perhaps you should make a table including your accustomed GH4. Think hard about the weaknesses and how you can compensate them. The best camera is not the camera with the best specs but the one you know by heart and whose flaws you successfully overcame.

The footage looks good, but still has this kind of sickly look to the whole piece, especially in the greens. When you add the right contrast, the skin tones get bad, that's why the only shots with heavy contrast don't have people in them. The whole piece is not only flat but really unsaturated. 

I REALLY want to love the A7Sii, it checks a lot of boxes, but the colors are tough. I bought the Sony F3 a few months ago and I have been super happy. We use the C300ii at my work, which has probably one of the nicest looking and easiest to grade images ever. 

There's a lot of options. If you're going to buy two cameras, you could go for the 5D4 and a C100mki. I think that would be under 6k. Having a nice solid camera with audio is huge. 

[jcs]

By far the C100 II (PDAF is well worth it) for video and a FF Canon or Nikon for stills is your best suggestion. I much prefer the C300 II for video over the 1DX II (special case video camera only: 4K slomo and stealth). You'll forget about ML after using the C100 II.

Another good combo is the 5D3 with the A7S II. 5D3 for stills and the A7S II for video. You really can, without too much effort, fairly closely match skintones between the 5D3 and A7S II when using Sony's SGamut3.cine color profile (and Slog2 or any CINEgamma). The A7S II requires very careful WB settings and you sometimes have do specialized tweaks (not just color temp). A recent Hollywood red carpet shoot used Daylight WB with A-B: B3 and G-M:M3 and the results under ARRI Tungsten and the Directors Guild of America indoor theater lights looked just like what I saw with my eyes, especially skintones. A buddy was shooting on RED and really liked the A7S II footage in low light. You can also take reference stills/video with the 5D3 and match the A7S II in post. The example below only took a few minutes (and could be even better with a few more minutes of work, such as pulling blue from reds to match Canon (Sony comes out too pink). A7S II on the left, C300 II middle, 1DX II right). YouTube does strange things with color on the still- play the video to see actual colors:

 The Canon XC10/15 are other options to consider for video.

[hmcindie]

Why did you sell a 5d mark III to buy a GH4? Sounds like some really bad advice haha.

[estarkey7]

Some f/.95 SLR Magic or Voigtlander's might do you a fair it of good with the GH4, or upcoming GH5. If the GH5 has a stop better noise performance, will these ultra fast lens fit the bill for you?

I disqualify the Sony A7x options, even though their low light is great, the sensor overheating issues are a dealbreaker. I also disqualify the Canon 5D because of the codec and the C100 because of the price. Now if you were going to drop 5D Mark IV coin, then the Sony F5 is on the table.

[Cassius McGowan]

2 hours ago, estarkey7 said:

Some f/.95 SLR Magic or Voigtlander's might do you a fair it of good with the GH4, or upcoming GH5. If the GH5 has a stop better noise performance, will these ultra fast lens fit the bill for you?

I disqualify the Sony A7x options, even though their low light is great, the sensor overheating issues are a dealbreaker. I also disqualify the Canon 5D because of the codec and the C100 because of the price. Now if you were going to drop 5D Mark IV coin, then the Sony F5 is on the table.

The Canon C100 Mark ii is going for 2999-3500 now days.