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

[jcs]

The C300 II preamps sound pretty good, though the limiter isn't as good as Sound Devices. I would expect the C100 II to sound not too far off (who knows, Canon might even use the same parts/circuits to save cost). From what we've shot so far on the Schoeps CMC641 and Audix SCX-1HC (way lower cost and not far from the Schoeps in sound quality) into the C300 II, I'm not sure a Sound Devices would provide significantly better sound in the studio. For location shoots, Sound Devices will likely sound better, however as a one-man band most of the time, I prefer not to use separate audio to save time in post (and reduce shoot complexity). Someday I might do a dialog test with a Schoeps CMC641 into a Sound Devices USBPre2 and compare quality to the C300 II.

[Michael Ma]

I felt the same way about my Panasonic, so I updated my old Canon to a Canon 80D and got most of the STM lenses.  Mostly for photos (and video when I don't have my mft camera with me.)  HOWEVER, I just got the Panasonic 12mm f/1.4 Leica and I gotta say I'm back on team MFT.  The shallow DOF (of closeup shots), low light performance (clean bright images from very dim lighting), and color seems perfect on the 12mm.  I'd say DOF wise, it's equivalent of a full frame f/2.8, which far exceeds any STM EF-S crop lenses that I own by ~2 stops.  Similar for low light performance.  I haven't tested it thoroughly, but I am pretty sure that it exceeds the lowlight performance of any STM lens on a 80D body.  And for once in my life after being a mft owner for 5 years, I am happy to shoot photos with the Panasoinc without regretting not bring my Canon.

The drawback is, how many of these f/1.2 f/1.4 Leica prime lenses exist on the MFT?  3?  Do they work with the range and convenience of what you are looking to shoot.  They are also very expensive.  But considering the specs of the GH5, I think it's a good investment for the next 4-5 years..

Overall, I think you can make either solution work as needed without giving up entire systems.

[Policar]

4 hours ago, hmcindie said:

Well 'technically' the 5d RAW is better than a C300. Also, a DNG workflow is a not a nightmare, lots of films for cinema (and narratives in general) are starting to shoot RAW.

How is it better? The 5D RAW has lower dynamic range. Worse resolution. Chunkier noise with much more banding and chroma noise. More skew. Worse color rendering. Lower resolution. What part of it is technically better? Granted, there's the "14 bit" part, which is basically irrelevant because the image is noisy enough in both cameras at base ISO to not quantize to any better dynamic range than can be stored in Canon Log in 8 bits and anything beyond that is just worthless data, but other than that I can't think of anything. Someone did an incompetent test with the 5D in h264 that found it had more dynamic range than the C300 simply because the codec was so strong is wiped out the shadow noise, but competent real world testing shows that in RAW the 5D has worse dynamic range–it's very close, but the 5D has fast loss of color detail in the highlights and noisier shadows. If you're shooting a chart it's similar but the loss of color detail in 5D RAW means it loses about a stop of highlight detail that an informal comparison not accounting for mixed lighting or only shooting in daylight might miss.

I'm curious, though, because you make that statement as though it's objectively true and I'm curious why. I could be missing something and there are metrics that I suppose I might not have considered.

I also disagree strongly about the workflow, but that's more a matter of opinion and budget. Where I work usually doesn't have the budget to shoot RAW but some people do. 99% Alexa simply because the workflow is the cheapest. Fwiw I have used the 5D RAW a bit on professional work (I directed and shot an opening sequence for NBC and I used my 5D Mark III to grab an angle–it worked great), but I wouldn't use it as an A camera for anything, just my opinion. 

[Dave Del Real]

22 minutes ago, Policar said:

How is it better? The 5D RAW has lower dynamic range. Worse resolution. Chunkier noise with much more banding and chroma noise... 

Whoah....really??? I thought it was the other way around. Folks talk highly of the DR of Canon RAW.

[IronFilm]

15 hours ago, samuel.cabral said:

I know it might sound like a crazy idea but...

The new EosM (5) is a mirrorless 80d and you can use a Speedbooster for your Full Frame look.

Still don't know if the AF is as good but it could be a great B cam.

 

If you use a speedbooster then you'll lose all benefits in picking Canon for their AF.

[independent]

7 hours ago, jcs said:

The C300 II preamps sound pretty good, though the limiter isn't as good as Sound Devices. I would expect the C100 II to sound not too far off (who knows, Canon might even use the same parts/circuits to save cost). From what we've shot so far on the Schoeps CMC641 and Audix SCX-1HC (way lower cost and not far from the Schoeps in sound quality) into the C300 II, I'm not sure a Sound Devices would provide significantly better sound in the studio. For location shoots, Sound Devices will likely sound better, however as a one-man band most of the time, I prefer not to use separate audio to save time in post (and reduce shoot complexity). Someday I might do a dialog test with a Schoeps CMC641 into a Sound Devices USBPre2 and compare quality to the C300 II.

You must definitely be a video guy, raw dogging a schoeps into your dirty camera's xlrs. 

I previously owned that mic, and it's beautifully clean and transparent. But it can sound thin and it's pickup pattern is both forgiving and promiscuous. No mic can read your mind. Not a problem in a studio, but like you noted, on location it's different, you really need to maximize that s/n: mic placement, proper gain staging, etc., and you need the right tools. You really need to raise the gain if you can't boom tight enough, which is often on an indie set, where challenging conditions (lack of noise control, short crew, limited takes, etc.) calls for quality mixers and recorders. 

And I'd highly recommend redundant audio for a one man band, for safety. Doesn't have to be complex. 

[jasonmillard81]

I'm curious:

 

For those who think the c100 Mk II image isn't as great as I or others feel it is compared to some of the top level DSLR options out there could you point me to either comparison videos or stand alone videos of DSLR images that you think equal or surpass the C100 MK II image quality ?

 

Also, if I were to consider a top level DSLR to serve for both video and stills instead of one for each, what would be the smallest/simplest/cheapest way to capture audio?

[Cinegain]

Think the Nikon D750 with a Shure VP83F LensHopper might serve you well.

[mercer]

1 minute ago, Cinegain said:

Think the Nikon D750 with a Shure VP83F LensHopper might serve you well.

Yeah but the 1080 image from the D750 isn't as good as internal 4K downscale to 1080 from the C100ii. 

IMO. 

[Cinegain]

Yeah, but for taking cool stills it will be a bit of a hassle to go that route...

[jpfilmz]

1 hour ago, jasonmillard81 said:

I'm curious:

 

For those who think the c100 Mk II image isn't as great as I or others feel it is compared to some of the top level DSLR options out there could you point me to either comparison videos or stand alone videos of DSLR images that you think equal or surpass the C100 MK II image quality ?

 

Also, if I were to consider a top level DSLR to serve for both video and stills instead of one for each, what would be the smallest/simplest/cheapest way to capture audio?

On the Canon side.  5DMK3 Raw is "technically" speaking better image than the C100 image spec wise but requires more effort to procure.  It's raw so you need to manage it as with any other raw workflow.  You can grade it and correct it as you wish without breaking the image.  The DNGs just have more color and weight to them.  The C100 is very very close but has a "different" image to it since it's not full frame.  

5D3 Raw

 

Below... 
XC10 HD wide shot
C100MK2 front medium
5D3 RAW side shots
Excuse the audio and the poor grading on the XC10...I didn't have the XC10 matched to the other cameras.

Here is my breakdown of what I would rate over a C100 image in the under $4000 price range.
5DMK3 Raw > C100
5DMK4 4K > C100 *in descent light
Some ungraded neutral profile 5DMK4 4K frames.  When exposed correctly the 5D4 image is quite stunning. 

XC10 4K > C100 *in good light
I would even rate the XC10's 4K image over the C100 image...but again only in good lighting conditions.  My primary use for the C100 is ease of use when covering long form events, docs and to give me an image close enough to 5Draw in camera, save hard-drive space and for a quick workflow turnarounds when shooting in all lighting conditions. The 5DMK3,MK4 nor the XC10 can deliver on this like the C100 can.  

[jcs]

11 hours ago, independent said:

You must definitely be a video guy, raw dogging a schoeps into your dirty camera's xlrs. 

I previously owned that mic, and it's beautifully clean and transparent. But it can sound thin and it's pickup pattern is both forgiving and promiscuous. No mic can read your mind. Not a problem in a studio, but like you noted, on location it's different, you really need to maximize that s/n: mic placement, proper gain staging, etc., and you need the right tools. You really need to raise the gain if you can't boom tight enough, which is often on an indie set, where challenging conditions (lack of noise control, short crew, limited takes, etc.) calls for quality mixers and recorders. 

And I'd highly recommend redundant audio for a one man band, for safety. Doesn't have to be complex. 

Haha I love audio. Here's a big pile of ego: for my day job I wrote real-time audio DSP software for years and wrote the real-time audio engine for MySpace Music's Karaoke software. Also play acoustic and electric guitar and compose on keyboards (basic stuff using Logic X for our video productions; now hiring more experienced folks as I'm not fast enough at my skill level). Familiar with signal processing theory (and applications writing low level code) through music theory and intuitively understand what sounds good by ear.

Years ago a friend put a pair of Stax electrostatic speakers on my head through a Carver Magnetic Field Amplifier after utilizing certain plant compounds and it blew my mind! Later I listened through Stax headphones at NASA Ames Research Center through a Convolvotron 3D VR system with a Polhemus 3D tracker- another level of audio mind-blowningness. Finally, hearing Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus Speakers and similar in prepared rooms (including an anechoic mixing room at GTE Imagetrek) topped out the high-end audio listening experience. As time progressed, consumers got used to and were OK with highly compressed MP3/AAC audio on comparatively very low quality headphones and/or home speakers. I realized the 99% of people didn't care about ultra high quality audio and would never hear audio at these levels of quality. Additionally, listening to crap audio helps keep the high end stuff sounding killer. Otherwise there's a never-ending chase for more quality. Steve Martin summed it up here with the Googolphonic (note the proper spelling before Google bunged it up :)).

After years of software and product development, I'm focused on creating and using the simplest systems possible, where quality is balanced with cost and system complexity. For our own productions for Cosmic Flow (my current day job, software tech is now part time), in-camera audio is ideal. C300 II preamps are good enough, and so is the $500 Audix (I use it with the Schoeps for two channels vs. 2 Schoeps). Even the A7S II's preamps are good enough when using the Sennheiser G3 wireless on location. For separate audio I wouldn't use anything less than a Sound Devices 702 (and would hire a sound person). I used to use an RME Fireface 800 for computer audio, then replaced it with a $140 FocusRite Scarlet 2i2 (v1) which actually has better sounding preamps. After many years the budget 2i2 hardware crapped out and I replaced it with a Sound Devices USBPre2 I had purchased as a tool to get high-quality preamps into DSLRs years ago. The USBPre2 doesn't turn off when the computer is in sleep so I had to purchase a USB switch (not a big deal but was surprisingly hard to find a USB switch that cut power and handled data lines properly too- that was the only one I found that works).  

After so many years of going deep in tech, for the final product, and in the case of video, the story and emotion are far more important.

The C100 II with an Audix, Shure, Audio Technica, or Rode mic, and a Mogami or similar quality cable (tried budget cables- not worth it), will provide a perfect balance of good enough quality, low system complexity, and highly versatile usability to be just about perfect for the OP and others wanting to get things done quickly with low effort, low cost, low headache, and least time to produce something cool. Ultimately, we want the gear to just work and get out of the way of the creative process.

[independent]

I'd say it depends on your needs and style of shooting.

If you're in a sound-controlled room, yes you can get away with a quality mic into a quality recorder. 

But when you increase the number of subjects/actors, or need better isolation because of the shooting environment, or meet the expectations of the client or studio, then you need more tools. in many situations a mixer would be essential - regardless of how good a cameras preamps are.

In the end, that's why you really do need a person for location /production sound, for the majority of shoots. You need experience and the tools to capture sound in the most appropriate way.

Can you shoot without one? Sure. But it would have to be very limited to a specific situation, or your results will be compromised. Maybe that's ok - I know eng guys often use a mic with a wider pattern and just shoot close with a wide lens. Depends on your needs and limitations.

But for a more dynamic single operator you should have a mic with decent reach and rejection, and two sets of wireless mics. And a mixer with quality preamps.

Even for a single subject interview in a treated environment, I would send a lav into one channel and the mounted/boomed mic into the other, for safety. Again, clipping, self-noise, batteries, too many potential problems, avoided with not much more effort.

It depends on the project, but sometimes getting out of the way and letting the story come through means doing things right, which can mean hiring a sound guy. Even if that sound guy is your buddy you roped into holding a mic for eight hours.

 

[jasonmillard81]

Lots of cool information I'll have to read up on!!  It seem like there is a fairly basic decision people like myself must make:

 

Choice A (c100 II)- Invest in a system in your budget that has decent built-in preamps, ND filters, easy to process codec, with a decent image 

Rating:

• Image 7.5/10
• Documentary Features: 9/10 (audio, ND, codec)

Choice B (A7s II/III; 5d IV) - invest in system in your budget that has excel 4k images that can be downscaled to 1080p with a more complicated right that must be created (audio/ND/transcoding/syncing audio with video etc.)

Rating:

• Image: 9/10
• Documentary Features: 5/10 (audio, ND, codec, transcoding etc.)

 

I am trying to wait out to see more footage from the A99 II, what the GH5 will have in store (if the ISO isn't clean to at least 6400 or higher its a non-starter) and the a7s III looks like.

 

I just wish the c100 II was a bit more detailed.  Maybe the videos I found were poorly created but can anyone show me c100 II images that have been shot and graded with a cinematic feel.  If possible could it be internal video?  I will not be investing or looking to rig an external recorder at this point.

I wish the following issues weren't present on some cameras:

 

1. a7s/r II:  colors colors colors! 

2. 5d IV: DR and general image I can't put my finger on it but what I've seen doesn't seem too cinematic or am I missing something?

[jcs]

C100 II internal recording looks detailed and cinematic-

 

[Policar]

Yeah, I agree with the above. 

But the post above that, which rates dSLRs above the CX00 for video quality is totally absurd. The CX00 is leagues ahead. And I've tried everything and worked with and for the biggest post houses there are using everything there is. No, you won't get an Alexa with any cheaper camera. But if you're good and careful you'll get everything you need to intercut with an Alexa with the C300 or C100 even. And nothing else will do that. Comparing an A7S with a C300 and putting the A7S first is so absurd it's almost more sad than absurd. That said, the A7S is a brilliant specialist camera for low light and workable in general situations if you spend thousands more to rig it up wth a Q7+ and a bunch of accessories and don't mind grading out weird colors.