Camera advice. Best image, ignore rest. $3000

[jpfilmz]

11 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Dont get me wrong, I am not complaining about the image, the c100 is a good image. I just prefer the 5D III RAW image over the C100 (could be just a personal thing, but that is just how I feel about it). It could be the full frame look, It could be the lack of pro lighting. But I ofter find myself just shooting run and gun at night. And though the iso on the Cx00 can be cranked higher, I feel like the 5D III RAW has some secret sauce on it and works just better for my taste as its softer then the sharp Cx00 series. 

I own both cameras as well and definitely think the 5D3RAW image is more impressive looking.  I think the C100mk2 looks sharper overall due to it not being a full frame camera and not having a filter on it like the 5D3 has which needs post sharpening.  Below are some 5D Raw dng files with a graded versions.  



 

[zerocool22]

And dont forget the 5D III RAW is 14bit, as I like to shoot in some crazy lighting scenarios. I get banding with every other camera I ever owned other then a 5DIII. The colors are just great, bright red key light, no problem. (I shot something similar with the A7S II, and the colors were so ugly that I had to use a "black and white" grade. )

[Riadnasla]

8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Riadnasla, neither the SxS or FZ should be an issue!!

As a Nikon F to FZ adapter is cheap, & Nikon F lenses are cheap and plentiful. 

Ditto SxS adapters to use SD cards inside them :-)

I actually do use a Sonnet SxS to SD adapter, but I discovered it after I already purchased 2 Sony SxS cards and a reader ($300).....

I also use a Canon FD to FZ adapter ($200), but the widest lens I can find is a 28mm, which with the crop amounts to about 40mm. I'd prefer to have option of going wider, hence why I carry the bulk of a DigiOptec 18-50mm PL around. You have any recommendations for getting the same range on a lighter lens?

Also, on your camera page, you mention 12-bit out of the F3.....from the specs I have it only does 10-bit.....how'd you get it to do 12?

 

[IronFilm]

.

On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Dogtown said:

Riadnasla, one option is to stay in the Sony camp, and get a EX3 for your speaking events, these can be had for $1,500 in good condition with extras! great codec for those long events, you can use the F3 as a second camera that you can dumb down to match the EX3, you would have easy timecode sync with both cameras, then I would only add an A7S for your Glidecam, that camera could also net you 4K should you ever need it. So if you could raise the funds say $3,000 you would have three cameras that would cover anything you need.

This would be a great idea, or even an EX1 plus dirt cheap a5100 secondhand! 

Means you might find your events more interesting to edit too. And might move up to a higher class of events that you film.

On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 9:48 AM, zerocool22 said:

What camera, IQ wise would you guys suggest if the budget went up to 5K? ursa mini 4.6k?

Kinefinity Terra 5K,  whenever it ships....

[IronFilm]

52 minutes ago, Riadnasla said:

I actually do use a Sonnet SxS to SD adapter, but I discovered it after I already purchased 2 Sony SxS cards and a reader ($300).....

I also use a Canon FD to FZ adapter ($200), but the widest lens I can find is a 28mm, which with the crop amounts to about 40mm. I'd prefer to have option of going wider, hence why I carry the bulk of a DigiOptec 18-50mm PL around. You have any recommendations for getting the same range on a lighter lens?

Also, on your camera page, you mention 12-bit out of the F3.....from the specs I have it only does 10-bit.....how'd you get it to do 12?

 

444 is twelve bit

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is cheap and lightweight 

[Riadnasla]

42 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

444 is twelve bit

So I've been recording 12-bit this whole time without realizing it? (Gemini 4:4:4 via 2 HD-SDI cables)

43 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is cheap and lightweight 

How do you use the F3 with the electronic aperture? I know there's a metabones adapter that runs for around $1200 and can manipulate aperture and use IS, but that's way out of my current budget at the moment. Part of the reason I'm using FD lenses is for the manual aperture. 

[Phil A]

27 minutes ago, Riadnasla said:

How do you use the F3 with the electronic aperture? I know there's a metabones adapter that runs for around $1200 and can manipulate aperture and use IS, but that's way out of my current budget at the moment. Part of the reason I'm using FD lenses is for the manual aperture. 

Get an adapter to mount Nikon F mount lenses on Canon FD? Then you can use all the lenses for F mount that come with a aperture ring including the stuff from Samyang.

[Riadnasla]

1 minute ago, Phil A said:

Get an adapter to mount Nikon F mount lenses on Canon FD? Then you can use all the lenses for F mount that come with a aperture ring including the stuff from Samyang.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.....Why would I adapt F-mount to FD-mount to fit onto FZ-mount? I already am using an FD to FZ adapter to convert old canon glass onto the F3. The main issue here is that the Sigma 18-50mm @IronFilm suggested seems to be electronic aperture, and I'd like to know how he controls said aperture on a camera that doesn't support it. 

[Mattias Burling]

4 minutes ago, Riadnasla said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.....Why would I adapt F-mount to FD-mount to fit onto FZ-mount? I already am using an FD to FZ adapter to convert old canon glass onto the F3. The main issue here is that the Sigma 18-50mm @IronFilm suggested seems to be electronic aperture, and I'd like to know how he controls said aperture on a camera that doesn't support it. 

If you use a Nikon to FD you can manually control the aperture with the adapter. Most Nikon lenses have a manual aperture lever underneath. Also modern Tamron and Sigma made for Nikon. I only know one lens that doesn't.

[Dogtown]

You can get a canon adapter from Optitek, or MTF, there is a MTF on eBay now that controls the canon aperture see here! http://www.ebay.com/itm/MTF-Lens-Adapter-Sony-FZ-to-Canon-EF-/282381087198?hash=item41bf3971de:g:c6kAAOSw-0xYlgrO

Or the Optitek:  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Optitek-Canon-EF-To-FZ-Mount-/282294057400?hash=item41ba0979b8:g:KcMAAOSw6DtYVIUi

I like the Optitek version of this with the locking ability, but much more $$$. I use the MTF and Optitek adapter with the nikon mount for my F3 cameras, Adaptimax make an adapter as well, though not as good as the Optitek or MTF. 

[IronFilm]

12 hours ago, Phil A said:

Get an adapter to mount Nikon F mount lenses on Canon FD? Then you can use all the lenses for F mount that come with a aperture ring including the stuff from Samyang.

Exactly! I use entirely Nikon F mount lenses on my F3.

Except the lenses don't even need an aperture ring. As even very cheap adapters can control the aperture. One of the beautiful things about using the Nikon F mount system :-)

That way I can use modern DX lenses such as the wonderful Sigma 18-35 f1.8!! :-D

And not be stuck with using older lenses such as FD mount that never made wider focal lengths.

11 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

If you use a Nikon to FD you can manually control the aperture with the adapter. Most Nikon lenses have a manual aperture lever underneath. Also modern Tamron and Sigma made for Nikon. I only know one lens that doesn't.

Exactly.  Or Tokina lenses for Nikon, & so on etc with other third parties for Nikon.

11 hours ago, Dogtown said:

You can get a canon adapter from Optitek, or MTF, there is a MTF on eBay now that controls the canon aperture see here! http://www.ebay.com/itm/MTF-Lens-Adapter-Sony-FZ-to-Canon-EF-/282381087198?hash=item41bf3971de:g:c6kAAOSw-0xYlgrO

Or the Optitek:  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Optitek-Canon-EF-To-FZ-Mount-/282294057400?hash=item41ba0979b8:g:KcMAAOSw6DtYVIUi

I like the Optitek version of this with the locking ability, but much more $$$. I use the MTF and Optitek adapter with the nikon mount for my F3 cameras, Adaptimax make an adapter as well, though not as good as the Optitek or MTF. 

That first link is surprisingly affordable.  Still is multiple times the price of the Nikon F adapter however! 

[jonpais]

21 hours ago, jpfilmz said:

I own both cameras as well and definitely think the 5D3RAW image is more impressive looking.  I think the C100mk2 looks sharper overall due to it not being a full frame camera and not having a filter on it like the 5D3 has which needs post sharpening.  Below are some 5D Raw dng files with a graded versions.  



 

Beautiful colors. Great to see real solid, human looking skin tones instead of the blown out pinkish colors I see in so many wedding shots.

[Riadnasla]

18 hours ago, Dogtown said:

You can get a canon adapter from Optitek, or MTF, there is a MTF on eBay now that controls the canon aperture see here! http://www.ebay.com/itm/MTF-Lens-Adapter-Sony-FZ-to-Canon-EF-/282381087198?hash=item41bf3971de:g:c6kAAOSw-0xYlgrO

Or the Optitek:  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Optitek-Canon-EF-To-FZ-Mount-/282294057400?hash=item41ba0979b8:g:KcMAAOSw6DtYVIUi

I like the Optitek version of this with the locking ability, but much more $$$. I use the MTF and Optitek adapter with the nikon mount for my F3 cameras, Adaptimax make an adapter as well, though not as good as the Optitek or MTF. 

Clearly I am still but a Padawan in the presence of masters....Lol, seriously, lots of good advice in this thread. 

However.....this morning I woke up to a notification that my kit has sold. It's bittersweet, as I have had so much difficulty buying parts and lugging it to unappreciative clients etc.....but I'll miss it too. It's captured some amazing images for me in the past. It just makes more fiscal and ergonomic sense for a smaller camera in my situation. 

[webrunner5]

11 minutes ago, Riadnasla said:

Clearly I am still but a Padawan in the presence of masters....Lol, seriously, lots of good advice in this thread. 

However.....this morning I woke up to a notification that my kit has sold. It's bittersweet, as I have had so much difficulty buying parts and lugging it to unappreciative clients etc.....but I'll miss it too. It's captured some amazing images for me in the past. It just makes more fiscal and ergonomic sense for a smaller camera in my situation. 

Ah you mean you sold you F3?

[Shield3]

On 3/2/2017 at 6:13 PM, zerocool22 said:

Dont get me wrong, I am not complaining about the image, the c100 is a good image. I just prefer the 5D III RAW image over the C100 (could be just a personal thing, but that is just how I feel about it). It could be the full frame look, It could be the lack of pro lighting. But I ofter find myself just shooting run and gun at night. And though the iso on the Cx00 can be cranked higher, I feel like the 5D III RAW has some secret sauce on it and works just better for my taste as its softer then the sharp Cx00 series. 

Properly exposed C-log on the C100 II looked to me, with the right lens, every bit as good as the 5d3 in raw.  I shot the latter for 2+ years (started in about May of 2013).  At the end of the day there's just way too many compromises with the 5d3 raw - tedious workflow (comparatively speaking), camera lock ups, audio sync headaches *if* ML raw even decides to record audio (yes I've used modern nightly builds).  Reliability?  Don't even compare the two.  No instant backup, no ND filters, no XLR audio, no Autofocus, shorter record times, more expensive (1000x or faster) CF cards, super dodgy 3x zoom mode that locked me up often.

If I'm shooting something I can do 10 takes on the 5d3 would be a good choice.  If it's a bride walking down the aisle, 100 out of 100 times I'd grab the c100.  If I need continuous AF, good audio, long battery life, long record times, quick turnaround, (you see where I'm going here) I'll grab the c100.  With the Sigma 18-35 1.8 it's like 27-54 2.8 of full frame, and you can still throw that 85 1.2 and blow the hell out of the background on both cameras.  Hell in the summer I had the 5d3 OVERHEAT shooting ML raw.  Never seen the c100 hiccup ever.   That image does have the magic sauce, but so does the c100 in C-Log.  I prefer it over the 1dc due to all the headaches.

No reliable 1080p30 or 1080p60 raw on the 5d3; c100 II has this.  I hate looking at sports shot in 24p, don't you?

I can go out with the 10-18 STM, 18-135 and 55-250 and shoot just about anything.  Dead silent AF with face tracking, great audio, great image and reliable.  No menu diving to toggle the WB, ISO, F/Stop, better focus peaking and punch in while recording.  An actual EVF instead of strapping on a damn loupe!    But hey...if you must have static shots with the FF DOF and raw, the 5d3 is the only thing in this price range.

[Kisaha]

@Shield3 Most of the pro ML people probably have no ML experience, and also are not professionals depend their life on the things they shoot.

If you just do your hobby and have plenty of time to play with your friends, ML 5d3 is exceptional and instantly moves you to the "big boys image" (but BlackMagic for that matter too), for pro work etc C100mrkII is the best (but not 4K, so I would be reluctant to buy one right now). 

[zerocool22]

Thats not the point here is it. For sure the c100 is a workhouse and if you shoot weddings or events or do that kind of work the c100 is the way to go. But the question here was what has the best IQ. And in every situation I compared the 2 images, the 5d comes out head first. (Low light situations)

[HockeyFan12]

On 3/2/2017 at 1:12 PM, hyalinejim said:

I agree about noise, DR, sharpness but not about colour - the RAW file is malleable and limited more by the user than its inherent colour information. Whatever you can get out of a CR2 on the 5D3, you can achieve with ML DNGs.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in relation to highlight saturation and ACR. I don't hear photographers complaining about this. In any case, I normally gently roll off the saturation from the midtones to the highlights. Is this what you're talking about here:

How can you avoid chroma clipping? If a channel is blown, it's blown. Maybe C-Log is doing an in-camera saturation roll off in the highs. If so, you can just do this yourself in post for MLRAW.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the CX00 cameras overall are better cameras. However, there are some things they just can't do (at least the ones without RAW). I'm working on a piece at the moment which has a very slow and subtle 60 second film fade up from total blackness, by differently keyframing gain and gamma. It is perfectly smooth with zero banding. I couldn't get a slow, banding free fade like that with the internal codec on the C series cameras, and I doubt I'd get it perfect from the external ProRes. I know that's an extreme example, but I regularly find myself pushing MLRAW footage into territory that would be impossible with a lesser codec,and I'm extremely grateful for it. And this is one area where 5D3 ML kicks ass in the sub three grand price bracket.

All fading in from black cleanly really points to is that whatever program you're working in is working in a >8bit space and/or your grain management is appropriate to avoid dithering. But your argument remains true in general, the shadows do fall apart in AVCHD and it can be quite bad. The 14 bit vs 8 bit thing, however, is overstated (most of that extra information is noise and we're comparing 8 bit log vs 14 bit linear–of which more than two bits are filled with just noise–which narrows the gap dramatically), but it's an advantage for the 5D definitely The 8 bit banding issues people have generally relate to problems with their post workflow. Canon Log is well-implemented. AVCHD does block up in the shadows, though, definitely, and RAW does not.

I'm not saying the 5D has a bad image, or that it's worse in every respect. It really might be the best for the money and have the best look out of the box. Most consumers are more familiar with ACR than they are with Resolve, and so it's no surprise that despite the arcane workflow, many find the 5D to be the easiest path to a great image. 

The highlights thing is simple. Shoot a 3200K source that's blowing out and try to recover it in ACR. You'll see desaturated fringes, as with any traditional RAW still. Not a big deal, but you do lose 1/2 stop or so of DR when your white balance isn't set to 5600K.

[hyalinejim]

Ah, I understand what you mean about highlights. But how does it differ on the C100 when a channel is blown?

[HockeyFan12]

10 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

Ah, I understand what you mean about highlights. But how does it differ on the C100 when a channel is blown?

With the C500, at least, the gain is applied on a per-channel basis, so even the RAW footage has a set white balance. The advantage being color is retained in the highlights (but not clipped as saturation is rolled off appropriately). 

It's not a big deal, though. Rarely a deal killer. The C series suffers from worse color rendering under tungsten than under daylight, anyway.