Upgrading to an... older camera

[yiomo]

I am adding things up and seeing that after adding XLRs inputs, a cage, nd filters and a good lens, I am getting very close to c70 budget territory. Perhaps not immediately, but soon.

To be fair I think that for a one man band the 32 bit float recording is a must, so if going the a7siii route I would opt for a Mixpre-3. On the other hand if going the c70 route I wouldn't be able to justify an extra cost for audio input.

So between those two is there a general consensus about which is better? To be honest if The C100 mark ii did 4k, even with those old codecs, I would go for it. I am still thinking about it, but I am afraid I will regret it if I spend 3000 for an HD only camera.

[TomTheDP]

1 hour ago, yiomo said:

I am adding things up and seeing that after adding XLRs inputs, a cage, nd filters and a good lens, I am getting very close to c70 budget territory. Perhaps not immediately, but soon.

To be fair I think that for a one man band the 32 bit float recording is a must, so if going the a7siii route I would opt for a Mixpre-3. On the other hand if going the c70 route I wouldn't be able to justify an extra cost for audio input.

So between those two is there a general consensus about which is better? To be honest if The C100 mark ii did 4k, even with those old codecs, I would go for it. I am still thinking about it, but I am afraid I will regret it if I spend 3000 for an HD only camera.

I'd definitely consider used. You can get the MK2 for $2000 depending on where you live. I don't think you'll miss 4k much, but higher bitrate 10 bit codecs are definitely an advantage over the 50mbps codec on the C100 mk2. 

In terms of C70 vs A7s3/FX3

The A7s3 is going to do much better at high ISO's. You are talking usable 16,000 iso where as the C70 is going to start to show noise at 3200 iso with a max of 6400 iso for a normal amount of noise.. The Sony auto focus is more responsive than the C70's. You can do RAW with an external recorder on the Sony. Its Full frame if you like that look. Its a smaller package overall if you are a fan of the DSLR form factor. 

The Canon image is better, you can completely dial off noise reduction and sharpening giving you a very organic image. The dynamic range is better though the Sony isn't bad at all. 

If you shoot stills the A7S3/fX3 is obviously a better choice. 

I wouldn't say either is necessarily better in general though. Different cameras. 

An FX3(comes with top handle and XLR module) is $3900, variable ND $100, EF adapter $100 
$4100

C70 new is $5500 plus the EF adapter $100
$5600 

 

[TomTheDP]

Few things I forgot to throw in.

The Sony's IBIS is definitely a plus though its not as stable as Panasonics. Better than none at all which is what you have with the C70. 

The C70 also has of course the 10 stop internal ND's which are a treat. 

I'd probably go with the C70 as I like the more natural non processed image(I am really picky about that kinda thing most won't even notice). If the FX3 had the option to dial off NR and sharpening completely I'd probably go for it. I prefer Sony's AF and full frame. However the 10 stop ND's on the Canon are really tempting and you could get the full frame look with a speed booster, though its another $500.

If you don't need auto focus the Panasonic S1/S5 is a great option. Great low light dual ISO, 4k 10 bit, XLR module, amazing IBIS, amazing dynamic range. No ND's or good AF though but you'd save quite a bit of $$$$

[yiomo]

The thing that annoys me with the fx3 is that I loose the evf and instead I am getting this external XLR module. If I am going external, I'd rather spend the difference for a mixpre-3 with the the 32 bit float.

Where I am located I can get

An A7s+ 24-105 G for  €5000     (still have my doubts about using ef lenses on the Sony. Have been doing that with my A7s but it is very very annoying)

an fx3 - camera only - no lens - at €5200

a C70 + 071x adapter for €6200

I will do some research about the used c100 mk ii options.

thanks.

[yiomo]

As a side note, is the hevc more heavy on the computer than the XAVC?

This is another consideration I have to take into account. My 2015 MacBook Pro.

[TomTheDP]

1 hour ago, yiomo said:

As a side note, is the hevc more heavy on the computer than the XAVC?

This is another consideration I have to take into account. My 2015 MacBook Pro.

Yeah you'll have to transcode the HEVC to Prores. It a breeze on the new MacBook M1's but on older Macs or PC's its a nightmare. 

H264 4K 10bit is often pretty tough on editing systems too though much better than HEVC. 

[yiomo]

What about the XF-AVC ? Is it as tough? Is the Sony Xavc the lightest from all of these?

This could also be a deciding factor as I cannot upgrade my computer now.

[yiomo]

Ok. So I just found out that both these cameras can record proxies at the same time as the full res file. This seems to solve the problems with the computer.

[TomTheDP]

21 minutes ago, yiomo said:

Ok. So I just found out that both these cameras can record proxies at the same time as the full res file. This seems to solve the problems with the computer.

Yeah I am pretty sure they both do MP4 as well. If you want to utilize your EF lenses the Canon C70 seems to be the best option or the C100 MK2. The adapters for Sony seem dicey. 

[IronFilm]

19 hours ago, yiomo said:

To be fair I think that for a one man band the 32 bit float recording is a must, so if going the a7siii route I would opt for a Mixpre-3. On the other hand if going the c70 route I wouldn't be able to justify an extra cost for audio input.

I'd pick the MixPre3 for its super small form factor over its 32bit "feature".

[Matthias Scheja]

I just bought a 1dc ...addet 2 128 GB CF cards, a 35mm IS lense and extra battery .....paid around 2000 € for everything. Dont regret it. Great lovely colors....great ergonomics. If i need good sound ill use it with the Røde NTG on top. Not too bulky like the bigger c line cameras.

In my opinion sony doesnt deserve 1 euro for what they have done to humanity, harassing us with those greenish skintone colors in the past. I also see lack of colorquality in the neewer models. Simply not buying it.

[yiomo]

10 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I'd pick the MixPre3 for its super small form factor over its 32bit "feature".

This too, but I believe the 32 bit will help people like me who have to juggle many responsibilities in one role. 

[Rhood]

On 3/25/2021 at 9:04 AM, kye said:

I think you make excellent points but disagree with this part of your post, as I think we've been concentrating on the wrong things in camera development.

Specifically, we have way more pixels than we need, which you mentioned, but the missing link is dynamic range, which is still very immature in terms of development.

Almost everyone can compare an Alexa frame with a sub$2500 digital camera frame on a big TV and see why the Alexa costs more.  Under certain controlled situations this difference can be managed and the cheaper camera can come a lot closer, but in uncontrolled lighting and high DR situations it's quite obvious.  

This comparison still holds if you compare those images on a laptop screen, and even a phone screen in some situations.  The fact that the Alexa looks better on a 2.5K laptop display, or a 720p phone screen, means that the image quality cannot be about resolution, as the resolution advantage of the cheaper camera will be eliminated by the downscaled image.

What is left is colour science and dynamic range.  

We should be taking these 8K sensors, putting on the OLPF from a 4K sensor, and sending every fourth pixel to a different ADC pipeline with differing levels of gain, which are then digitally combined to get a very high dynamic range 4K image.  

The Alexa was released over 10 years ago, shot 2K, and had a dual-gain architecture.  Here we are over a decade later and we have cameras that have 16 times as many pixels, but still don't match the DR, and still don't look as good.  

The real "progress" that has been achieved by the manufacturers is convincing people to buy more pixels despite the fact that they really wanted better pixels.

Good to read some common sense.
I really don't get the need for even more resolution.
Or certainly not as a priority.

Quite a few years ago, when 4K was new. There were so much more sceptics. Lot's more people downsizing the importance of resolution. I mean this in a good way.
But now it seems like almost everybody got convinced by the resolution marketing.
I remember reading an article going from 2K to 4K, where they did a cinema screen test. The increase in resolution was only visible from the first few front seats.
I do understand the practicality when it comes to slightly reframing or being able to virtual dolly with a push in. But that's not how they market it at all, and thats not how the people get convinced.

The Alexa and the Sony F35 are both still the best when it comes to digital cinema camera's.
Colour science, dynamic range and motion cadence over these 4K, 6K and 8K buzzwords.
And let's not forget, an easy workflow. Both the Alexa and Sony F35 suffice with a simple LUT to make them look good (cinema good).

To keep it on topic
It doesn't tick all of your boxes but it's quite a bit cheaper, Yiomo have you thought about a Sony pmw F3 ?

[TomTheDP]

5 hours ago, Rhood said:

Good to read some common sense.
I really don't get the need for even more resolution.
Or certainly not as a priority.

Quite a few years ago, when 4K was new. There were so much more sceptics. Lot's more people downsizing the importance of resolution. I mean this in a good way.
But now it seems like almost everybody got convinced by the resolution marketing.
I remember reading an article going from 2K to 4K, where they did a cinema screen test. The increase in resolution was only visible from the first few front seats.
I do understand the practicality when it comes to slightly reframing or being able to virtual dolly with a push in. But that's not how they market it at all, and thats not how the people get convinced.

The Alexa and the Sony F35 are both still the best when it comes to digital cinema camera's.
Colour science, dynamic range and motion cadence over these 4K, 6K and 8K buzzwords.
And let's not forget, an easy workflow. Both the Alexa and Sony F35 suffice with a simple LUT to make them look good (cinema good).

To keep it on topic
It doesn't tick all of your boxes but it's quite a bit cheaper, Yiomo have you thought about a Sony pmw F3 ?

I owned the F3 briefly and ultimately sold it as I didn't see a very noticeable dynamic range improvement over the GH5 I had. The ND's were great, if it had internal 10 bit it would be much more compelling. I've never loved having to deal with an external recorder. Combined with Sony's crazy menu's make it a not great one man band option, at least for me. If you are content with the 8 bit recording its definitely more run and gun friendly. Its 6400 iso is pretty usable and the battery life is great. 

Theres definitely a resolution race however dynamic range and high iso performance are paramount in most people's decisions as well as VFR options. Not many are out there getting the URSA 12k over something like the C300 MK2. The C70 and FX6 have done really well despite only having 4k sensors. Alexas that don't even shoot true 4k still dominate higher end projects although the Alexa LF is becoming more of a standard (is it due to its full frame or 6k??). 

I have to admit I've found myself doing a lot of cropping in post lately as per client request. 6K sensors certainly have a benefit here although the lens resolutions are often a limiting factor when shooting wide open which I do very often.

 

[yiomo]

10 hours ago, Rhood said:

Good to read some common sense.
I really don't get the need for even more resolution.
Or certainly not as a priority.

Quite a few years ago, when 4K was new. There were so much more sceptics. Lot's more people downsizing the importance of resolution. I mean this in a good way.
But now it seems like almost everybody got convinced by the resolution marketing.
I remember reading an article going from 2K to 4K, where they did a cinema screen test. The increase in resolution was only visible from the first few front seats.
I do understand the practicality when it comes to slightly reframing or being able to virtual dolly with a push in. But that's not how they market it at all, and thats not how the people get convinced.

The Alexa and the Sony F35 are both still the best when it comes to digital cinema camera's.
Colour science, dynamic range and motion cadence over these 4K, 6K and 8K buzzwords.
And let's not forget, an easy workflow. Both the Alexa and Sony F35 suffice with a simple LUT to make them look good (cinema good).

To keep it on topic
It doesn't tick all of your boxes but it's quite a bit cheaper, Yiomo have you thought about a Sony pmw F3 ?

Thanks for the suggestion. It never crossed my mind. Don't know it. Looking online but cannot find it in Europe to check used prices. If I go this way why not The C100 mark ii? Is it because of the codec?

[yiomo]

In my case, I didn't care for 4k when the first A7s was marketed as such, (which was of course a fat lie, as it required an external recorder) and for personal projects I don't see the need. Perhaps only for punching into a closer frame for talking heads. 

As one man everything, I do need a good AF. It doesn't have to be stellar. Just good and reliable so trying to find this fine line. 

In Greece the C70 will cost me 500 euros more than an A7siii + a 24-105, so I think I am torn between those two. This reviewer said good things about the c70 autofocus. Or perhaps save 2000 euros and get the A7iii, but not sure about it's video AF. 

Of course I loose the ergonomics and XLRs but as I said earlier, I think a 32bit float recorder might be better for my needs. Also I am not so sure about the preamps in the c70. This audio review has a lot of hiss when he is switching recorders. Mixpre-3 sound so much cleaner.

 

 

[mercer]

Have you considered a C200?

With that said, if you can comfortably afford the C70, it may be the best bet for you.

And with that said, I hate that Canon switched to the RF mount. Big, heavy lenses that cost a fortune does not appeal to me whatsoever, especially for mirrorless bodies. But I still like the DSLR form factor and still shoot ML Raw on my 5D Mark III, so I'm probably just a dinosaur.

I guess a 1DX Mark III could be an option as well if you'd prefer using a mix-pre3 for audio.

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, yiomo said:

As one man everything, I do need a good AF. It doesn't have to be stellar. Just good and reliable so trying to find this fine line. 

In Greece the C70 will cost me 500 euros more than an A7siii + a 24-105, so I think I am torn between those two. This reviewer said good things about the c70 autofocus. Or perhaps save 2000 euros and get the A7iii, but not sure about it's video AF. 

Or get the Sony FX6, the price is broadly similar to the C70

[TomTheDP]

16 hours ago, yiomo said:

In my case, I didn't care for 4k when the first A7s was marketed as such, (which was of course a fat lie, as it required an external recorder) and for personal projects I don't see the need. Perhaps only for punching into a closer frame for talking heads. 

As one man everything, I do need a good AF. It doesn't have to be stellar. Just good and reliable so trying to find this fine line. 

In Greece the C70 will cost me 500 euros more than an A7siii + a 24-105, so I think I am torn between those two. This reviewer said good things about the c70 autofocus. Or perhaps save 2000 euros and get the A7iii, but not sure about it's video AF. 

Of course I loose the ergonomics and XLRs but as I said earlier, I think a 32bit float recorder might be better for my needs. Also I am not so sure about the preamps in the c70. This audio review has a lot of hiss when he is switching recorders. Mixpre-3 sound so much cleaner.

 

 

Internal audio is never going to match a mixpre. Practically once you mix it and apply noise reduction it’s all fine. The A73 auto focus is amazing with Sony lenses. One of the best in the market still. I’d also recommend the C200. You get 4K up to 60fps in a good 8 bit codec with wonderful canon color. It also has good AF, native EF mount, internal NDs, XLRs, SDI. You can record BRAW externally or prores RAW as well as Canon RAW lite internally. 

[yiomo]

14 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Or get the Sony FX6, the price is broadly similar to the C70

The Fx6 seems the perfect camera for me, something to aim for in the future. For now I am most probably leaning towards the a7siii, although I dislike the form factor/ergonomics/etc.