Guest Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Seriously. For 5k you get a battery, a massive viewfinder screen, xlr inputs, built in 15mm rail mounts, I think a swappable sensor for future upgrades, and its 1/3 the price of the c-300 mark II. besides the obvious lowlight and canon fanboying, why would anybody buy one???? it also has higher fps rates I believe, and internal 4k raw, with 15 stops. Can anybody give me a reason why anyone would want a c-300 or other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 It doesn't have a battery or swapable sensors.It has no NDs... Is about 1/3rd bigger and heavier. It would struggle to mount on a drone. It has no OLPF, so moire and aliasing might be an issue. It has no EVF. It takes much bigger and more expensive batteries. It currently has Max ISO of 1600. Canon has dual pixel AF. Canon have worldwide service centres. Canon has great colour. Canon keeps DR throughout the ISO range. Canon is a low light monster. Canon have built in gamma settings to match other cams. Canon has some kind of AF system for manual lenses. Canon works perfectly with EF lens. I'm not taking any sides until I test both... But the C300 has some impressive featured and the Ursa needs EVF and battery plate to match the c300.. So price increases. AaronChicago, Geoff CB, IronFilm and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtheory Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 I'll give you a reason why someone would order a C300 MII, - if their company is paying for it. Plenty of small TV stations with crews, nevermind the bigger broadcasters. Nick Hughes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvertonesx24 Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Seriously. For 5k you get a battery, a massive viewfinder screen, xlr inputs, built in 15mm rail mounts, I think a swappable sensor for future upgrades, and its 1/3 the price of the c-300 mark II. besides the obvious lowlight and canon fanboying, why would anybody buy one???? it also has higher fps rates I believe, and internal 4k raw, with 15 stops. Can anybody give me a reason why anyone would want a c-300 or other?If you're moving up from DSLR, you need to figure ~$2k in other gear- media/batteries/battery plate/EVF plus the added hardware requirements for 4k+ raw. Still cheaper but for most people it will not be $5k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Ease of use is highly under rated IMO. As much as a critic I am of Canons strategy and prices, its pretty damn nice to just pick up a camera and shoot for hours not worrying about assembly, batteries, rigs, monitors, attachments, etc. The new focus assist on C100 and 300 is very tempting. Oliver Daniel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Ease of use is highly under rated IMO. As much as a critic I am of Canons strategy and prices, its pretty damn nice to just pick up a camera and shoot for hours not worrying about assembly, batteries, rigs, monitors, attachments, etc. The new focus assist on C100 and 300 is very tempting. Conpletely agree. Try using a rigged up RED Epic with a tiny crew and tell me it's easy. I'd love a C300 Mk II but it's too expensive for me - I'd be better off gunning for the FS7 or URSA Mini and use other funds to get lenses. It's a camera for high calibre freelancers and production companies. Yes, I do have my own production company making stuff week in, week out - but it's small with two directors and a part time accounts lady. AaronChicago 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.f.r. Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Seriously. For 5k you get a battery, a massive viewfinder screen, xlr inputs, built in 15mm rail mounts, I think a swappable sensor for future upgrades, and its 1/3 the price of the c-300 mark II. besides the obvious lowlight and canon fanboying, why would anybody buy one???? it also has higher fps rates I believe, and internal 4k raw, with 15 stops. Can anybody give me a reason why anyone would want a c-300 or other?I think people who never used these cameras cannot form an educated opinion........ First and foremost Ursa requires expensive media to record too, no ND Filters, lack of iso sensitivity and simply not built as a workhorse. There's no denying the C-300 Mark II to many enthusiast might seem "expensive" but in a professional working environment it's actually a very cheap camera that you can pick up and works perfectly. Batteries last all day, records to cheap media, built in ND and quite arguable some of the "Best" colors produced. C300 is a warrior and will work flawless in the hottest temperatures to freezing, Blackmagic cameras are very good technology, but I don't think it's quite fair to compare...... On the flip side URSA mini looks great, but still I know it will have it's quirks as ALL Blackmagic cameras do...... Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade towell Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 i thought they both use cfast compact flash? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Image-wise, the footage from the 4.6k Ursa that Captain Hook shot looks amazing. Second most organic looking picture to the Alexa IMO. I've owned 2 BM cams in the past are they were just a pain to use. Hopefully the Ursa mini makes for an easier workflow. Oliver Daniel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 All very interesting. replies. thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 i thought they both use cfast compact flash?CFast and Compact Flash are not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Image-wise, the footage from the 4.6k Ursa that Captain Hook shot looks amazing. Second most organic looking picture to the Alexa IMO. I've owned 2 BM cams in the past are they were just a pain to use. Hopefully the Ursa mini makes for an easier workflow. This is why I'm tempted by the URSA Mini over the FS7 - I much prefer the organic quality of Blackmagic. Also the URSA Mini can shoot in raw. On every shoot, I would shoot 2-3 of the main "money shots" in raw, and everything else ProRes. It's a workflow that makes sense in relation to having a speedy editing codec but really maximising the quality out of the shots you intend for showreel purposes. The only blip I have against owning the URSA Mini is CFast 2. You can buy a lens, a drone, a camera, slider etc for the price of a little card. They are an absolute rip off. Weren't Atomos working on their own affordable version? Or was this a dream? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.f.r. Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 This is why I'm tempted by the URSA Mini over the FS7 - I much prefer the organic quality of Blackmagic. Also the URSA Mini can shoot in raw. On every shoot, I would shoot 2-3 of the main "money shots" in raw, and everything else ProRes. It's a workflow that makes sense in relation to having a speedy editing codec but really maximising the quality out of the shots you intend for showreel purposes. The only blip I have against owning the URSA Mini is CFast 2. You can buy a lens, a drone, a camera, slider etc for the price of a little card. They are an absolute rip off. Weren't Atomos working on their own affordable version? Or was this a dream? My problem with URSA MINI , is high iso/low light. Shooting run and gun, small crew many and I mean MANY times you simply cannot light every scene to your liking, this is where the Sony cameras imo show their greatest strengths. Shooting iso 6400 on a Sony FS7 is smooth as butter, on a URSA max you have is 1600 and that is going to be a noisy image...... No question URSA has a BEAUTIFUL image (like all BM cameras) when you have sufficient light, but that image turns very bad once the sensor starts losing light....Sony A7s with an external recorder like the SHOGUN recording 4k ProRes would be my weapon of choice...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 My problem with URSA MINI , is high iso/low light. Shooting run and gun, small crew many and I mean MANY times you simply cannot light every scene to your liking, this is where the Sony cameras imo show their greatest strengths. Shooting iso 6400 on a Sony FS7 is smooth as butter, on a URSA max you have is 1600 and that is going to be a noisy image...... No question URSA has a BEAUTIFUL image (like all BM cameras) when you have sufficient light, but that image turns very bad once the sensor starts losing light....Sony A7s with an external recorder like the SHOGUN recording 4k ProRes would be my weapon of choice...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTmj6NoByz0 - 10:05^Faymusmedia says the production camera can be used at iso 3200 (boosting in post), and the ursa mini is supposedly betterthis test could be faulty - he seems to maybe have some bias, and of course the youtube compression is denoising it a lot for us (I've heard plenty that it is completely unusable by that point, those with experience will probably confirm) IronFilm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 The same reason people bought the C100 mkI with 1080p 8bit 420 h.264 DSLR spec, when it was priced twice as expensive as the 4K 12 bit 444 BMproductionCamera. It goes beyond the specs. Anyhow never judge two cameras by specs, the Ursa Mini might be aweful as the C300II might be even more so for all we know they might melt & boil under sunlight. Reviews are our friends, and the word from people who used the camera in the industry for a time. Only then make a purchase, at least a month after being tested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 Sony A7s with an external recorder like the SHOGUN recording 4k ProRes would be my weapon of choice......Not mine. Why is it that none of the clips published so far has that 'cinematic', 'organic', 'natural' look that we have been after for ages? I appreciate this discussion, because, as the TO wonders, why would anybody ever wish another camera? - and that's the answer: every camera must have weak points, where concurring products do better. You see, on paper, the C300 MII is a perfect camera (I don't desperately need raw). But I had rented the current version for a week and (besides the 8-bit, which doesn't count much, because it was good 8-bit) it had a serious handicap (for me): a really shitty EVF, too small image, too uncomfortable to press it to my face as an additional stabilization point, which is my habit when I shoot handheld. If there is an EVF, it must feel right, or I won't have it. For example: my old GH2's EVF only needed an adapted Zacuto eyepiece ($ 17), my Pocket (with a really shitty display) a Zacuto display loupe (~ $110 for the early buyers) to make it at least usable.There were times when we thought, this race for better specs must have an end now, this or that camera has it all. Duh!On 4,6k Ursa mini I thought, who would ever need better codec options, better audio options, greater resolution, better ergonomics? Let's sit and wait what downsides the first testers discover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 My problem with URSA MINI , is high iso/low light. Shooting run and gun, small crew many and I mean MANY times you simply cannot light every scene to your liking, this is where the Sony cameras imo show their greatest strengths. Shooting iso 6400 on a Sony FS7 is smooth as butter, on a URSA max you have is 1600 and that is going to be a noisy image...... No question URSA has a BEAUTIFUL image (like all BM cameras) when you have sufficient light, but that image turns very bad once the sensor starts losing light....Sony A7s with an external recorder like the SHOGUN recording 4k ProRes would be my weapon of choice...... Well there is your answer, the URSA Mini isn't ideal for you. All Blackmagic cameras need light. I use the FS7 a lot and yes, it's superior to current Blackmagic cameras for low light. You just have to be very careful with Slog3 as the shadows can get very noisey, especially at high ISO. 95% of the time, I'm under controlled lighting. The off-the-sensor mojo is very important to me, and this is where the URSA Mini is more desirable than the FS7. For run & gun, the FS7 will be hands-down the better tool. I don't know this obviously... just think it will be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 I hope the 4.6k sensor solves the lowlight issue. It does say ''greatly improved lowlight performance'' on the fairchild imaging website, that's over their previous sensors as the ones in the Pocket and 2.5K BM (Which both had ''decent'', 550D type of decent, I hope this one is 1600/3200 usable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted April 19, 2015 Share Posted April 19, 2015 Here's a spot on blog post about the URSA Mini: https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/blackmagic-ursa-sanity-check/Some good points made there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Policar Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Seriously. For 5k you get a battery, a massive viewfinder screen, xlr inputs, built in 15mm rail mounts, I think a swappable sensor for future upgrades, and its 1/3 the price of the c-300 mark II. besides the obvious lowlight and canon fanboying, why would anybody buy one???? it also has higher fps rates I believe, and internal 4k raw, with 15 stops. Can anybody give me a reason why anyone would want a c-300 or other?1) Producers prefer the C300 name and one or two jobs easily pays off more than the difference.2) Lazy, untalented shooters love the ease of use, great economics, ability to bump ISO to ridiculous levels, etc.If you don't need a C300 Mk II to make great images, more power to you. Some of the weaker shooters (such as myself) are fawning over them.But at the end of the day all that matters is what you shoot, and it does seem spec-wise than BM raises the bar. Too high for me.You've answered your own question, you don't need the approval of your producer to choose a camera; you don't need ergonomics designed to be intuitive for a single shooter; you don't need amazing flexibility and low light or reliability and build; what separates your work at the level at which you work is that extra last bit of resolution and DR and raw.I often shoot JPEGs because it's faster to deliver to a client. I'm that lazy, "pro" shooter. You're not. Go forth and blow us away. The C300 Mk II is not for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.