wolf33d Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Can someone explain me why one would buy this over URSA Mini 4.6K ? 4K Raw with the URSA at 60 fps isn't killing this ? Plus sony colours... in 8 bit.... ? I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted September 13, 2015 Super Members Share Posted September 13, 2015 Because its much cheaper and they want things like NDs?Personally I would rather have the URSA but totally get why others don't. Even a Gopro could kill this or an URSA if you plan on using it as an action camera.Imo, there is zero point trying to figure out which camera is better than another. Because there is no such thing as a generally better camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shemster Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Can someone explain me why one would buy this over URSA Mini 4.6K ? 4K Raw with the URSA at 60 fps isn't killing this ? Plus sony colours... in 8 bit.... ? I don't know.I will get FS5 over ursa simply over the ease of use and ability to run around easier without additional attachments. Not forgetting that FS5 is much lighter and smaller and has variable nd filter. Ultimately it depends on individual's job scope and whichever work best. It is not always about the image quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I will get FS5 over ursa simply over the ease of use and ability to run around easier without additional attachments. Not forgetting that FS5 is much lighter and smaller and has variable nd filter. Ultimately it depends on individual's job scope and whichever work best. It is not always about the image quality. The URSA Mini and FS5 are for different purposes. I'm not sure why the FS5 is being described as a "cinema camera" by some websites, looks like a very versatile for documentary, corporate and events. I've had major issues with the images on XAVC-L with the FS7 (XAVC-I is superior), so it's generally put me off being interested. Think I'll try one at some point down the line though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmizer Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Ho avuto grandi problemi con le immagini su XAVC-L con il FS7 (XAVC-I è superiore), quindi è in genere mi ha messo fuori di essere interessato. Penso Cercherò un certo punto lungo la linea però. There is one who speaks the truth ...why not AVC-Intra? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 The answer to the FS5 not having the FS7 Codecs:1 -XAVC-I 10 bit 4:2:2 4K would require different much more expensive media than SD, as on the FS7/F55, and significant price upgrade and actually an increase in size and cooling system to fs7 size (I know this for a fact, FS5 compact form is immensely helped by the 8bit 100mbps pipe line for internal recording)2 -It's a budget smaller version of the fs7, and if it had all the FS7 capability, it would be an FS7. How could they bring a budget version of the FS7 with more features? (weight, size, LCD hinge, an EVF, SD cards, electronic variable ND, s16 2K crop mode, clear zoom by rocker, faster menus and more responsive buttons, 240p frame rate)It had to have that codec. It is what it is and that's the FS5.I'd completely stop judging now until I see how the codec holds up, it's the same as the codec compression of the GH4, NX1, A7RII, A7SII, X70, AX100, JVC LS300, LX100, just with a massively better sensor and features and body. The GH4 8bit 420 codec is a brilliant clean codec with no issues for 90% of the target audience who just need a great image vs the 10% who need a specific spec.Need a new 4K 10bit camera now under FS5 price (factoring media, body, power, the most basic package) actually your only options are three,1- m43s GH4 + HDMI 4K recorder,2- FS700 + XDCA + Q7 + Raw Licence3- Ursa mini old 4K That's it. All three have major downsides/differences/applications vs the FS5 but do have 4K 10bit suiting you specific requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanveer Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I will get FS5 over ursa simply over the ease of use and ability to run around easier without additional attachments. Not forgetting that FS5 is much lighter and smaller and has variable nd filter. Ultimately it depends on individual's job scope and whichever work best. It is not always about the image quality. I had read that the Ursa Mini is a rather heavy and not very well balanced little camera. Does anyone know how much it weighs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shemster Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I had read that the Ursa Mini is a rather heavy and not very well balanced little camera. Does anyone know how much it weighs?2.3 kg compared to FS5 827.8 g......not including lens....no matter how good the image is, it is simply too heavy for events and run & gun documentary kinds of shoots....There are many critics when C100 first came out. Many people complain about the lousy specs but I see the potential of this cam for weddings, events and non high level commercial shoots, thus I bought it and simply love it. It simply works with excellent ergonomic and I've been using it for 3 years and never regret buying it. I've gotten myself a A7s and although the image is much much sharper and detailed compared to c100, I still prefer the C100 as the ultimate run & gun cam. The only thing that's holding me from upgrading to C100 Mk2 is the lack of 4K and higher frame rate which is much needed for me. With the announcement of FS5, it has won me over with the same excellent ergonomics as c100 and good specs. Ultimately all I want from a cam is it to work out of the box, highly portable and good ergonomic. Whether its 420 or 422, 8 or 10 bits doesn't matter to me because all my clients are layman and can't tell the difference and IMO, most modern cam have excellent image quality. sanveer and ntblowz 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Kotlos Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 2.3 kg compared to FS5 827.8 g......not including lens....If you add the viewfinder to the URSA mini is an extra kg... The batteries for URSA mini are also quite heavier than the ones for FS5. BM describe the mini as a light-weight camera, but only because they compare it to the original URSA. FS5 looks like a really nice run&gun camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted September 13, 2015 Super Members Share Posted September 13, 2015 Rather have a heavier camera on my shoulder than a lighter in front of me.BTW, 5kg is nothing. Sounds like some need a gym, not a camera. Amro Othman and sudopera 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 If the 4K raw turns out to be internal the camera is kinda cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Kotlos Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 If the 4K raw turns out to be internal the camera is kinda cool.No that is only output. No way they could do 4k raw with SDs.Rather have a heavier camera on my shoulder than a lighter in front of me.BTW, 5kg is nothing. Sounds like some need a gym, not a camera.When run&gun that translates to running around with a backpack versus a case. Also nothing prohibits you from putting the FS5 on a shoulder rig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted September 13, 2015 Super Members Share Posted September 13, 2015 No that is only output. No way they could do 4k raw with SDs.When run&gun that translates to running around with a backpack versus a case. Also nothing prohibits you from putting the FS5 on a shoulder rig. Still, 5 kg camera = nothing to wine about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanveer Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Rather have a heavier camera on my shoulder than a lighter in front of me.BTW, 5kg is nothing. Sounds like some need a gym, not a camera.Wow, some serious weight throwing around here. Is that a French Bulldog or an Old English Mastiff? Also, apparently there appear to forum members who would prefer carrying an IMAX sized (and similar weight) camera for commercials and DNG work. Maybe they should make an Ununseptium version of Cameras for people who like to use the cameras as dumbells in between Shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docmoore Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Still, 5 kg camera = nothing to wine about.My tripod weighs more than that.... Mattias Burling 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntblowz Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 RED ONE is only 13kg.. been there lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shemster Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 Still, 5 kg camera = nothing to wine about.it depends on your body size and the kind of shoot. If you have to scale a hill or mountain and is only a 1-2 man operation, that few kg of weight saving is a big deal. Don't forget there are many other gears to bring along too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gelaxstudio Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 So Canon now needs to introduce a budget version of the C300II as the C100 was a budget version of the C300, a C100III. Having the same sensor at 15 stops of DR with C-LOG2, 120p, and a 4K 8bit mode + DPAF and all the niceties of the C100II. This is the only way to compete on this important DSLR-Step-Up market. I expect we'll see that camera soon at the first quarter of 2016, a C100 MKIII, it's how Canon works, and yes it will have a stupid omission like only 8bit in HD, and no SDI output. The only selling point of C300M2 is that 15 stops of DR which I think it never will be upgraded on the C100M3 unless C300M3 comes out first~And PDAF？Seriously？What filmmaker cares about AF ?Moreover the PDAF only works on EF DSLR lensC100 series should be abandoned，replacing it with something hot~Like FF mirrorless camera maybe~（a rumor said canon is studying on it） Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shemster Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 The only selling point of C300M2 is that 15 stops of DR which I think it never will be upgraded on the C100M3 unless C300M3 comes out first~And PDAF？Seriously？What filmmaker cares about AF ?Moreover the PDAF only works on EF DSLR lensC100 series should be abandoned，replacing it with something hot~Like FF mirrorless camera maybe~（a rumor said canon is studying on it）I am using c series and not all those who buy c series cam are into making film. Many are into events and documentary and having AF is a great deal for me. It makes my life so much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gelaxstudio Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 I am using c series and not all those who buy c series cam are into making film. Many are into events and documentary and having AF is a great deal for me. It makes my life so much easier.Hi ，shemster，I found that different EF lens show different focus speed，some focus very slow and incorrectly，better use it with STM lens~BTW，how you solve the len-noise problem when using non-STM lens？ 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.