Shield3

6 hours ago, Kisaha said:

The only thing I am missing from the NX1 is the focus magnification while recording video. Just that, but it is a quite serious omission.

The ergonomics and menus of this camera is out of this world, in my whole life (and career) I haven't ever used anything so consumer friendly, ever. People haven't used one, do not know what I mean.

Yes, it is starting to show its age, but the 28megapixels BSI sensor, the H265 codec, the unicorn 16-50 2-2.8f workhorse, and the hack/modding happening in this forum, is keeping it near the top almost 2 and a half years after its first release, truly the first prototypical hybrid camera of the 21st century, equal photos and video.

My #1 beef was shooting longer takes - you could view the video through the EVF or rear LCD - but never toggle between them.  Drove me freaking nuts.  I would have to stop myself and say "Do I want EVF only video monitoring 10 minutes from now?"

8 hours ago, jpfilmz said:

When properly exposed it does look every bit as good...even wide dynamic range looks superb. The C100mk2 is $4000 and the 5D3 is under $3k so that's why I haven't really tried to mention it much.  I don't have the C100mk1 but i hear it also has a great image just a different color cast.  I still cannot rank it's image as higher than a raw image due to post flexibility of 8bit vs 14bit.  Audio can be record while shooting in raw with the via MLV by enabling the MLV audio module.  The locking up issues are often caused by having to many modules enabled, card filling up while recording, card speed dropage or a battery issue.  With my configuration don't get any locking up issues.  Usability wise the C100mk2 is comprehensively no question much better to use.....better than any dslr form camera I think if you don't need stills. It's my favorite video camera to shoot on and makes me want to by a C300mk2. I did have my c100mk2 lock up on me 2 days ago where I had to take the battery out and reinsert it to get it back functioning while shooting..it was a 3rd party battery.  

Yes I am aware of the MLV audio - I shot RAW for 2+ years on the 5d3.  Shot it in the very beginning and spent countless hours syncing audio in post - remember the "beep" when it starts recording, and the scratch camera audio time not syncing in post?  I went through all those headaches - later builds were much better of course.  Any camera might lock up with a 3rd party battery; not sure what the point of that is.

I think you can find used C100 II's for under $4k - I did.  Just have to be patient. 

On 3/4/2017 at 2:17 PM, zerocool22 said:

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)

That's strange - with fast glass I found the C100 II to be better in low light, or darn near impercetable.  Please don't compare a 18-135 STM @ F/5.6 vs. the 5d3 raw @ 50 1.2.  We're talking 4.5 stops of light here - I'm sure most of the footage you've seen out of the c100 was with much "slower" lenses.  The c100 II was usable up to about ISO 8000 IMO, and the 5d3 raw perhaps 3200.  All depends on if you're exposing for the shadows, highlights, applying NR in your raw workflow, etc.

Just my opinion, but the c100 II is really, really good in low light.  Not A7s territory of course, but man.

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.

It's the art version, but the E mount lens is far different than the EF (Canon) mount version.  E-mount won't do you any good but the AF is silent.  The AF is pretty noisy on the art Canon EF mount version though.

2 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I admire anybody who can shoot automobiles. I worked for a photo studio after finishing college, and those car shoots were demanding as hell, grueling hours, and we were shooting stills. 

Wedding videos are still worse. 

4 hours ago, Michael Coffee said:

Was just looking at these two the other day, the Canon is recommended as having great iq and much better built... the sample images I saw looked good, I'm not a big fan of most modern canon lenses, liked what I saw of this one though. The speed of the Sigma is tempting .. what camera are you using? The Sigma definitely seems to have a mojo on some sensors, a not oversharp but mega detailed look.. 

We may have a different opinion of "modern".  The 28 1.8 USM was released in 1995. 

On a side note, I have the Sony E-Mount Sigma 30 1.4, which is different than the EF mount, but it's a nice little lens.

4 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

I am using a C100, and from people I trust the canon always had a good review, the first version of the Sigma had very bad reviews, always ranked far below the Canon, but I was thinking the new Sigma Art could have improved enough to surpass the Canon, but looks like almost nobody is using it, which also say a lot about it, I think I will just stay with the Canon and go safe…..

The Sigma 18-35 1.8 SINGS on the C100 IQ-wise.  AF is a bit noisy, but shoot MF or use external audio and you're golden.

"LOG mashes skintones together, with very little separation between distinct shades, so that when the 150Mbit/s data rate is applied to the final H.264 file, the compression becomes the important factor (mushing the tonality and blending blocks of colour together as one)."

Not sure if I'm missing something, but exposed properly even the lowly 35 / 24 megabit c100 II in C-Log doesn't appear to "mash the skintones" for me.  Perhaps the V-LOG is just that much flatter?  Don't know.

That VG900 was a sales disaster IIRC.  When released there were no FF E-Mount (FE) lenses, so it had to be shot in crop mode with native glass.  Or you could use the LA-EA3 (MF only) or the LA-EA4 which would AF your A-mount glass, but limited the AF points and stuck at F/3.5 (as usual).  Had Sony made that a 12 MP sensor with a 4k readout with 1080p oversampling it'd have sold in droves.  It tried to be too many things -  a 24MP E-Mount camera and a FF video camera.

Does the a99 II have the silent shutter mode a la the A7x series?

Also there is no better camera (for stills) IMO from an ergonomic perspective than the Sony a77/a99 series.  Just perfect in that regard.

Just now, rdouthit said:

Give some credit to the light in Granada versus one hour before sunset in Connecticut. Spain can be quite lovely. I had intended on selling my A7S... but man, it's just such a good camera. 

Not to argue with myself, but IMO that looks better than the a7s footage I shot.  You ever really look at a99 original footage?  It's the softest pile of horseshit ever.

Watching that Subaru video makes me very angry.  Angry because the a99 ver 1 looked about 1/1000th as good in video mode.  This camera looks spectacular, and Sony pissed me off with the version 1's video.  Still bitter 5 years later.  I am going to knock my a6500 off the end table now.  Oh wait, I won't, it'll break and I'll have to wait a month for Precision Camera to fix it. 

3 minutes ago, rdouthit said:

I agree it's a problem. But it's not a problem for me. I shoot action sports all the time with MF, no problem. In fact, smoke from rally cars and drift quite often messes up AF tracking. That's why I initially had to learn the "hard way." Outside of the Canon 1DXM2 (we use as a second camera on a show I DP for on the Motor Trend Channel), I have yet to see any useful implementation of AF that I would bank on... and even with the Canon it messes up more often than I would like. 

 

C100 Mk2 gets it pretty good - I assigned a button to quickly toggle AF on and off - I can track my son's baseball players running down the first base line and it'll track all the way.  Of course there is, of course, no perfect camera, and I am limited to that damn center box for AF.  The 1dxII I thought was worse in AF mode - but it could have been the extra anchor point of the EVF stuck on my face vs. holding the camera (1dxII) at arm's length.

32 minutes ago, rdouthit said:

If you're a slacker and use auto-focus, it's stuck at f/3.5 when in that mode. It also overheats more often than I like when shooting 4k 100mb/s. For "mission critical" time where getting the shot trumps all else, and I'm not sure how long I'll have to roll, I can turn it down to 60mb/s and it removes that issue. 

Oh, added bonus, the multi-function shoe supports dual-channel wireless mics directly into the camera without cables. 

It's basically an A7RII with different mount, better weather sealing, better grip (for me), longer batteries, Slog3 and more programmable buttons on the body.

Well using AF in video mode isn't for slackers; sometimes you just need to.  Especially if you want to shoot things that move.  I might want to be at F/8...or F/1.4.  Don't know if it's changed, but the biggest problem is you can't even "PUSH" focus in Manual exposure mode - you have to toggle back to the damn Program Auto settings (i.e.F/3.5).  Even the 5d3 that wouldn't AF in video really at all I could "Push AF" to my actual "in use" exposure settings and begin rolling.  It's a problem, period.  With my A99 I I had the 24/2 lens and was able to put a piece of tape and hold the aperture wide open - it would AF all day in live view / video mode.  It's a self-imposed limitation that makes this one, for me, simply out of the question.

Not everyone is shooting controlled shots with their gear.  People rock back and forth with interviews, and you can forget tracking a bride down the aisle unless you're sure you want F/3.5.  P mode AF only SUCKETH, period.  But 11 FPS @ 42MP is pretty damn impressive.

9 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Hard to believe a full sized DSLR body overheats. Pretty crazy. Other than that, looks nice.

Yeah it's a disgrace that it overheats.  Just unacceptable.

I think the big downside to that and all SLT cameras is the "stuck at F/3.5 in AF mode" issue.  You've proven you can work around it, and man does it look better than the original a99 I had (which looked "VHS-like").  Shot well and nice use of the slider or panning in post.  Not sure most cameras today with a large (s35 or larger) couldn't have done this however, and I know based on the cost of the body and those 3 lenses you probably had $6k in just camera/body gear.

5 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah a C100 mkII has to be at the top for the money.  It is just laid out so well, both for tripod and run n gun, no way you can beat it if you don't need 4k. And since it is down sampled from 4k to 1080p in camera that saves a step in post. ISO 320 to 80,000 is crazy good, built in ND filters, and to be able to record two different formats at the same time is a crazy good idea.

Yep, I have made up my mind, that is the camera I am buying. I don't want to have 10 things hanging off a camera to make it work.

And the dual record feature for instant backups, or relay recording, or the punch in while recording ability, the fact you can set the EVF to B&W only (or both it and the LCD).  I have my punch in set to enable peaking.  I wish they would have set the waveform in the viewfinder as well, but that's really the only downside.

For me personally in high contrast scenese I overexposed C-log by about 2/3rds to 1 full stop and get really nice results in post.  I do try to stick to the native 850 ISO and use the built in ND whenever possible.

I love my little A6500 for quick snaps and a much smaller footprint, but man do I ever have to think when I'm using that thing.  Sony has got to copy Canon and come up with a quick menu of the most used settings - the C100 I have my framerates, media record mode (AVCHD/MP4), metering options (spotlight etc) and the APS-C mode all quickly accessible.  I'm not sure I'd get that much more out of a 4k C100 unless it oversampled like 5k/6k and then I'd worry the rolling shutter would be a problem.  The C100 is just amazing.

If you're getting one, I highly recommend the 10-18 STM and (believe it or not) the 55-250 STM.  Both of those are cheap and punch above their weight, even if not "fast" lenses.

My pick is the C100ii used if you can find one for $3k.  Part of the image is FOCUS, and it has the DPAF.  Part of the image could be 30p/60p, which it has (and the 1dc does not in 4k).  Love the 5d3 raw image as well but man it's just too flaky and I don't trust it 100%.  Audio is part of the overall image too, as well as built in ND's - so to me XLR/ND, Canon C-Log, reliability and gorgeous 1080 24/30/60 make the C100 the winner.  Battery life, great EVF and EF mount (and face tracking with some EF-S lenses) just add icing to the cake.  Add a cheap recorder for more flexibility in post.

Skin tones too.  Also long record times without overheating, and the simplest damn joystick to instantly toggle between ISO/WB/shutter/F-stop.  I don't really have to think that much when I pick up the C100 II - I like that. 

But I haven't shot the BMPCC or some of these older Sony/Red cameras - so what do I know?

On 1/28/2017 at 9:55 PM, dhessel said:

Raw on a camera with highly compressed codec is awesome, raw on a camera with a high quality codec is overrated. I used to shoot raw all the time on a BMCC until I tried prores and realized it wasn't really necessary.

The codec on the 5d3 isn't what killed it.  It's the shit pipeline Canon put in between the 14 bit data coming off the sensor and before the data is written to the card.  The codec itself is fine; it's doing a fine job lightly compressing the crappy "baked in" data its getting.  Case in point, the 1dc in 1080p24 mode didn't look any better, and neither does the 1dx II (and they are using MJPEG).  Whatever Canon does to that image (going from 14 bit raw to the 8 bit output) is what kills the image.  Codec is the least of your problems - the c100 original had a puny 24 Megabit AVCHD file and walked all over the 3 aforementioned cameras in 1080p24.  The lowly XC-10's 1080p24 does as well; same codec I believe in 1080p mode (ALL-I or IPB). 

Moral = line skipping / binning is not your friend.

Just bought this 10 minutes ago - thanks Andrew for all the hard work.  A6500 will here tomorrow.  My pdf is showing "version 2" for those that are interested.

I thought both shot in C-log looked very similar after grading and the 1dc downscaled.  I think the c100 has more detail than the 1dc even in 4k though; they are different animals.  They both have that MOJO for sure though.

I had no intentions of getting another one - long story short one was offered to me with 4 batteries, a 18-135 STM, the box and all accessories for $1950 cash.  All legit with receipts.  I couldn't jump on it fast enough - it was the Mark II and the seller was a professional photog - just needed rid of it.  I have felt somewhat guilty, but he told me he priced it half off just to move it.  Twice in my camera buying career I've gotten very, very lucky - last year was a XC-10 with 2 256 GB CFast cards for $1200.  Otherwise, I normally take a bloodbath / beating buying and selling gear.

Threw together a few clips I shot from center field last summer (C-log).  I'm sure it could have been graded better but I thought it turned out pretty good.

15 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

For this canon I would suggest shooting without dialing down the camera's contrast, it seems to causing your midtones (and skin) to wash out. If you want to drop saturation I would do that in post.

This is helpful; I'll try this; I agree something is going on with the midtones when I shoot with the contrast all the way down.  Thanks!

Call me crazy but I felt like my c100 was easier to get "more pleasing" results from C-Log, at least for me, compared to dialing down / in Canon standard.  It's all subjective I guess.

Curious to see how you guys get the skin tones back.  Maybe it's just too blown out?

Ok is this any better skin tone wise?

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

You broke the skintones entirely.

Back to the drawing board with that one.

Don't know how often you shoot 10 year olds but getting junior to sit still that long was torture.  So yeah, the original shot (with one fill light) was about a stop overexposed.  The shot on the left is untouched Canon standard with the contrast dialed down; the right is just me adjusting the highlight/shadow/contrast/sharpening sliders.  You like the skin tones on the left better?  I don't.  I'm just showing how quickly it can be sharpened up and the highlights pulled down and shadows lifted in post.

Just want to be clear though - you prefer the overall image on the left including the skin tones?  The right looks much better to me; my son has somewhat rosy cheeks.  Left (default) looks dead and devoid of any DR.  The sharpening is too much I will admit on the right.

Here's a TIFF - by all means I would love to see how you guys grade this so I can get better.  Shouldn't be more than 1 stop over exposed (his face) so I'd love to see what changes you guys make.  I use Lightroom for stills and Premiere for video.

1dc__00000_03420923.TIFF

I shot this to show Mr. Dugdale what about 3 minutes moving the sliders around in Premiere did to my 1dxII footage (from standard).  I think I oversharpened it slightly, but this was with the 35 1.4 @ F/4, ISO 800, 4k24.  I also probably overexposed slightly but man it's hard to get any of my kids to sit still so you get what you get.  WB set to 3300k.

No comments please on the Youtbe page itself (but feel free to comment here).

The end is a 200% punch in from the original footage.  Looks far better than what Doug was showing.  Shrug.

Dave is a very nice guy by the way and I have been talking to him quite a bit via email.

Shawn