Jafro

Its getting harder to choose with so many valid points from everyone ahaha 4k isn't a necessity since none of my clients need the video delivered in 4K, 4k would simply be nice to have for the extra resolution in post. The Ursa Mini image is fantastic but it comes with too many set backs, limited lens compatibility, sensor issues, weight and limited ISO are things id rather avoid. The C100 Mark II seems like the best fit for me, but we'll see how things go.. Right now im trying to decide whether I buy the C100 Mark II now or keep saving up till the end of the year and just get a Sony FS7.

Thank you everyone for the great feedback you guys are really helping out ! The combo I use is the Nikon D750 + Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 and in terms of lighting everything is Aputure. The C500 I have yet to find one in that price range, but then again if im going to invest so much in a new camera id much rather get a new unit with warranty, and somewhere close in case there's any problem I can just hop to the place i bought it and get it fixed. Yeah size is a concern, Id hate to have something like excess weight slowing me down. Starting to lean more towards the C100 II but haven't really made up my mind yet.

Thank you so much for the insight very helpful ! I think for the type of work I do i'm starting to lean more towards the c100 Mark II In your opinion, since i am coming from a Nikon D750 would it be wise to invest in a C100 Mark II or simply stick with the D750 and save up for something that can give me 4K and higher fps like a FS7 or a C500?

Thanks a lot for the quick feedback everyone ! The camera will mostly be used for Music Videos, most of which tend to be very Run and Gun and a with a very small crew, interviews too. I tend to travel a lot and we record very often so manageable file sizes is also a concern. I saw a lot of FS5 footage also but I was hardly impressed by it, the C100 Mark II seemed to have much better colors. I've been using the D750 for a little over a year now and from what I've seen online with the C100 Mark II the overall image seemed much better but hey that could just be my eye playing tricks im not sure. Aaron seeing as you've used both Your feedback is really appreciated. The thing that has worried me the most about the Ursa Mini 4.6K is simply risking getting a faulty unit and the fact that the Lens compatibility seemed very low. Any idea if they'll be improving on the amount of lens available? I work with Stabilized lens and for the type of shooting I do they tend to be life savers whenever I need to stabilize footage in Post.

Thanks for the info ! Well from what I searched around where im from(Portugal) an FS7 would usually be 9000€ just for the body with Lens and accessories it'll easily reach around 11,000€. The Ursa Mini would only be around 8000€ to be fully operational. The C100 Mark II I could get operational for around 6500€. Although the Kinefinity seems like a good option in terms of specs I haven't really been impressed with the images I've been seeing online for the KineMini and KineMax plus i doubt it'll be available for purchase here in Portugal anytime soon. The Sony F5 is still too expensive, for that price id be better off saving up for something like a Red Scarlet-W i think. Thanks again for the feedback.

Hey Guys ! I was wondering if anyone with some experience with both cameras could help me make up my mind. I've been searching a lot lately for my next big purchase and im having a really hard time deciding. I've always used Nikon cameras and i currently use a Nikon D750. The image from both the Canon C100 Mark II and Ursa Mini 4.6K are the best within the 5-8k price range in my opinion. Although 4K isn't something I must have it would be nice to have the extra resolution in post, but the most important thing for me is just the best 1080p image possible. I was leaning towards getting the Ursa Mini but I've been hearing a lot of bad stories online and bad reviews in regards to sensor issues, FPN and a magenta cast issue. Also Blackmagic seems to have really terrible customer support from what I've been told, the lens compatibility also seems very poor. Since this is a pretty big investment for me I cant afford to end up having a faulty camera that's why I've been looking at other options and came across the C100 Mark II which seemed like a good choice also, my only worry is that it doesn't do 4K or more than 60P. So my question is in terms of overall image quality and workflow how do both stack up against each other? Coming from a Nikon D750 is it really worth spending 5K on the C100 Mark II? Should I just wait it out to see if the issues with the Ursa Mini get fixed, or should i just keep my money and save up for something even better like a FS7. Thanks in advance !

I've used all three cameras for the past 3 years for music videos and I can guarantee you the D750 is a way better investment, Low light is better on the D750 and so is the overall image quality in terms of video, for Photography it just plain blows the D5200 and the D5300 out of the water. For video just be very careful not to tinker too much with the camera settings and profiles because to my experience if the lighting conditions aren't very favorable the Flat profile just works against you, its much safer working with the Neutral profile. Here's something i shot with the D5300: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdAjgLI1HQ8 Shot with D750: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw5jh_a8s6k It might be hard to tell them apart from the videos but trust me the D750 images are much better to work with.

Hey Andrew ! I've been using the D5300 for a while now and im very satisfied with it, but id like to upgrade so im wondering if the D750 would be worth the investment, once you've put it through its paces please let us know. Thanks in advance !

Hello Everyone !   Although im new here to the forum, i've been working with DSLR's for almost 2 years and i've been learning a lot, however there are a few things that confuse me and I was hoping someone around here could help me out.   Around where I live most shops dont have a lot of options in terms of lenses so the lenses I can test are very limited, I currently own the kit lens and a 35mm f/1.8G, and im currently looking for a more versatile lens that could replace both of them and wouldnt cost me too much as im a run and gun shooter and having to switch lens depending on what im filming mutiple times becomes annoying, and the fact that the kit lens always looks worse and cant go lower than f/3.5 doesnt help either, so in short terms im looking for a lens that has the same quality as the 35mm and works almost as good in low light but gives me the zoom range of the kit lens.   The only sort of cheap lens I've come across with these caracteristics is the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC, the only thing im not sure of is if the image wuality will be as good as the 35mm Prime seeing as this is a zoom lens.   If anyone could help me out with this one or even point me to a better lens id really apreciate it.