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.

 

3 hours ago, Jimmy said:

I would strongly suggest trying to get a hands on with these cameras..... I went from DSLR to FS700/O7Q and the size drove me crazy and I sold it, but some people much prefer it.

You might find you want to stay with DSLR, in which case a 1DX-II or the upcoming 5DiV might be better?

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.
 

1 hour ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Both cameras are really good. I used The CANON extensively but only played with the Mini for a day shoot. 

Choosing between these two particular cameras really srictly comes down to your applications. 

Just talking about the image, you say 1080p is your goal. The Ursa has a 4K sensor you downsample to HD in post, the C100 has a 4K sebsor downsampled to 1080p internally, i.e,, both perfectly clear 1080p images with rich full RGB colour information. The C100 compresses it to snall AVCH files to cheap SD Cards, while the ursa records it in raw or prores to expensive CFast 2.0 cards. Ursa has more highlight headroom in my tests, has a more pushable image, if i was shooting a ''film'' i'd shoot on the ursa just for the fact that I CAN mske crazy grades, the C100 has smaller battery running for ages, not a brick, it has internal ND filters, has perfectly usable autofocus, and has a much lower price and weight. It will be replaced soon and depreciate in value while the ursa will have more time, the c100 doesnlt have annoying issues, sound is higher quality through the XLRs, no fixed pattern noise and picking up a defective unit, 
no les compatibility bugs, no weird noise at 400+ ISO. Which takes us to a VERY important point, the c100 can shoot at 10.000 ISO vs 400 on the ursa. His makes a whole different shooting experience, the camera is made for being used in alexa/red application, highly lit studios and film sets.

Using both if i had to get either camera I'd choose the C100 because my clients demand no more IQ, I want to put my SD card, small supplied battery, Cheap STM lens and shoot, grade smsll AVCHD files, shot at any ISO abd has good synced audio and NDs for daylight shots. Great colours. 

If I were shooting a feature film in a highly lit environment, power supply, cost for media, mattebox, raw handling, I would shoot on the ursa and enjoy the extra dynamic range, filmic, thick colours, and I would deal with noise by neat video or so, 

Would i shoot a wedding on the ursa? Hell no. 

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.
 

5 hours ago, Inazuma said:

I had a c100 ii for a couple months and I don't think the image is anything to write home about. It's definitely very sharp but the d750 has better colours and similar/better DR. 

If you can afford the Ursa mini 4.6k then you should be able to afford the Sony FS5. I would make a decision between the two and plus the kinefinity. Surely you can import one?

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.

 

3 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

I've owned both and they're very different cameras. The DPAF and weight are huge selling points for the C100ii. Nice colors as well. I just got tired of the weak codec and moved on. Blackmagic have great customer support. They're always willing to interact within 24 hours of contacting them. There have been a lot of issues with the 4.6K regarding the magenta corners but they're WAY overblown on forums. Your chances of getting a good unit are favorable at this point. If it's not a good one they'll replace it. They've stated that they know what is causing the issue and it will fix it ASAP.

The new firmware 4.0 coming out with the 4.6K is going to be amazing. They're adding all new resolutions for ProRes. 2K, 2.5K, 3K, 4.6K. Right now you can only shoot 4.6K in RAW. ProRes is only available currently (in the Ursa) at 1080 and UHD.

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.

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Save up extra for an FS7?!?! Hmmm...  not really, it is more or less roughly the same ballpark price as an URSA Mini 4.6K once you add up the total costs.

Plus you've got an FS5 as a cheaper option.

 

Also in that general price region is the Kinefinity Terra 6K and 5K.

Secondhand Sony F5 cameras are getting very cheap now too.

If I was you and in no rush, I'd wait for reviews of the Terra 5K to come out.

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.