BenEricson

3 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

I paid 2100 USD for the 16-35 II and now it goes around 700 USD....

We're talking about a pretty low priced lens, the price is unlikely to really fall more than it has. Ebay is tell all anyway, and yeah its around 450. 

The 17-55 is better for certain stuff. For outdoor shooting, it's really nice to have that much longer focal length. The 18-35 is also amazing, but no IS.

15 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

I have the 24-105 F4 and IMO is an average lens plus on the 100 II is not even that wide. I'm sure that with the introduction of the new one 24-105 II they will become even cheaper on the used market so is not really a super investment for 500$. I think I used only once for video on the 1Dx II, it is not particularly wide nor sharp nor fast. On full frame is a convenient range and with IS but this is it.

There are tons of people that use it with the C100/C300 because is convenient but just don't expect magic out of it. On a 80D is even less wide.

Canon glass holds in price pretty amazingly. I don't see that lens being worth less than 350, even after years of use. So yeah, it pays for itself in one shoot. 

IS is huge. It goes from needing a monopod/tripod to being able to shoot handheld. Yes, if you're shooting on a slider, ronin, or locked off, it's not the right lens. A great DOC run and gun lens though. 

On October 18, 2016 at 4:44 AM, kidzrevil said:

C-LOG is absolutely amazing. The absolute zero sharpening of the picture profile really brought out the look of the type of diffusion I was using. Very smooth, very filmic look with that deep depth of field of super 16mm and Canon color I love it. Im still getting used to the camera but so far so good. 

Any chance you could host some of that C-LOG footage? I have been using the c300ii at work and it has a magical color quality. It kinda looks like the XC10 is similar in that regard.

I love how everyone hated on the c100ii and is now moving to it. The camera really is so nice, I guess the price drop really sealed the deal. 

The 24-105 is amazing. That would probably be the first lens I would buy for that camera. I would sell the GH4 and buy the 80d or maybe the 5dmkiii. The Canon color/stills is much much better than the GH4. The next lens I would buy would probably the be the 30mm F2 IS or the Sigma 18-35 1.8. If you need something longer, maybe go for the 70-200 somewhere down the line.

On October 10, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Justin Bacle said:

Editing FullHD 1080p H264 AVCHD with a Color Correction LUT and a Grading LUT (on premiere CC) on my i7 4790k with 16Gigs of ram is not pleasant.
So I'm pretty sure it'll lag quite a bit more if you don't transcode it :s

You editing with a spinning drive? I have a 2012 matte screen. I can cut 4k Pro Res/With Looks at 1/4 or 1/2 quality no problem. 1080 is nothing...

2 hours ago, mercer said:

Yeah that looks brilliant. I am sometimes half tempted to sell every camera and lens I own, except my Canon 35mm f2, and buy one. 

The way the sensor picks up color is unreal. Obviously that's optimal lighting, but it does great in mixed lights, interviews of course. A c100ii and a pocket camera seems like a cool combo. 

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

An FS5 will get him work too, as B cam to FS7/F5/F55 jobs, and A cam for lots of similar jobs you'd do with C100. 
Plus the FS5 has a level of diverse versatility that the C100 can not come close to matching with 4K option, raw recording, and slow motion.
He has only a very small selection of lenses, thus luckily he has no (or only very low) lock in to the Canon ecosystem, and he can keep using them with an FS5.
As for color, just apply LC709a. Easy, now you're sorted for low budget / quick turn around jobs. For higher end coloring you can go with raw. While the C100 can't even do 10bit!

You could mention that the FS5 can't touch the C100 on ergonomics, auto focus, or baked in color. They both have strengths and weaknesses.  Someone who is used to the 60d wants a better camera will probably do very well with the C100ii. 

15 minutes ago, mercer said:

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree with you more here. Chances are Omar was doing very little color work with his Canons and since he uses them and his lenses for paid gigs, why would he want to switch to a whole new camera system, at FS5 money? The C100ii is a good upgrade that will get him work and get him to the next level of color and equipment. 

Seriously, the C100ii is such a beautiful image. A friend of mine just bought one. The colors are just so dialed. A tiny bit of noise doesn't even bug me when the color looks this good. Also light weight and a ton of fun to shoot with.

https://vimeo.com/178928164

10 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

But as Ben said, put some weight on a camera & you can get lovely steady shots, not jitter madness - you don't have to have a big rig or anything, maybe a heavy lens. When I shoot with the BMPCC, it's normally without a Speedbooster (I do own a cheap clone & use it for really wide shots) & just some really heavy lenses on it (which can weigh between 1-2kg + whatever else I need like lens support etc...). Yes, it does move about a bit, but not the micro jitters you'll get with a really simple light camera setup, & you have to practice a lot to get used to moving with your subject, as this hides a huge amount of handheld shake & minimises that seasick feeling you can get.

I shot with the pocket for a while. I always thought I was steady but would need to warp stuff if shot handheld. Such a great camera though. 

If you ever get a chance, try the Sony F3. The size is huge compared to the pocket but the image is very similar oddly enough. The added weight, xlr, and nd does come in handy.

46 minutes ago, Ivanhurba said:

I sometimes think if it's not us being anals about RS. I imagine myself with wide arms open screaming "didn't you see that???! It's UGLYYYYY" and being ignored like one of those the-end-is-coming guys.

Nah, you subconsciously notice it. The difference in motion is huge, but hard for someone to pick out in reasons why it looks better. I shoot a of skateboarding, the 16mm stuff on any level has always looked and felt a lot better than any digital stuff. 

3 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

Started watching the new season of Narcos the other day. I started noticing how quite a few shots had some shakiness to 'em. There's no smooth hovering with a locked feeling. It moves. It adds something raw. It's organic. It's real. That's the thing if you don't take care of overdoing it... everything is just articially floating, like a virtual camera through 3D space. Now that has its use, surely, but like everything, it's a tool. You shoot stable footage when a situation is under control... when a character's thoughts are running around or there's an intense dialog, you shake things up a bit. Like just about everything in life... enjoy in moderation. Put it to good use, but don't overdo it. To have the possibility and choice though, I think is great!

The problem with the smaller cameras is they need a lot of weight added to them. The handheld look on a shoulder mounted 16mm camera just looks amazing compared to any smaller digital camera.

The Ronin look is cool but definitely played. It changes how everything looks. A rig can look just as good if not better a lot of the time, especially for doc work.

11 hours ago, Axel said:

I see what you mean. It's the famous Canon color palette. Obvious virtue. I know I repeat myself, but I recommend to be suspicious with unique features and obvious virtues. What contributes to these skintones are good profiles and the right (Canon) glass. Let me cite Andrew Reid from his article Summoning the Devil:

.. and he refers to the Sony A7rii of course of which you write:

Believe me, I hate them psychotically. Fortunately, by best friend loves Sony and Canon and has some kind of color blindness, because he can't see what distinguishes them colorwise. I am getting a lot of A7rii & FS7 footage to edit and grade from him, and I occasionally borrow the A7rii. Though I admit that nobody can link to a Sony clip in which the skin is as good as in your Netflix example, I know you can get very close. So close, indeed, that even for the ugly hater, me, the difference ceases to be relevant. Take this clip:

It's shot with not very good settings (you wouldn't dial up saturation and sharpness). But yet, with just the tiniest bit of secondary CC (I saved it as a one-click-filter actually) you could make this skin look very healthy and alive. To a degree, I promise, where original Canon footage looks as if it needed some work when cut side by side. Would have been impossible with Sony lenses in this case!

The same principle can be applied to all advantages and disadvantages of the cameras you compare. Perhaps you should make a table including your accustomed GH4. Think hard about the weaknesses and how you can compensate them. The best camera is not the camera with the best specs but the one you know by heart and whose flaws you successfully overcame.

The footage looks good, but still has this kind of sickly look to the whole piece, especially in the greens. When you add the right contrast, the skin tones get bad, that's why the only shots with heavy contrast don't have people in them. The whole piece is not only flat but really unsaturated. 

I REALLY want to love the A7Sii, it checks a lot of boxes, but the colors are tough. I bought the Sony F3 a few months ago and I have been super happy. We use the C300ii at my work, which has probably one of the nicest looking and easiest to grade images ever. 

There's a lot of options. If you're going to buy two cameras, you could go for the 5D4 and a C100mki. I think that would be under 6k. Having a nice solid camera with audio is huge. 

5 hours ago, mercer said:

Yup, I'd go in debt for that camera. They won't do it though. I mean, I have to assume that we aren't the first people to think about this, someone at Canon must've mentioned it... Hell... Renaissance mentioned something similar right when the XC10 was released. I would think a quarter of micro budget/indie filmmakers would own this combo. 

7 hours ago, Thpriest said:

This is where Canon could find a real winner. A simple but ergonomic form factor like the XC10 but with interchangeable lenses, built in NDs, IBIS and the Canon look and ease of use.

Hah, that's a C100mkii... 

On September 13, 2016 at 8:10 AM, ivanku said:

Gordon posted samples of 4K as well, and compared to the 5d mk iv sample 1080p, this looks really great

Kinda looks like a cellphone with nice colors...

22 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But even after the big price drop, you're looking at paying thousands of dollars more for a Canon C300 mk2 than for a FS7 (and C300 mk2 has less features than a FS7).

So many people say this. All depends if you need the features. The Sony FS7 also has less features than the C300ii in many respects. Auto Focus is HUGE on that camera, so is the color and the native EF lens mount. You can throw on another 600 for the metabones adapter to the FS7 price. 

Curious, what does the F5 offer that the FS7 does not, and vise versa. I know there's the PL mount option for better glass, and color space will be better on the F5, (although Sony owners will say color is fixable in the grade.  Is there anything additional?

8 hours ago, tweak said:

We all laugh but it still arguably shoots a better movie than consumer dslrs...

Anything that can run 16mm or larger stock can shoot a better looking film than a consumer DSLR. 

I assumed this was 4K/422/10 Bit, but is this only 1080p/422/10bit? 

15 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Holy crap that F5 did indeed sell for very little! Damn. Wish I could have got that.

Anyway, for the OP.... get an FS7, is a widely recognized and demanded camera which will get you work,

I just checked FS7 prices. Were they always 8500? Seems pretty close to C300ii, a F5 used is cheaper...

19 minutes ago, Kino said:

Of course, it's great to hear about your problem-free experience with the Odyssey. With the RAW upgrade package, it is a $2700 recorder so it better work without a hitch!

Exactly. Convergent Design is actually really really good about updating the firmware. The monitor is incredibly intuitive and has every feature you would want/need out of a pro monitor. 

That setup seems like a steal to me. 

8 hours ago, ncam said:

If it makes sense, go for it, you can always resell if you're not 100% happy. 

Agree with this. The 7Q with the Sony Raw feature is under 1800, the FS700R is under 3 grand. I've seen really nice stuff done with this setup, but the color can definitely be frustrating. I'm currently using the F3, have access to the fs700/recorder. I think the F3 image looks much nicer, but at the same time, doesn't have those crazy resolutions or frame rates. 4/120fps for that price is no joke. I would most likely buy a Ursa Mini if it had internal ND filters. I find messing with internal filters to be just as bad as the size as the fs700/7q.

If you want, I an host some S-Log 2 raw files for you. 

12 hours ago, Kino said:

I would also stay away from the C500 + RAW recorder option unless you have used this exact combination before and know all the quirks involved. There are simply too many things that can go wrong here. In addition, adding the recorder means that you lose the hand-held advantages of the Canon bodies, so it really defeats their purpose for me.

I've seen you mention this a lot. I've used the FS700/7Q quite a bit with no problems. I've used the 7Q on the F3 as well. Always been 100 percent reliable. 

I always go straight to Pro Res. The workflow is incredibly smooth. Yes, the setup is big, but a monitor like that is so handy. If you shoot a lot of interviews, this would probably be a great choice. Obviously if you need a smaller kit/run and gun, the FS7 or C300ii is probably a better choice.

2 hours ago, K Jonathan Park said:

I've read all the comments and learned a lot. I am still torn away between FS7 and C500+Atomos Inferno since they are relatively the same price. My budget is under $10k for a camera and another $10k for the lens. I mainly do TV and documentary but would like to do more short films and commercials in near future. Most of my clients ask for HD for now. Some DPs suggested me to buy a RED scarlet-w and rent the lens until I save another 10k for lens and others told me to keep my a7rii and rent the big boys. But I found myself very uncomfortable when I am on set with new gears.

So what should I buy?

It sounds like the Sony FS7 gets asked for a lot and has industry recognition. Personally, I think the C500 producer much nicer images, the C300ii as well.

Crazy clean images.

4 hours ago, Kino said:

I think we should also mention that, in the hands of a real pro like Canon's own Brent Ramsey, the C300 II is capable of stunning internal 4K:

It's amazing to think that this was shot in the camera's internal XF-AVC 10 bit 4:2:2 (YCC).

I don't think anyone is surprised. Anyone, whether pro or beginner, will produce better looking color with the Canon.

Here's a couple stills from a recent project. Not exactly beauty lighting like above, but the first interview I lit with 1x1 panel through a 5/1 and a handheld battery LED for backlight. The second is natural light. Super quick setup, works for doc work. I would imagine ARRIs through some diffusion in a studio setting will produce skin like the ones above.

I'm actually editing some F5 footage right now. The C300 looks better in worse lighting. You have to try harder to get a better image with the sony cameras, whether that be in lighting/color correct etc. The canon nails it. 

17 minutes ago, Marco Tecno said:

I don't see anything, in those video, to write home about. Nothing that NX1 or GH4 could not already do (possibly better).

The baked in color is just amazing though, GH4 can't touch that.

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

If you at all cared about audio in your videos you would eventually discover that wireless audio is not uncommon at all. Google "lav mics". 

 

Haha. Wow.