BenEricson

I’ve used both the Fs700 and the F3 quite a bit. The F3 is in a different class with color and skin tone. The image itself is also quite a bit cleaner. I remember having to over expose by two stops constantly with the FS700.

The high frame rate features on the FS700 are amazing, but if you’re shooting primarily 24 and 60p, the F3 is great.

Keep in the mind, the F3 uses a different mount. They do make an adapter for EF, which can be found for a reasonable price on eBay. Also, to get the most out of it, you’ll want an external recorder. The black magic video assist is cheap and works well.

I do agree, a smaller DSLR is so nice to have for a gimbal, plus the lowlight from an A7S would likely come in handy.

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

It's killed the C70, only reasons to get a C70 now are:
1) autofocus
2) desire for a shall mirrorless mount (damn you BMD, give us a MFT Mount! Or even E Mount)
3) belief in the magical "Canon color science"
4) irrational hatred of BMD (we know many of those people exist!)

I’ll add to this. I own the C70. It’s a great little camera. Really fun to use. The BMD color looks great but I think the Canon gets you there a bit quicker and easier. The Canon seems to do better in mixed / poor lighting conditions.

Battery Life (7 hours with the a60)

Dual Slot record. Dual slot to proxy or duplicate backup.

Full frame FF with adapter

RF to PL lens options

Reliability. (Some trust BMD 100 percent. We know many of those people exist.)

Matching to other Canon Cinema Cameras.

Netflix Approved (whatever.)

Noise. The C70 is REAL clean in the shadows.

Extended ND to 10 stops? I couldn’t find documentation but it looked like the pocket only goes to 6.

The attachable EVF is genius and Canon is absolutely blowing it by not including that on the C70.

Black Magic is killing it, but the workhorse cameras have their place for reliability. I’ve shot with the C300ii all over the world, in pretty much every condition and it’s never skipped a beat. Never lost a frame. Black Magic... any owner who is honest will have a long list of quirks.

4 hours ago, kye said:

 

Are there desirable attributes that film has, yes absolutely, but many aspects of film are only desirable because of association and nostalgia. 

I wasn’t kidding before, you really need to go shoot a roll of 35mm stills! Reading about the stuff will only go so far! It is clearly incredibly difficult to explain why film is good, especially when it needs to be explained in a very analytical way.

Deakins just uses the regular Arri LUT that Yedlin seems to hate and it looks amazing. Sicario looks better than knives out, no? They both look “filmlike.”

16 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

And so with the prevalence of gaming (higher frame rates), and tiktok (shot on phones), I just don't know how much longer the film aesthetic is going to matter to tomorrow's consumers of the world. My fifteen-year-old son is in to video (and photography) and he couldn't care about film-like sensor response.

You could easily say the same about VHS or Hi8 in the 90s and early 2000s...

2 hours ago, kye said:

We can say "filmic" but in reality the film look consists of a whole bunch of things that mostly people aren't interested in.

You should try shooting a roll of 35mm still. The skin tone, color, and look are you get from film are absolutely amazing. It just looks right.

I would imagine the guys on that colorist forum are likely a lot of veteran colorists that most likely value work flow over everything. 

I know this dude grades a ton of stuff shot on 35mm. Beautiful work. 

https://www.company3.com/artists/stefan-sonnenfeld/

1 hour ago, amsh89es335 said:

I wonder what the used market is looking like. Because someone who was a new photo enthusiast and did little research can get a used DSLR and lenses for fraction of the cost on a camera 5-8 years old and the images really hold up. Not mention people selling off gear they don't use to pay their bills while unemployed. 

Right. I would also wonder if everyone's financial situation / the lack of traveling might explain an even further drop. 

Any used 35mm or Medium Format gear right now is $$$.

On 1/30/2021 at 5:29 AM, ENDEARLY said:

Hello - 

I'm new to the cinema line of cameras. I have a EOS R and 1DX Mii. 

The colors are very flat for me and I'm sure it's something that I am doing wrong. I have tried the REC709 straight out of camera as well as CLOG2 and then importing into Final Cut Pro X and applying the built in CLOG2 LUT. I downloaded the OWL C70 color profile to see if that would help and same result. 

I'm not very good at color correction but I tried to push up the saturation and just not getting the desired results.

Additionally, I'm getting more noise at 800 ISO than my 1DX Mii. 

I'm using a 24-105 RF L lens. 

Any pointers? Thanks in advance! 

I’ve kind of noticed the same. The Canon provided LUTs still need a little additional work to get the image to a nice place. 

Where are you getting noise? From my tests, I wouldn’t consider it to be an offensive amount of noise, but I am also not seeing a huge improvement with the DGO sensor, when compared to the C300 Mkii. 

I felt the Rec.709 straight out of camera looked really really bad on skin.

Can you post some samples?

11 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

There has been very little on it so far. I wonder if it is a availability problem or lack of interest.

Availability. They’re really hard to get ahold of. I just got one of a few from a local shop here in Seattle.

Seems very good so far. My vintage Olympus and Nikon glass with adapters also hit infinity perfect, meaning the flange distance is properly calibrated (this was an issue with the metabones right out of the box.)

my 35mm F2 IS works great with the speed booster and AF. I don’t really have much to say besides the adapter works as it should. 

On 12/29/2020 at 11:09 AM, josdr said:

The RF lenses have been designed very video centric, I think you will get great AF one you use them. thanks for the heads up!

Interesting that you say that. I own the 24-105 RF and I can tell you that the EF version has a stabilizer that is smoother for video work. The EF version has more of a pleasing sway, while the RF version can feel jumpy. I will be selling and purchasing the EF version that is better for video and half the price!

I also find the third "control ring" to be incredibly annoying. This wouldn't be as much of an issue with a prime lens, but when there's 3 gears on a lens, it becomes really difficult to operate on the fly.

6 hours ago, kye said:

Every camera has great rolloff if the DR is there, just apply a curve.  If I can get a compliment on the highlight rolloff from a budget P&S camera from 2009 then there are no excuses!

It's also possible to get a nice rolloff on areas that are clipped, although you don't get any detail back from them obviously.  

The more I learn about colour grading, the more that I realise that grading is in the same category as production design or lighting, you can't expect your footage to look great if you don't do any set dressing, hair or makeup, or just shoot with whatever light happens to be there when you happen to show up, so why would it look great if you didn't do any colour grading either?

You are correct in your research.

Let me rephrase what I said. I believe that if you're after that overall softer / filmic look, the bmpcc will get you there easier and quicker. There's no sense shooting with a GH5 if you can get that look with less work. A colorist friend of mine often says, "the least amount of moves wins.

5 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

The 12 bit RAW makes a difference. Color holds up better. Now 12 bit Prores raw from the S1 should be just as organic looking tho.

I have to disagree. In my experience, even the ProRes HQ offers a very unique and pleasing unprocessed feeling image. IMO a lot of the magic is in the highlights.

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Take the size of the film camera market today

That will be size of digital camera market in 10 years 🙂

I wonder if lack of a need for upgrade is a factor. A 5D Mkiii from 8 years ago is obviously much better than any cell phone, but also pretty comparable to a DSLR bought yesterday. I think cameras have been good enough for a while. This is obviously the case for video cameras...

My partner takes photos for her business with a Canon 60d and an iPad. That camera is 10 years old and still more than enough for most quick product photography shots for the web... Why would she upgrade?

The film market is pretty decent right now. Tons of people shoot film, but all of those cameras already exist. There are more than enough to supply to demand, unless you want a particular point and shoot, Leica, certain medium format cameras etc.

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Shot a few times with it handheld, and yikes, the tension it puts on your right wrist as it tries to twist it around is immense. Not really a super comfortable camera to shoot with like that. Too tall!

I personally love the camera and I find the weight and form factor to be great for shooting from the hip. You need to have your left hand supporting some weight on the lens, with your other hand in the grip. Shooting eye level handheld is another story, not realistic unless you strip down the top handle and monitor.

10 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:

I thought I was quite okay with C300iii RAW, but now I can't seem to find any really nice examples of it.  Seems C200 and C300ii RAW is much nicer (creamy, organic, whatever).

Are there any examples of C300iii RAW films that anybody particularly likes?  Thinking in reference to a possible C200ii mainly.

No, I can’t find any either. From what I have seen, the DGO sensor is worse than the sensor on the C300 Mkii or the C200. You don’t even need to shoot raw to that look on the C300 mkii - 12 bit 1080p or 4K 10 bit both look excellent.

This is coming from someone who just bought the C70 but has used the C300 mkii on hundreds of shoots. To top it off, my initial tests don’t show the sensor to be any cleaner than the older ones. Kind of a disappointment...

Picked up my C70, Canon 24-105 F4 RF, and EF adapter. Did some quick tests with a 35mm F2 IS and one practical lamp in the living room. Color looks like normal Canon color to me. I'll hopefully have time to shoot more stuff tomorrow afternoon.

Initial thoughts... Camera feels pretty nice in the hands. The custom presets are really crippled. They took away BT.709 / C-LOG 2. Also, for some reason clog 2 clips at 85 IRE. 

There are a ton of options for removing all of the noise reduction and you can go all the way to -10 sharpening. I think lowering the in camera sharpness and pairing the camera with older lenses will help to get away from that plastic skin look.

5 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

CR3 rumors are normally spot on so it seems same as c300 iii  dlo, 4k raw and 4k 10bit but no 4k 120....

question is RF or EF?

What about an RF full frame camera?

37 minutes ago, Mmmbeats said:

Firm rumour now of a C200 mkii incoming! 😲  This line-up is getting extremely hot.

I'm just wondering (if true) how are they going to differentiate the C300iii?  Presumably the C70 will be cheaper.  C200 (mk i) might become a steal soon (both new and used).

https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-cinema-eos-c200-mark-ii-will-arrive-in-april-cr3/

Wow. Too many cameras. I wonder if it'll be RF mount.

5 hours ago, guillaume juin said:

well... why cannot you do that with the FX6? Because you prefer two points of contact instead of three? Three points of contact is not possible with the X70, wheareas it is with the FX6.

With a loupe it is possible. It basically performs how any DSLR has for the last 10 years.

The FX6 has no point of contact on the rear of the camera. IMO the FS5 or C300 is a better design than either one of them. 

I think Sony and Canon have realized they can save the money by not putting in a EVF and still sell just as many units. 

18 minutes ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

I'd add better battery life for the C70 if you consider that as part of form factor

I heard something like 7 hours off a BP-60? Insane.

29 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

On my ProGrades, you can shoot 4k 120, BUT, the camera will tell you it can’t. It works. BUT, sometimes the card will stop a few secs after recording and day the buffer is full. Not much though. 

I would just go V90 using Prograde. Best SE cards I’ve ever used. 3 out of my 4 Angelbird cards are faulty. 

Sale on BH right now. 187 a piece.

34 minutes ago, currensheldon said:

The only place it does make sense is using the speedbooster. Pretty amazing you can spend around $700-$800, get the EF 24-70mm f4 IS and get stabilization, a true 24-70mm field of view, and a f2.8 aperture. Whereas the RF version will cost you $2300 and give you a 36-105mm (or so). Much prefer thee FoV of a true 24-70mm.

OR get the Sigma EF 24-70mm f2.8 for $1100 and get a 24-70mm f2.0 with stabilization. Love the C70 and excited for it, but I'll probably wait for a full-frame C90 before transferring all my EF glass to RF glass (which I am excited to do...)

It's all a trade off. It is likely there will be some chromatic aberration wide open. (The case on the FS7 / Metabones.) The lenses are also quite a bit larger. Look above at how ridiculous the 18-35 looks mounted so far out on such a small body. The focus ring looks uncomfortable to operate. It almost looks like it needs a rail system, certainly would for a 70-200.

I do understand it is much more practical to have the 24-105 in EF and be able to choose between S35 and FF with a quick adapter swap, BUT the 24-105 in RF for example, has been reviewed as a much sharper lens compared to the older EF version. Exciting times to have these options and be able to argue over the many looks we can achieve!

I will be buying the speed booster, but I am also excited about the quicker AF and smaller size of the available RF mount lenses. 

3 hours ago, Kisaha said:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433714-REG/canon_rf_35mm_f_1_8_is.html

What about this one? Small, light, I.S, macro and 1.8f.

That would be the one I would get, everything else in EF.

I have a C70, the speed booster, and this lens on pre-order. I might pick up the 85mm F2 IS as well. 

The new 24-105 F4 IS looks interesting, as does the 24-70 2.8 IS.

The RF mount features better AF, smaller sizes, and faster more light sensitive lenses. IMO buying this camera and not embracing the new lens options doesn't make much sense.

3 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

ProGrade V90 and V60. 

Cool. Thanks. What frame rates work with the V60? 4K/24/10bit?

On 11/18/2020 at 3:58 PM, Oliver Daniel said:

10. You can use a V60 in 4k100fps but comes up with a warning  that it won’t work. It does, but sometimes cuts off due to a full buffer. Not often though. I’d still get a V90. 

Which cards are you using? I notice Sandisk only makes cards up to 128gb in V90. The V60 come in 256gb... Did the V60 seem to perform perfectly for 4k/24p/XFAVC?

To be honest, I am a little bummed they went with SD. I would prefer c-fast or some sort of card that feels a bit more durable.

3 hours ago, D4cl00 said:

To me these cameras look exactly the same as in the 1990s, except the recording media has shrunk.

They're worse... Every camera in the 90s and early 2000s at least had a viewfinder and was usable for extremely long periods of time handheld. 

I think the C70 a better design than the FX6. At least you can throw a loupe on the back and have two points of contact.

4 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

Canon colour is one of those things that's said to be good so often, its accepted as fact...  even though those saying it are not really scrutinising the colour in the same indepth analysis as they would use,  say for example Sony colour.  

Maybe true, but the baked in Profiles on the Canon just look better out of the box. I believe that is fact. The skin shows less flaws and appears smoother. I agree, opinions on color grading log files creates a different argument all together. I am really wanting to see more standard Rec 709 examples. 

4 hours ago, scotchtape said:

The last few vids really don't look amazing, subjective I know, but the sailor one the grade made the guy look like a zombie.

So much for magic color science - the magic happens in post, or the unmagic.

Agreed. Personally, I think the subject looks better with a little more saturation in the skin and a bit more contrast.

I am more concerned with the texture. It is just looks so sharp to a fault. Again, there could be additional sharpening, processing, etc. Who knows. I would love to see camera with some vintage glass.