Jump to content

C100 MkII vs Ursa Mini 4K


Lintelfilm
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I'm planning to upgrade my BMPCC and GH4 to a more pro-friendly set-up later this year. I'm trying to decide between the C100 MkII and Ursa Mini 4K. I shoot short docs and promo videos, mostly for online distribution. Mainly I want a hassle-free setup and a more reliable image (I regard both of these cameras as providing that, with the caveat of the Ursas low-light ability and lack of ND's)

I'd be grateful for your thoughts on real world advantages/disadvantages between the two. Obviously they're very different cameras.

I'll list the main things I like/dislike about each below:

Ursa Mini 4K:

- Sensor produces my favourite digital image in the sub-$10,000 bracket: clean and modern, with gorgeous bold, nuanced colours - but with a filmic feel (largely down to global shutter, codec and decent highlight rolloff I think).

- Pro setup (for confidence and easy "out of the box" shooting): XLR, nice monitor, no cage/speedbooster/etc add-ons needed.

- ProRes codec (in reality I'd rarely shoot RAW).

Negatives: Low light, no ND's, large file sizes, cost goes up as you add CFast cards, EVF, shoulder thingy. 12 Stops DR I can live with and is same as C100 anyway.

C100 Mark II:

- Despite Canon's extreme conservatism I still believe it's the best all-rounder available. Everything about it is designed to give you confidence when shooting and make life easy: image is fault-free, small file size, ND's, XLR's, DAF, EF native, etc, etc.

- Image: It's the only 8-bit 4:2:0 image that I genuinely really, really like. I love the colours. It can often look a bit plasticy and commercial, but it doesn't have to. I'd add a Video Assist or Ninja Star to get 4:2:2 Prores files when I want them (this is my major bugbear with the C100 MkII - I don't care about 4K but it annoys me that they didn't do 10-bit out. If the GH4 can do it - and the Blackmagic Pocket can do it in-camera! - why not the C100? My externally recorded ProRes files will be unnecessarily large for 8bit really. It just seems a waste.

- Form factor. Although I like the shoulder-mounted camera movement aesthetic, for my approach I much prefer the Cinema EOS ergonomics. It's a great mid-point between fully featured pro camera, pro-looking for when you want to impress a client or subject, but small, discreet and unintimidating too when you need it.

Negatives: Codec - I love grading (I'm not particularly great at it but I still really enjoy it), so after the BMPCC I worry I'll be underwhelmed by both the Canon's internal codec and external 8bit 422. It's also expensive for what it is "on paper" and I doubt it'll hold much value due to inevitable march of 4K.

A note on lenses:

As much as I'd love to shoot on lovely primes all the time, the reality is that image stabilised zooms make life more simple and I've grown to love them. I use all Nikon mount glass atm, so this plan will probably mean an overhaul of my lens kit too. I imagine building toward something like: Tokina 11-16 2.8, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, Tamron or Canon 70-200 IS ... and eventually Sigma 18-35mm and 50mm, and an 85mm prime of some sort.

If I go down the Ursa route I'll probably prioritise nice manual primes a bit more (though I know the EF mount isn't that versatile there are still lots of nice options out there, and though I love lens character I tend to prefer it when it leans toward a clean, modern look (e.g. Ziess ZE and Sigma Art series). With the C100 I'll want to make use of the DAF and more use of image stabilisation, so will stick more to electronic lenses.

So you see my conflict - it feels like I'm not just considering two different cameras but two different approaches to filmmaking. One is more run and gun documentary, appealing to my practical side, and one is all about the image. But neither are massively deficient (low-light on the Ursa scares me a little though - I can't always carry and set-up lights).

 

Huge thanks for any input ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Hi, I'm in a similar position in that I'm looking to change my setup to allow for a more practical workflow but would like to have a camera I could use for more creative projects. Have you considered waiting to see if the Ursa mini 4.6k offers better low light with the new sensor? Or an Fs7?

I'm not a big fan of the images I'm seeing from the Ursa 4.6K. I'm sure it will have superior low light (being global/rolling shutter switchable & with high dynamic range) but I'm just not feeling it. I just love the images from the 4K, even though on paper it's the "worse" camera. 

Same with the FS7. It's for sure the compromise camera between the Ursa and C100, but it just doesn't excite me. Sony cameras never do TBH - I'm very focused on colour and Sony colours always look like an afterthought to me. The FS7 is a great pro camera, but I don't think I'd ever love it.

It's C100II or UrsaM4K for me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For docs and promos I'd suggest C100ii. It is the perfect camera in that price bracket. I think you'd get a more cinematic/rich image from the URSA but you'll also deal with bigger files.

Thanks Aaron. You have a C100 I think? Is it the MKII? Can I ask which lenses you use and how you find the DAF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Aaron. You have a C100 I think? Is it the MKII? Can I ask which lenses you use and how you find the DAF?

Yes I do have the MKII. The DPAF is amazing. If I'm using it handheld I'll use the Canon 17-55, or 24-105. It's very liberating to use this camera b/c the native battery will run for hours, the SD cards will run for hours, it's rock solid but lightweight, the ISO range is super wide. It really does just get out of the way and let you shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do have the MKII. The DPAF is amazing. If I'm using it handheld I'll use the Canon 17-55, or 24-105. It's very liberating to use this camera b/c the native battery will run for hours, the SD cards will run for hours, it's rock solid but lightweight, the ISO range is super wide. It really does just get out of the way and let you shoot.

And the image is really nice. How do you like it compared to the GH4 image? Low light is obviously worse on the GH4, but dynamic range, colour, codec, resolution (I downsample 4K in post on the GH4, which I'd guess is very similar to what the C100 does in camera)? Thanks again Aaron. I've liked your GH4 stuff - it's good to hear your thoughts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the image is really nice. How do you like it compared to the GH4 image? Low light is obviously worse on the GH4, but dynamic range, colour, codec, resolution (I downsample 4K in post on the GH4, which I'd guess is very similar to what the C100 does in camera)? Thanks again Aaron. I've liked your GH4 stuff - it's good to hear your thoughts. 

I'd say the DR is the same as GH4. Color is better on C100. Codec and resolution are lower quality. I love using V Log 10 bit but there's something about just good ole 1080 Super 35mm that gives a nice unique look compared to GH4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to comment on the C100 mkii, I hear from colleagues who own them that the image falls apart early on in the grade, which I suspect you may be aware of.  

But if you're able to keep the BMPCC for projects which require a distinct look, and use the C100 for the projects where you want a look pretty much out of the camera then you've got a good combination. Horses for courses....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to comment on the C100 mkii, I hear from colleagues who own them that the image falls apart early on in the grade, which I suspect you may be aware of.  

But if you're able to keep the BMPCC for projects which require a distinct look, and use the C100 for the projects where you want a look pretty much out of the camera then you've got a good combination. Horses for courses....

Thanks. I suspected this - though I'm not sure what it's like recorded to a Ninja etc. I use my GH4 & BMPCC much as you suggest - the problem being that the GH4 is poor in low light, doesn't have ND's and is restricted to slow MFT glass for IS. Not deal breakers, but I long for something that I can rely on to perform in all situations. It's a shame Canon charge a premium for it. Perhaps I'll just add a used C100 Mark One to my kit and see how I like it.

I think Aaron's right that I can't really justify the Ursa 4K for the work I do. Maybe I'll pick up a BMPC4K (same sensor) when they drop in price just to play with myself...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do go for the second hand Mk1 you'll miss out on the improved viewfinder, cleaner ISOs, 50/60fps on the mk2...sounds like you've made your mind up so you've just gotta bite the bullet on this one ;)

Yeah I think you're right I'd probably made my mind up before I even posted this thread! I just don't know if it's worth shelling out all that dough for a slightly easier life.

Plus they just dropped the price from $5500 to $4500.

Yeah that's what got me interested I think. Unfortunately it's not such a big saving here in the UK because of tax.

What do you think Aaron? Is it worth the upgrade from the GH4? I have a Speed Booster and fast glass so sensor size isn't a huge issue for me. The GH4's a good camera. There are just times on jobs when I feel I should be focusing on other things and not worrying about the camera ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I think you're right I'd probably made my mind up before I even posted this thread! I just don't know if it's worth shelling out all that dough for a slightly easier life.

Yeah that's what got me interested I think. Unfortunately it's not such a big saving here in the UK because of tax.

What do you think Aaron? Is it worth the upgrade from the GH4? I have a Speed Booster and fast glass so sensor size isn't a huge issue for me. The GH4's a good camera. There are just times on jobs when I feel I should be focusing on other things and not worrying about the camera ...

Maybe rent one first and try it out. Do you have a place that carries them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a GH4 and C300 II- the C300 II color, especially skintones is excellent (I did tweak it- not using the out-of-the-box settings). The AF is very, very useful (including assisted MF). The C100 II is a major upgrade from the GH4 in terms of color, AF, low light performance, and pro audio (XLR). A useful test is to show talent/clients multiple cameras and not tell them which is which. Canon cameras are chosen more often than not (if we had an ARRI camera, would be interesting to see how it does against Canon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not anywhere nearby. There's a place that has a C300 so I could try that I guess. Did you buy your C100 after your GH4? Do you think it's worth the price difference?

I did. I bought it for jobs where I could do all of the shooting myself and not have to hire an extra hand. It saves alot of time. In that sense it is worth it. If I were going off of image only then I'd say no it's not worth it, although Canon colors are really nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not used any black magic cameras but I absolutely love our C100 Mark II. I owned the Mark I which I wasn't crazy about, but the mark II solves all of the problems I had with it. 

I can't overstate how much I love the AF. More often than not when I want to grab focus on a static shot now, I just enable AF for a moment and let the camera grab it. Much faster than me punching in.

The image is my favorite of any cameras i've used, and while it might not be the most gradeable footage out there, its certainly better than the Canon DSLR's I've used. I much prefer working with the image in post to the A7s and a7rii. I've seen some people get great color from those cameras, I just couldn't do it. At least not consistently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a GH4 and C300 II- the C300 II color, especially skintones is excellent (I did tweak it- not using the out-of-the-box settings). The AF is very, very useful (including assisted MF). The C100 II is a major upgrade from the GH4 in terms of color, AF, low light performance, and pro audio (XLR). A useful test is to show talent/clients multiple cameras and not tell them which is which. Canon cameras are chosen more often than not (if we had an ARRI camera, would be interesting to see how it does against Canon).

This is a good point too. When you're shooting clients who want a smooth realistic looking picture, they'll appreciate the C100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about to wait for GH5? I hope that there will be some more info about it soon. I also plan to buy a new cam this year and I can not wait if some news leaks :-) . I think that Panasonic is aware the bad low light capabilitiy and GH5 is going to be improved as they are facing Sony A7...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • EOSHD Pro Color 5 for All Sony cameras
    EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
    EOSHD Dynamic Range Enhancer for H.264/H.265
×
×
  • Create New...