Jump to content
lafilm

Shane Hurlbut says "Canon C100 Mark II is a DSLR KILLA" !

Recommended Posts

4k the future? The viewing distance of a computer monitor is not much more than an arm's length. So sure 4k is noticeable. It's 9 feet in a living room. I leave the math up to you.

 

Not sure how much doc work you do or testing of variable ND's you've done but variable ND's have considerable issues in terms color cast, IR contamination, as well background flaring / contrast issues and then usability (have fun using it with a sun shade).  Compare the IQ of any variable to a straight ND. You'll see background contrast especially in the bokeh is muddier as well as color distortions. If continuity figures into your shooting, the latter can be a big problem. Even with Heliopans.

 

Regarding EF lenses on super 35mm as a waste, how can you justify that? Loads of shoots, professional and amateur alike use them to great effect. Virtually every paying doc  job uses a 70-200 at some point. In super 35 you get considerably less fall off towards the corners. 

 

Concerning the Fs7, I think it's a great concept on paper. Until I've used it or seen some good tests/footage from it, it's just specs. And if specs were everything, the Alexa would be a waste and the industry would be dominated by f5/55's. Have you had a chance to shoot / grade Fs7? Love to know what you think, flawed opinion or not.

 

Hurlbut's review of course is tainted by his biases like all of our opinions. For you, 4k seems to a be a priority. For many, like me, it's not. The consistency with Hurlbut that I share as well is that he leans towards cameras that produce rich but natural flesh tones and low noise. All of his tests use faces  and color charts (not trees, buildings, cars, bridges, etc). He's trying to discern the camera's accuracy and ability to re-produce that which he thinks is most important, flesh tone. Based on this, I thought the IQ overall from his C100 II tests looked outstanding (except bad clipping in one shot). Hopefully, he does a proper A/B with Fs7.

 

I think your response is based on the assumption that all we want is the highest resolution/sharpest image. There are plenty of other reasons why shooting in 4K is great, most of them for outputting in 1080p (cropping, reframing, stabilization and so on).

 

That said, I'm sure this is ergonomically great, and has a good setup for sound/nd filters built in etc, it just seems to be a camera Canon should have announced 4 years ago or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

The colours are nothing unique, you can get the same look on other cameras, in particular the NX1 in 4K is very Canon-like. The A7S just needs the right grading when it comes to S-LOG, as would the C100 in LOG, though clipping of bright blues can be an issue. The GH4 is giving us 10bit out of HDMI. Something to consider for VFX heavy shoots. The best colour of all though, comes not from the C100 II but from raw. Blackmagic, Digital Bolex, Magic Lantern and F5 / FS700 to Shogun.

 

Low light performance is eclipsed by the A7S.

 

Super 35mm - indeed, but no PL option on the C100 II so you are pretty much stuck with shooting through the centre of full frame lenses. EFS lenses are a bit crappy compared to PL cinema stuff aren't they!

 

The ergonomics are overrated. It is nice handheld with the articulated screen & IS on the lens. But then, so are other options.

 

It's a solid option. A work-a-day kinda tool. I dislike the lack of innovation really and there's nothing 'special' or unique about the image it produces. Trust me there isn't.

 

The problem with your comparison is that you are comparing the C100 against 4 other camera. Compared to all these cameras that have one or more down side the C100 mark 2 is good to very good in every domain. factor in that it has features like internal ND and MIC/xlr imput that would need addons like external sound recorders and ND screw on or Variable (less quality) or even matte box.

 

I am a Nikon shooter so I have no bias toward Canon cameras. But this is a solid product with the added 60p which was the main problem in the mark1. There are non in the cameras you listed that have as good Low light, resolution, DR, rolling shutter, colour science in one body. As for full frames lens being a waste on Apsc camera it is the exact contrary as it uses the center which is the best part of the lens.

 

This camera will be huge success and I am sure that it will be a mainstay for many years and will have a huge following in the used market. I can see it selling tons to people in the documentary, Tv, wedding, corporate market. As is already seen the C line has become one of the most used camera for the indie filmmakers in festivals and has been used in many awarded feature films.

 

As for the C7 I sincerely hope that Sony has made some progress into their colour science, because all spec in the world won't matter if skin tones look more like corps dead low CRI fluorescent colours (If I can describe it in words I see it used in horror movie). Working with Nikon, I just can't understand how a company like Sony cannot at least produce some good even if not great skin tone. I mean its a given for me, when I see all those threat where people discussing continually to get just decent result, I just can't understand. For me it is just saturation/contrast adjustment and voila great skin tone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to me the idea of reframing and punching the frame latter on post production completly defeats the purpose of normal shooting. in that idea let's shoot everything in 60 fps or more, always wide shots and let's decide later what to do. in a problematic shot i can understand that but nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell Fincher that. I'm guessing he is a tad more successful than any of us on this board ;)

 

 

 

If you are purists, you should also not want a camera with high DR as it would be a no no to adjust exposure in post. Heck, why shoot digital? Good photographers/videographers don't need to do anything in post except maybe the dark room. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now because fincher used that technique everybody should do it... they did that, explained by the editor, to stabilize the shots and the ocasional reframing. that doesn't mean that mosts shots didnt end with the initial framing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody is suggesting that all reframing should happen in post. The point is 4k has many qualities besides pure resolution, including (occasional) reframing. Therefore this camera also has a drawback (like all the other cameras mentioned have other ones).

 

If this camera had come out with 4k, at least through recorder, at that price point, it would have been fantastic. Now it is not THAT great of a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, while being able to crop if a shot is fucked this isn't something you should be relying on. Let's not "fix it in post" everything.

 

You don't get it. It's a second option, creatively. You can use it in really creative ways. Even if you're doing basic stuff like an interview, to break up a long boring clip of someone talking with a punched-in close up and a wide shot in post is super helpful, it means you can just let them talk and talk when you're shooting, no break in coverage whilst you reframe for the close-up. The timing of the reframing is in post as well, so makes planning the shoot a lot more straight forward. Don't knock it until you've tried it.

 

Also what I am about to post from the NX1 will blow the C100 Mark II away for image quality. You will see :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried it and I don't feel it should be done. A small adjustment or slight zoom is ok but punching in for a different focal length? No.

 

Oh, well, if YOU tried it!!! Obviously you are the arbiter of creativity, and all artists must run their techniques past you first! Tell me, I'm painting an oil for my sisters Christmas present, will you allow me to use the Bistre technique, or must I stick to Venetian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure, "creativity"

 

Ahh, here we have the perfect example of a "technician" who doesn't understand how fundamentally different a pan is to a "pan in post", doesn't understand how different they can be made to feel, doesn't comprehend the mechanics of the moves, how differently spaced objects move differently and is happy to throw sarcasm, degrading the work of someone whose work he is neither familiar with or knows who he is.

 

Please, tell me about how uncreative my work is, when you don't know what work I do nor where you have seen it before, and I'll tell you all about, in excruciating detail, why sometimes, I choose in preproduction a "pan in post" because a regular pan just doesn't match my vision. Then you can learn something new and apply that to your "by the numbers" music videos - see I can make a strawman too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

 

"...the work of someone whose work he is neither familiar with or knows who he is."

 

you did just that in the sentences before.

 

I never said i was better than you nor did I degrade your work (?!), I will admit my sarcasm and with my small experience, i sure as hell prefer to make the most as i can on the actual shooting than on my computer. that said, feel free to make your pans whatever as you please but don't bother me for making them traditionally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 but don't bother me for making them traditionally

 

Well, I wasn't bothering you for "making pans traditionally" (Whoosh) until you bothered me by insinuating that I was lying about using them creatively and was in fact covering up for a lack of skill.

 

And, by the way, shooting for a proper pan in post is really difficult, way more difficult than a "traditional pan" because you can't see what you are doing. In a really complicated move, the type where you maybe have to "traditionally pan", slide and especially crane your shot at the same time, keep appropriate focus, move lights and shims etc you may as well try to get the shot with a blindfold. It has to be planned so carefully and compared to a simple traditional pan is really difficult to nail, at least to any kind of quality, something you won't find out until after you've done a rough edit - which can take 15-20 minutes if you are fully hooked up on location, otherwise, you're coming back tomorrow to get it right!

 

But yeah, I won't bother you any more about it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

Can't we just all agree that each camera offers some advantages and disadvantages, and we chose based on how important they are for us?

Let's stop that nonsense and offer shooters that list of pros and cons so that they can make a proper decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

Let's do this properly for readers to benefit and keep our personal opinions aside, just facts on how the C100 mk II compares to the rest of the competetion.

Fs7 has the following advantage:

-Resolution, 4K vs 1080p
-Super slowmotion higher than 60p (though it bins pixels and introduced moire after 60p)
-10bit vs 8bit codec, should be better for grading
-Can take more lenses (especially when adapters/firmware will be optimized for it in the future)
-Outputs raw to Odyssy Q7 (with the 2K module)
-Shoulder mountable design
-SDI output

C100 has the following advantage

-Smaller size and lighter weight
-Dual Pixel AF
-Full compatability with EF lenses with IS, AF etc
-No firmware glitches. Fast and easy to use menus, buttons, all FS7 users are complaining from how unresponsive and sluggish it is, should be fixed with firmware
-If the C300 vs F5 is an indicator, c100 has better lowlight performance. It's supposed to be even better the C300 (tests confirm that)
-Has both a fully articulating screen and a tiltable EVF
-Cheaper media (SD vs XQD)
-3000$ cheaper price (and 5000$ if we account the raw ability)

Let's leave the overall image quality and colour evaluation out of this, it's subjective, yet important and might be a deal breaker in choosing between the two, so watch alot of footage and try to grade a few before buying.

GH4:

-Access to 4K resolution (for 4K output and reframing potential)
-Goes to 96p (though with Aliasing and loss in quality)
-outputs 10bit
-adapts to more lenses due to shorter flange distance
-Smaller size and weight.
-Weather sealed
-Takes stills
-3000$ cheaper
-With a unit it can have SDI output (it does require external power though)

C100:

-S35 sensor vs m43s
-Significantly better lowlight performance
-More Dynamic Range
-Less rolling shutter
-Internal 4K to HD scale can be an advantage for a small number of users who don't have the time for scaling in post.
-Internal NDs
-Internal XLRs and great audio, and external knobs and two good internal mics.
-Dual pixel AF
-Canon LOG profile (though V-log is rumored for the GH4)
-Bigger screen and tiltable bigger EVF
-Waveform Monitor
-More direct buttons (15 assignable buttons) on the body and access to settings
-Dual media
-Top handle and the removable bigger grip could be an advantage for some
-Native full compatability with EF/EF-S lenses with AF, iris, IS,

Some of us would Be willing to pay 5K more to get the stills function of the GH4 for example even if it was more expensive than the C100, and some of would be willing to pay 5K more to get the Internal NDs for the C100 for example. It's just all about what these features mean to YOU.

Other important points to consider are
-Colour rendition and how the image aesthetic feels to you
-Which camera is preferred by your clients in your market

But to recap no non of these cameras is ultimately "better" than the other for everything, there are pros and cons if it's better for you it doesn't mean it is for everybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your response is based on the assumption that all we want is the highest resolution/sharpest image. There are plenty of other reasons why shooting in 4K is great, most of them for outputting in 1080p (cropping, reframing, stabilization and so on).

 

That said, I'm sure this is ergonomically great, and has a good setup for sound/nd filters built in etc, it just seems to be a camera Canon should have announced 4 years ago or so.

I agree there are some great advantages to 4k but my response is based on how many of its champions here seem to have little concern about flesh tone and color accuracy. There's more talk about specs than skin tone. I see "tests" here all the time without charts or faces. I've followed Hurlbut's camera tests and he does them right. He's essentially trying to keep everything constant except the variable he's testing. I find it great he lets the public see them free of charge. Most of my work these days is in episodic and re-creation TV, some movies. The biggest deciding factors from production heads and directors always boils down to faces, work flow, ease of use and cost. Resolution is quite far down the list. There's a reason why F5/55's are not a big hit. If it's colors were anything close to Arri or Canon it would dominate. I'm hoping the Fs7 does something special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also what I am about to post from the NX1 will blow the C100 Mark II away for image quality. You will see :)

 

So will it be at 6400+ ISO with contrasty scene and with lots of motion? Because if it is at less than 1000 ISO shot in low contrast scene like golden hour and static scene then I am sure that most camera can do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree there are some great advantages to 4k but my response is based on how many of its champions here seem to have little concern about flesh tone and color accuracy. There's more talk about specs than skin tone. I see "tests" here all the time without charts or faces. I've followed Hurlbut's camera tests and he does them right. He's essentially trying to keep everything constant except the variable he's testing. I find it great he lets the public see them free of charge. Most of my work these days is in episodic and re-creation TV, some movies. The biggest deciding factors from production heads and directors always boils down to faces, work flow, ease of use and cost. Resolution is quite far down the list. There's a reason why F5/55's are not a big hit. If it's colors were anything close to Arri or Canon it would dominate. I'm hoping the Fs7 does something special.

 

Exactly, colour and how it relates to skin tone is the most important if you are a film maker because your main subject will be human beings and the audience. The audience will also be much more sensible to colour and contrast of the scene (DR) than resolution beyond 1080p. Everything has a threshold and we have achieved it with proper 2k (not Canon dslr false 1080p). How many people did you see complain about resolution on the big screen after a film shot on the Alexa or even C300.  Shane does have a bias toward Canon, but if you follow his reasoning and test it is much more important for the true film maker than some resolution chart and spec sheet. It is not by luck that he is what he is shooting film on the biggest stage and many would benefit from learning from him what is really important.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...