Jump to content
lafilm

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

Recommended Posts

It's really hard to take him seriously after what he said about 5D Mark II trashing GH4.

 

 

5D camera is a more cinematic image...... GH4 is great for Drone work, on actual people requires insane amount of color correction / grading to look even halfway decent where as Canon 5D instantly looks great.

 

On the flip side to this I own a Sony A7s and think it is AMAZING, but I still agree that Canon simply has those beautiful colors. I'm interested in the C100 Mark II, looks like a nice step up for professional work.

 

 

*GH3 was sharp and required softer settings, GH4 is much sharper in 4k therefore looks even more like video. I did only one real project that I really liked on the GH4 and shot it using Slr Magic lenses Wide open (T 1.4). I would not consider the GH4 moving forward to anyone wanting to achieve cinematic images in 24/25p. It's nice for 60p and closeup shots of 96fps, but honestly I would stay away. Sony A7s is a much better camera imho

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

5D camera is a more cinematic image...... GH4 is great for Drone work, on actual people requires insane amount of color correction / grading to look even halfway decent where as Canon 5D instantly looks great.

 

On the flip side to this I own a Sony A7s and think it is AMAZING, but I still agree that Canon simply has those beautiful colors. I'm interested in the C100 Mark II, looks like a nice step up for professional work.

 

 

*GH3 was sharp and required softer settings, GH4 is much sharper in 4k therefore looks even more like video. I did only one real project that I really liked on the GH4 and shot it using Slr Magic lenses Wide open (T 1.4). I would not consider the GH4 moving forward to anyone wanting to achieve cinematic images in 24/25p. It's nice for 60p and closeup shots of 96fps, but honestly I would stay away. Sony A7s is a much better camera imho

 

You know... you can use different lenses or filters, or unsharpen in post. I find it funny that people contain a camera is too sharp.. I have seen plenty of films with a sharp picture that are very cinematic by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I compared the 5D's colour in H.264 out of the box to what it does in raw with Magic Lantern and there's a huge difference. Nice sensor, rubbish codec and image processor. It's a myth you can get such nice colour from the 5D Mark III, without resorting to the large file sizes of raw, often impractical. The Cinema EOS cameras do have decent colour out of the box.

 

The NX1 has decent colour out of the box AND small file sizes.

 

The GH4 and A7S sacrifice colour a little bit on the altar of dynamic range but they can still look lovely in the right hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the C100/C300 were really strange models when I first heard about them. It was hard to understand why anyone would pay for what you got on paper.

I've been shooting with C100s for one of my clients, and I'm *really* surprised with how much I've taken to the camera. I love the ergonomics. It's still quite light and compact but has all the easily accessible buttons and features. The image straight out of the camera is really good. Hard to screw up, and that counts for a lot. It's only 1080p, but it's a very sharp and clean 1080p so we're talking a very different league than the mushy DSLRs of old. 

I've been using my trusty GH2 for years and honestly, if I could afford it I'd switch to a C100 in a heartbeat. I get tired of wrestling with the color and usability of the GH2. It shoots really nice video a lot of the time, particularly of landscapes and objects. People.... eh. Plenty of times I've been less than thrilled. I still prefer the color science and skintones of my old HMC150, despite it being much crappier looking in every other way. 

I've learned my lesson on choosing cameras based on specs. Color science and mojo count for a lot. I recently watched some BMPCC videos for the first time in a while and I forgot how utterly gorgeous that camera can look. Especially with people.

I would've thought Shane was an idiot not too long ago but I totally see where he is coming from now. The ancient 5D might have a ton of technical flaws but it really does make people look nice, and that counts for ALOT. 

It's a strange time though and it's hard to feel comfortable pulling the trigger on a 1080p camera with 4K looming. 60p is hugely important to me so it's also hard to get a 4K camera that shoots 4K @ 60p. Pickings are slim for that right now. Really disappointed that the GH4 can't do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GH4 and the Panasonic Slr cameras are "Digital Sharp" which is very different to sharpness of an Arri.......

Great work can be done on any of these cameras, GH4 requires a lot of extra work though from my experiences. Sony A7s is a much better video camera imo

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GH4 and the Panasonic Slr cameras are "Digital Sharp" which is very different to sharpness of an Arri.......

Great work can be done on any of these cameras, GH4 requires a lot of extra work though from my experiences. Sony A7s is a much better video camera imo

Peace

​Well, most anyone loves Arri, but hardly comparable to a GH4 in pricing. I don't necessarily agree the 5D has a more filmic image than GH4 other than that more people may prefer the color science for people shooting, and unless you shoot Raw, which is a lot of extra space/work, the image simply doesn't hold up. At that point the workflow isn't that great for a 5D either. Again, if you think the GH4 is just too sharp, the choice of lens would have a lot of impact, and if you want to level the playing field against some of these other cameras, I suppose you may get different results with the Shogun (looking forward to Andrew's article on that!). I'd venture if filmic is what you are after, you are better off getting a Blackmagic camera than a 5D. They even have versions with global shutter.

I agree though, if I were making really cinematic stuff, Arri would be near the top of the wish-list, and if I were doing documentaries, the C100 would be high on the list due to controls/features. Global shutter is very nice too of course. I still think, especially since they have a 4K sensor, that Canon is as usual, holding back features. The Sony A7S is great due to low light capability, but if you want 4K, you are talking $4500 vs $1500 for a GH4. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4K is the future. 5K display already on an iMac. Can't tell the difference? I don't think so. C100 II will be obsolete in a year and you will have to sell it and get the C100 III with 4K. Also it makes no sense to spend $5k on one when you can get an FS7 for $3k more which is 3x more future proof - 4K, slow-mo, 10bit output. Personally I need 180fps 1080p of the FS7. Even if you don't, then I fail to see what the C100 II offers over the FS7. If you are laying down that much money for a camera, the stretch to the FS7 isn't a huge problem. Unless you can barely afford or justify the C100 II, in which case you shouldn't really be spending $5k on a camera in the first place. For the commercial shooters these cameras are aimed at, $5k or $8k - doesn't matter, the camera will pay for itself. For everybody else, stick to $3k and avoid the nasty depreciation of pro gear. That's my advice. Invest in lenses and ideas instead.

ds

 

I don't know if 1080 cams will be obsolete though, its great for editing, reframing, zooms but don't think TV will be delivering 4k programming anytime soon.  They just spent millions upgrading to HD and that took years and years of logistics.  Nat Geo films I can see 4k working but movies and regular TV, I find that all the detail bothers me for some reason, it doesn't seem natural.  I don't think I would ever buy a 4k TV...... http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if 1080 cams will be obsolete though, its great for editing, reframing, zooms but don't think TV will be delivering 4k programming anytime soon.  They just spent millions upgrading to HD and that took years and years of logistics.  Nat Geo films I can see 4k working but movies and regular TV, I find that all the detail bothers me for some reason, it doesn't seem natural.  I don't think I would ever buy a 4k TV...... http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/ 

The guy who wrote that thread is full of shit. I have a 4K TV, and the difference is pretty obvious. I think the problem is that some people are just so vested in the status quo that they simply refuse to consider things as improved, even when it is staring them in the face. Instead they come up with subjective comments like "it just doesn't look right" or "it just doesn't have that indefinable quality about it", and stuff like that. Or they rehash "theories" about viewing resolution that don't hold up in practice. People will watch HD content happily because the story is king. But they will watch the same story in SD as well, if it is compelling, and their brain will adjust for the reduced resolution. Given the choice between SD, HD or UHD side by side (especially on any TV 60" and above), they will take the UHD. Particularly on natural history shows, where reality trumps everything.

The fact of the matter is that 4K panels have become mainstream and are affordable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4K is the future. 5K display already on an iMac. Can't tell the difference? I don't think so. C100 II will be obsolete in a year and you will have to sell it and get the C100 III with 4K. Also it makes no sense to spend $5k on one when you can get an FS7 for $3k more which is 3x more future proof - 4K, slow-mo, 10bit output. Personally I need 180fps 1080p of the FS7. Even if you don't, then I fail to see what the C100 II offers over the FS7. If you are laying down that much money for a camera, the stretch to the FS7 isn't a huge problem. Unless you can barely afford or justify the C100 II, in which case you shouldn't really be spending $5k on a camera in the first place. For the commercial shooters these cameras are aimed at, $5k or $8k - doesn't matter, the camera will pay for itself. For everybody else, stick to $3k and avoid the nasty depreciation of pro gear. That's my advice. Invest in lenses and ideas instead.

ds

I don't know if 1080 cams will be obsolete though, its great for editing, reframing, zooms but don't think TV will be delivering 4k programming anytime soon.  They just spent millions upgrading to HD and that took years.  Nat Geo films I can see 4k working but movies for some reason all the detail bothers me.  I don't think I would ever buy a 4k TV, there is just too much detail.  

Man, had too much time on my hands last night, had to resurect this old ass thread.  No doubt it's an increase in resolution.  An improvement though?  I guess it is, albeit an unnecessary one for consumers.  For acquisition its amazing!  TRUST ME though, know lots of people working at networks, NO ONE is planning on broadcasting in 4k any time this decade.  Nat Geo shows will for sure look great in 4k detail, I'm sure you will be able to stream it in all its compressed glory somewhere.  4k cinema in my home though, on my TV 10 or 15 feet away is another story.  Don't mind it in the theater though cause it's a big ass screen I am typically 30-50 ft away.   Totally agree with you, story is KING!  It's weird though, I still get people asking me for DVD's in SD!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell ya why it is not a DSLR killer.

DSLR's aren't extinct it's just that Canon is starting to get envious of people buying into their DSLRs and not their cinema series camcorders. :) Which pretty much are overpriced pieces of junk when you come down to it. Honestly if I wanted purely an event camcorder or news camcorder I'd go with JVC. :) I have yet to see a section in Shotonwhat.com with the C100. Several with DSLRs, but not the C100. What does not make me upset that the DSLR's are 1080p, but rather why is the C100 MK II still 1080p? I mean can't I get the same at a higher dynamic range with a Sony camcorder or perhaps what Black Magic may offer or another camera brand, hell even the Axiom may be good. Also the Kinemax has better quality to my eye than the C300 and C500 and is cheaper.

Even the T2i is on shotonwhat....

My emotional reaction: :) PFTHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Canon you got a 1080p camcorder over $5k? Is this freaking 2007?

the c100 is good for what you get. Yes the dynamic range is nothing special but it has the best low light ability in the business which makes it really good for documentaries. The reason canons DSLRs are used in some films is because of its small size. It's able to fit in small places. The C300 was used to shoot Blue Is The Warmest Colour which I thought was a really gorgeous looking movie before I even knew much about the camera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just shot my sons nativity play on my GH4 and BMPCC for the school DVD (hardest thing I've ever had to film btw!). It's the first thing I've done using major, extensive cropping in post. What's amazing is that the BMPCC in many cases was not only as good as the GH4 for cropping, but many shots actually better! The GH4 starts looking like digital, over sharpened and compressed garbage pretty quickly when you crop in. The BMPCC however looks organic and rich all the way in, and can be sharpened to quite a high level.

Dont get me wrong - it doesn't have the same level of RESOLUTION as the GH4, but as we know resolution is far from the only thing that matters. Colour sampling, dynamic range, codec, bit depth, compression, processing, etc all factor in to what makes an image useable and pleasant to look at. DR, colour, grain quality all qualify as DETAIL imo. Cropped in, the BMPCC has more of these things than the GH4.

The GH4 is a nice camera for 1080 delivery but I'd never crop in on it for a critical job. Canon have simply bypassed the 4K workflow inconvenience with the C100 by down sampling in camera. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The fact it doesn't take photos means it is not a dslr killer.

He also has 0 understanding how to properly use a gh4 or an nx1.

His main sponser is canon. All these canon guys are the same, trying

to push every filmmaker over into the overpriced and underperforming Canon Cinema Series.

There are just too many other better cheaper options if you're looking for a pure film camera especially for that price.

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...