C100: C100 Killer?

[jb.]

I shoot with both brands and the it's a pretty simple distinction.
The Canon offers a more refined camera with a more limited "back end" with codecs.
The Black Magic cameras offer an equally great but different image with a superior back end with raw and ProRes.

FWIW, a simply rigged BM camera (pre-Ursa) is a very easy tool to shoot with since all of the firmware upgrades.
A wealth of choices - just choose the ones that you prefer to work with.

I've shot with both and I'd love to own a BMPC 4K for "beauty shots" where I can spend a ton of time with them to make them look gorgeous.

But lets be honest about Blackmagic's history with cameras (which is the only thing we have to go on at this point with the URSA Mini). They're usually plagued with firmware issues for months or (more likely) years after they're released. How long did it take the BMPC to be able to FORMAT ITS MEDIA IN THE CAMERA for example? Black hole sun?

I was at NAB... I've held the URSA Mini. It seems to be a pretty sweet little camera that will find a place in many shooter's arsenals... but it has some glaring problems for use in the places where a C100 excels (documentary, wedding, run and gun stuff)...

- ISOs seemed to be very limited. The guy we were talking to was talking around 1600 max... maybe 3200.
- No ND. WTF Blackmagic?
- Changing the IRIS requires a TRIP TO THE MENU. Holy crap. So, if I'm using it in shoulder-mount config and I want to change my iris, I have to take it off of my shoulder, open the 5" touchscreen, change the iris, and then put it back on my shoulder. Dumb. Put a friggin thumbwheel on the grip. This isn't rocket surgery.
- It's equally brain dead to change ISO or white balance. These are all things I can do on the C100 without even taking my eye off of the EVF.

Blackmagic makes innovative s*%t. I'm glad they're pushing the big players around a bit... especially with very aggressive pricing. But to see the URSA Mini as a "C100 Killer" is silly. Blackmagic cameras make awesome images, but ergonomically they're kind of a mess... and ergonomics are a big reason people buy Canon gear. Like I said, apples to dump trucks.

By the way, their little monitor with ProRes recorder (Video Assist) is SWEET... except it doesn't do trigger record over HDMI (WTF), no peaking or zebras or WFM (so much for that "assist" part), and it doesn't sound like it can do the pulldown correction for the C100 either.

The Micro Cinema Camera is bad ass though. I can see one of those finding its way onto my big hexacopter sometime soon.

 

[DLD]

... But lets be honest about Blackmagic's history with cameras (which is the only thing we have to go on at this point with the URSA Mini). They're usually plagued with firmware issues for months or (more likely) years after they're released..

Didn't BMD have fewer problems - if any - with URSA compared to the previous models?

If so, wouldn't an URSA Mini have fewer glitches, presuming they have already been ironed out with its larger iteration?

(PS. This doesn't address the ergonomics, which are dependent on the type of a shoot)

 

[Dafilman21]

Audio meters took a while yes, but formatting in camera was not a firmware glitch they purposely left that out. BUT since everyone clamored for it they did what a company should do they added that feature.

 

[jimagine]

but it has some glaring problems for use in the places where a C100 excels (documentary, wedding, run and gun stuff)...

For some people yes for others no.
And the whole iris and menu thing is for a certain type of shooter.
We, and a big segment of the market, only shoot with manual focus lenses with manual iris control.

We're also ultimate run and gun producers (olympic, sports lifestyle doc stuff) and studio producers (tv spots) and we primarily use BM cameras because of the IQ...it's not true that there are any "glaring problems" producing with these cameras with their 2015 firmware.
In fact things like the Metabones Speedbosster on lenses like the Sigma 18-35mm offer a lens system faster and superior in many ways to the best Canon glass available.

Again there is no right or wrong or "killer" stuff to opine about but you make it sound like issues that a new camera company had are reflected in what you get if you buy one today.
They're not perfect but there are several things about them that a C100 can't touch so it really is just about what you produce.
They're not flawed or difficult or screwy - they have the ISO they have because they're meant primarily for people who light and control their light on location - hence the "cinema camera" designation.

If you you haven't produced with cameras with a base 800 ASA, then you don't understand the benefits (many) of shooting there, in film mode and controlling your exposure with lighting and ND.
It's the preferable way to get produce quality narrative work.

If you're into filmic storytelling, then, at the prices, there's nothing like BM IQ and they're easy cameras to produce with if you have those skills and the right rigging.

But absolutely, if you shoot weddings and event stuff then yeah, get a C100 - perfect tool.

 

[Sam Scoggins]

For some people yes for others no.
And the whole iris and menu thing is for a certain type of shooter.
We, and a big segment of the market, only shoot with manual focus lenses with manual iris control.

We're also ultimate run and gun producers (olympic, sports lifestyle doc stuff) and studio producers (tv spots) and we primarily use BM cameras because of the IQ...it's not true that there are any "glaring problems" producing with these cameras with their 2015 firmware.
In fact things like the Metabones Speedbosster on lenses like the Sigma 18-35mm offer a lens system faster and superior in many ways to the best Canon glass available.

Again there is no right or wrong or "killer" stuff to opine about but you make it sound like issues that a new camera company had are reflected in what you get if you buy one today.
They're not perfect but there are several things about them that a C100 can't touch so it really is just about what you produce.
They're not flawed or difficult or screwy - they have the ISO they have because they're meant primarily for people who light and control their light on location - hence the "cinema camera" designation.

If you you haven't produced with cameras with a base 800 ASA, then you don't understand the benefits (many) of shooting there, in film mode and controlling your exposure with lighting and ND.
It's the preferable way to get produce quality narrative work.

If you're into filmic storytelling, then, at the prices, there's nothing like BM IQ and they're easy cameras to produce with if you have those skills and the right rigging.

But absolutely, if you shoot weddings and event stuff then yeah, get a C100 - perfect tool.

You can't use a speed booster on the URSA Mini. I think the "iris and menu" thing is more serious than you realize on a shoulder mount camera.

 

[jb.]

For some people yes for others no.
And the whole iris and menu thing is for a certain type of shooter.
We, and a big segment of the market, only shoot with manual focus lenses with manual iris control.

I think "big segment" may be overstating it just a weeeeeee bit. Especially those in the "Cinema EOS" market. Remember, we're talking about how much of a "C100 killer" the URSA Mini is. In order to "kill" the C100, it would have to go after the same market... and to that market, the Blackmagic cams have some glaring usability issues.

A lot of people moved to the C-cams from DSLR to escape some of the crappy usability that came from shooting video on primarily still cameras. The lack of ND on the BM stuff is a step backwards there. The inability to change the iris on a shoulder mount camera without pulling it off of your shoulder and popping open the side screen is a step back PAST DSLR. I'd venture to say that lots of C-cam users work in changing conditions where it might be nice to be able to stop down the lens or change the ND or ISO or white balance without Pilates moves and fiddly touch screens.

We're also ultimate run and gun producers (olympic, sports lifestyle doc stuff) and studio producers (tv spots) and we primarily use BM cameras because of the IQ...it's not true that there are any "glaring problems" producing with these cameras with their 2015 firmware.

No one I know uses BM cameras as their primary for "run and gun" style stuff. Narrative? Sure. Docs with a crew? Sure. One-man-band docs where the C100 primarily lives? Heck no.

The fact that you have to qualify that with "2015 firmware" is one of he main reasons I'd never replace my C-cams with anything from Blackmagic. The Canon gear comes out of the gate working. They don't beta test on their users.

Again there is no right or wrong or "killer" stuff to opine about but you make it sound like issues that a new camera company had are reflected in what you get if you buy one today.

I suggest you take a look at the title of this thread. The whole POINT was providing opinions about whether or not the URSA mini is a "C100 killer."

They're not perfect but there are several things about them that a C100 can't touch so it really is just about what you produce. They're not flawed or difficult or screwy - they have the ISO they have because they're meant primarily for people who light and control their light on location - hence the "cinema camera" designation.

If you go back and read what I wrote, I qualified by saying that for people in the C100's market the BM cams have issues. They ARE screwy. They ARE fiddly. They are very limited in low light. None of this may matter to a narrative shooter with time on their hands... but the C100 isn't a narrative camera.

I could just as well say that the Ferrari isn't really a Dodge Caravan killer because it's not reliable, is hard to drive, and it can't carry 8 adults. Are you going to then argue with me that it's not hard to drive if you'd just take driving lessons and only drive it on the track? And heck, you can just take one passenger at a time and make 7 trips, right?

If you you haven't produced with cameras with a base 800 ASA, then you don't understand the benefits (many) of shooting there, in film mode and controlling your exposure with lighting and ND.
It's the preferable way to get produce quality narrative work.

Ah. The tried and true "if you don't do it the way I do your stuff isn't quality" subtle dig. How creative. *sigh*

If you're into filmic storytelling, then, at the prices, there's nothing like BM IQ and they're easy cameras to produce with if you have those skills and the right rigging.

Right. And if your shooting style and subject matter lends itself to a fiddly camera with questionable ergonomics, BM stuff is the right tool for you. Like I said, I'd love to have one for stuff where the increased DR and such would outweigh the ergonomic struggles.

But for the market the C100 is aimed at, none of the BM cameras are going to dominate for the reasons I've already mentioned. Hence what I said... no BM camera is going to be a "C100 killer" until they address their shortcomings in that market.

 

[jimagine]

"Right. And if your shooting style and subject matter lends itself to a fiddly camera with questionable ergonomics, BM stuff is the right tool for you."

Yeah, whatever.
I defended both cameras twice with a logical grownup approach..you know, whatever style you shoot each camera has it's strengths and weaknesses.
They do.
I can't do anything about your defensiveness - thats up to you.

Good luck with your choices.

 

[jb.]

Yeah, whatever.

Is that the "logical grownup approach" you speak of?

I defended both cameras twice with a logical grownup approach..you know, whatever style you shoot each camera has it's strengths and weaknesses.
They do.

Yep. They do. They're also aimed at COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MARKETS. That's my point when I say:

"those that tout a Blackmagic camera as the 'C100 Killer' should really USE a Blackmagic camera for a while. Apples and dump trucks."

Blackmagic cameras produce stunning image quality. They also have ergonomic (and other usability) issues that hinder their usability in markets where the C100 (and C300) excel. The URSA Mini continues this tradition with a couple of things I've already pointed out. They may not be issues to YOU when you shoot long-form documentaries where you're supported by a crew or narrative films where you have plenty of time to set up each shot and can do several takes.

But my point is that I'd never select a C100 (or C100 Mark II) to shoot that kind of material. There are better cameras for that. The Blackmagics probably fall into that category.

C100s are (mostly) selected for shoots where the fiddly stuff present on the Blackmagic cameras (things like having to dig through a menu to switch white balance or ISO) would be a REAL PROBLEM for capturing the shot... and that shot isn't something that we can rewind and do again in a lot of cases.

Therefore, the URSA Mini is NOT a "C100 killer" as asked to begin this thread. That's my whole point.

I can't do anything about your defensiveness - thats up to you.

I'm not really the defensive one here. In response to me saying that the current crop of Blackmagic cameras aren't going to be "C100 killers" until they make some changes to make them more usable for things the C100 excels at, I got people saying I just "haven't used the latest firmware." I can do one better than that... I've actually handled an URSA Mini. It's not a C100 killer. It won't be until they fix stuff to make it more run and gun friendly. It has some weird usability issues like needing to pull the camera off of your shoulder to switch ISO, aperture, or white balance. All things that aren't a huge deal on a tripod on a narrative set... but are DEFINITELY a problem shooting in a war zone by yourself.

The URSA and URSA Mini are pretty great cameras. The URSA is a ginormous pig weight-wise, but for its intended market that isn't a huge deal. They both will make great images, I'm confident of that. BUT... if Blackmagic's goal was to "kill" the C100 or C300, they have a long way to go to get to the level of usability that Sony and Canon have.

Which makes complete sense... Blackmagic is VERY new on the camera scene relatively speaking. They're doing things differently and pushing the envelope (and the price curve). They're innovative as all get out. All things I totally admire and I'm actually a pretty big Blackmagic fan. That said, I also understand they have a long way to go as well before anything they put out can be considered a "<camera> killer." I'm sure they'll get there if they can persevere because they seem pretty smart about this stuff. A lot of the issues I have with their cameras for ENG/EFP run-and-gun stuff are because they started in cinema and are trying to work their way into more ENG/EFP stuff... whereas Canon and Sony started in ENG/EFP and are working their way into "cinema". In the cine world, NDs aren't a problem. Poking through menus for ISO or white balance isn't a problem. They use manual-iris glass so the iris isn't a big deal either. These things matter a LOT MORE on the ENG/EFP side of things.

For example, a friend of mine (who does a lot of EFP and was with me at NAB) was drooling all over himself to get his hands on the URSA Mini. As soon as he saw it had no internal ND, he set it down and walked away. This stuff matters.

If they want to market it as an ENG/EFP camera, they're going to have to work on the usability quite a bit... that's all I was saying.

 

[ntouched]

 

[DLD]

... If they want to market it as an ENG/EFP camera, they're going to have to work on the usability quite a bit...

And I don't think they ever will. It's just not their niche and there are far better ballplayers in it.

On the other hand, a rigged up NX1 ...

 

[puredrifting]

Well said JB. Those issues with the BMD camera make a no go for even considering for anything for me. I like BMD and Aja, someday, they may release cameras that are actually reliable, can handle high ISOs and don't need a prescription for Prozac to handle of the quirks and bad operational function design. I've seen some good footage from them but to me, logical operation, uease of use and menu navigation are almost as important as image. For some, they want a beautiful image at low cost so badly, they are willing to put up with poor design. I've been down that road too many times in the past. Ergonomics and operational logic are really important to my work.