C300: C300 II vs Sony F5 vs FS7

[Parrot]

I have to agree with jm.gardiner & pure drifting. The look of most of those stills is something the C300mk2 can do, but not the FS7, F5 or C300mk1. (Yes, I've shot with the FS7. Not easy to grade!)

Yes, C300mk2 color science has changed, but you still have the option to switch to a 'traditional' Canon look on the C300mk2. And you can switch to Alexa look. Or other looks. For those of us who've experienced massive client panic on seeing the shades of red coming out of the C300mk1 (or the FS7), it's very good to have the option offered by C300mk2 to easily switch to more accurate colors. While I mostly use Alexa for product shots, I would be totally comfortable shooting those with C300mk2. I would not be comfortable shooting product shots with FS7, F5 or C300mk1.

There are other pros and cons, of course. And I totally understand why some people prefer F5 or FS7 for their market.

 

[nedcam]

One reason I did not buy the FS5 is that Abel Cine told me in no uncertain terms that my Canon 70-200 would need a lens support because the mount can't handle it without one. I move so fast and change lenses so much in a typical documentary day, I can't fathom needing to screw around with supports. Apparently Sony didn't beef up the mount. I assume the FS7 is the same.

 

[puredrifting]

One reason I did not buy the FS5 is that Abel Cine told me in no uncertain terms that my Canon 70-200 would need a lens support because the mount can't handle it without one. I move so fast and change lenses so much in a typical documentary day, I can't fathom needing to screw around with supports. Apparently Sony didn't beef up the mount. I assume the FS7 is the same.

Ned, I am waiting for a client payment to come in and I am buying the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I already bought the lens support for my C100 MKI. No big deal, it a $20.00 part that can always sit on your rails and then you use a shorter lens, it's out of the way and when you mount the 70-200, it's already there in place. It's not really in the way when you are not using it. I have already rented that lens a dozen times over the past few years, time to make it mine, plus I will need the write off this year. Probably going to add the 17-55 2.8 IS as well.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I'm with Ned on the issue of not having time to fiddle with lens supports for some types of work (though I believe I have seen people use the FS7 + 70-200 without support, it may as Abel Cine said not be reccomended).

For weddings by myself, during the processional I have three C100s going, with me manning a 24-105 on a monopod at the front of the aisle, looking down the aisle, an unmanned 11-16 or 18-35 on a tall tripod in the back as a wide safety shot, and an unmanned 70-200 (or some variant of the lens, such as 80-200, 70-210) right next to it in the back, also high, getting a tight shot of the groom. Once the processional is over, I quickly put the 24-105 cam on a tripod, frame it up as a three shot, then run to the back, lower the 70-200 camera, frame it up as a back center three shot, then lower the 11-16,...

...and back on to the subject, quickly switch the 11-16 out with a second 70-200, run that camera to the front right side of the guests, frame it up on the bride, tight. Then run back around to the other side on the left, where the 24-105 is on a three shot, and again, quickly change from 24-105 to a third 70-200 lens, frame up tight on the groom's shot. And then I'm like that for the rest of the ceremony. Sometimes I'll switch back to 24-105 on the back center shot for the recessional.

Anyway, no time to spend 30 seconds per lens switch fussing with screwing in lens supports. Some shorter ceremonies may only last 8-10 minutes, so spending a minute changing two lenses messes up 10% of the video. Lens changes are done in about five seconds. I don't turn the camera off while changing lenses; that's crazy talk!

I will say one thing I do like about the Nikon 80-200, Vivitar 70-210, and Canon 70-200 f/4 non-IS, compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, is that since they are lighter they are also more stable. Of course IS can help, but ideally for a tripod shot IS should be off to eliminate that floating effect, particularly if you have a good fluid head.

 

[Run&Gun]

I'm with Ned on the issue of not having time to fiddle with lens supports for some types of work (though I believe I have seen people use the FS7 + 70-200 without support, it may as Abel Cine said not be reccomended).

For weddings by myself, during the processional I have three C100s going, with me manning a 24-105 on a monopod at the front of the aisle, looking down the aisle, an unmanned 11-16 or 18-35 on a tall tripod in the back as a wide safety shot, and an unmanned 70-200 (or some variant of the lens, such as 80-200, 70-210) right next to it in the back, also high, getting a tight shot of the groom. Once the processional is over, I quickly put the 24-105 cam on a tripod, frame it up as a three shot, then run to the back, lower the 70-200 camera, frame it up as a back center three shot, then lower the 11-16,...

...and back on to the subject, quickly switch the 11-16 out with a second 70-200, run that camera to the front right side of the guests, frame it up on the bride, tight. Then run back around to the other side on the left, where the 24-105 is on a three shot, and again, quickly change from 24-105 to a third 70-200 lens, frame up tight on the groom's shot. And then I'm like that for the rest of the ceremony. Sometimes I'll switch back to 24-105 on the back center shot for the recessional.

Anyway, no time to spend 30 seconds per lens switch fussing with screwing in lens supports. Some shorter ceremonies may only last 8-10 minutes, so spending a minute changing two lenses messes up 10% of the video. Lens changes are done in about five seconds. I don't turn the camera off while changing lenses; that's crazy talk!

I will say one thing I do like about the Nikon 80-200, Vivitar 70-210, and Canon 70-200 f/4 non-IS, compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, is that since they are lighter they are also more stable. Of course IS can help, but ideally for a tripod shot IS should be off to eliminate that floating effect, particularly if you have a good fluid head.

Are you kidding? I'll take the "pressures" of broadcast/network and Live any day over that. I've read it three times and I still can't figure out everything you're doing. Lol. But seriously, I do find it surprising that a lot of churches would let you run around the sanctuary like that during a ceremony. That has to be distracting as f*** if it's anything like what I'm picturing in my head.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Are you kidding? I'll take the "pressures" of broadcast/network and Live any day over that. I've read it three times and I still can't figure out everything you're doing. Lol. But seriously, I do find it surprising that a lot of churches would let you run around the sanctuary like that during a ceremony. That has to be distracting as f*** if it's anything like what I'm picturing in my head.

Here, I drew a diagram so you can see more clearly.

So there are three stick figures, black (me on a monopod during processional), blue (groom), and white (bride).

So, in the diagram, I'm at A point for just the processional. Once the bride gets about 10-20 feet away from me, I pull back, leaving the center aisle, and either just take a few steps back (to A.1 point), holding my shot on the monopod for the father to give the bride away, or, if I feel like they're going to be there awhile, or there is no father with the bride, I'll put that camera (with the 24-105) on the tripod on the left side (B point) right away. I tend to play timing for that by ear.

Then, as I said, I move to the back (to C point), lower the two tripods there, and bring one of them to the far right side (D point), where I have drawn in black where the camera would go. It'd actually go further to the right and back more, in a similar spot to how it is on the left side, but this behind-the-scenes photo ends there, so I drew it as far to the right as I could.

Of course I'll go all the way around the pews on the far left and far right side aisles and behind the guests. Photo isn't wide enough so I drew lines through the pews and the center aisle which is not the route I would take. Generally I'll only go through pews if it's a big church and there aren't any guests behind where I'm crossing.

Then during the ceremony, I'm walking back and forth between cameras, checking shots, anticipating movements and making adjustments when people move (such as a reader at the podium), re-framing tighter for vows, wider when just the officiant is speaking, etc.

Now I'm on pretty long lenses and am either to the far left and right side or behind the guests, so I don't think it's all that distracting. Occasionally a guest or a few guests will look at me for a brief moment. I virtually never go on the sanctuary (altar area), except for some cultural weddings (such as Indian weddings) where that is often normal to be up there.

Full-size: http://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2016/08/24/WeddingCamerasDiagram6.jpg

 

[jm.gardiner]

Eric, I think it's time to charge more and hire an assistant!

 

[Eric Coughlin]

When I have a second camera operator with me, we typically do 4 or 5 cameras. I'm typically on Steadicam for the processional (with 24-70), moving around quite a bit, mostly down the side aisle and back, while the second cam op is on monopod (with 24-105) in the same place as the above diagram.

Instead of moving the back wide shot to the right front side on a 70-200 after the processional as I do when I'm by myself, I'll have a fourth tripod and camera already at the front (left or right, depending) and leave the back wide shot running during the whole ceremony (Steadicam is fifth camera).

Then during the ceremony, once the cameras are set and framed, if I have time I'll grab some tight reaction shots of the guests (particularly the parents of the bride and groom, and bridal party) and sometimes some b-roll moving shots on Glidecam or slider.

Second cam op will often man the bride's angle cam at the front right during the ceremony. While I'm grabbing extra shots, I'm also checking the various cameras on tripods, including b-cam op's camera, depending on how much I trust them, which is generally not as much as I trust myself.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Eric, while I commend you on what must make for a well-covered, high quality wedding video, I for one would never want to have someone running around during the ceremony. It would just distract everyone from the ceremony itself. At least that's where my mind goes. Mind you I also have attended weddings covered with drones, jibs and Steadicams, plus large monitors or projectors showing Live-Switched coverage during the ceremony. So, you do you. I have fully respect for the exhausting work of the modern wedding videographer. Those brides can be more demanding than the toughest producers.

 

[control4userguy]

^Who is the audience here? Certainly not the folks in the pews, rows, stands. Circus if you ask me. It seems to me it is not an issue of money that drives a multi-cam production. Been to enough high profile ceremonies here in LA where a subtle crew is working the gig and the results were very elegant and non-invasive.

Eric's one-man set-up is sane in my mind (as long as there is no rushing around or equipment noise).

 

[nutmegger]

I shot still weddings for 15 years (1991-2006). I remember one Catholic wedding where the videographer kept crossing in front of the alter during the ceremony. The Priest stopped the ceremony, told the videographer to take his camera to the back of the church and stay there. The videographer missed the exchange of vows and rings. The bride was not happy.

 

[Bern Caughey]

If you need a WYSIWG workflow the C300 (I or II) is a much better choice then any Sony, but well-graded SLOG can be a thing of beauty.

And if your just using EF-mount glass on a FS7 then it's simple enough to add a small baseplate with short rods to support a Metabones adapter. That way there's little difference between using a native EF-mount, & an adapted, at least in terms of which lenses might need additional support.

http://www.shapewlb.com/en/product/...lightweight-plate_585.aspx?id_page_parent=603

 

[puredrifting]

Looking at Eric's diagram gave me a cold shiver and took me back to the few weddings I shot many, many years ago. I hate shooting live events, I shot a four camera memorial service last year that had a very similar layout as what Eric's diagram shows, except I had myself and another operator, we ran three C100s, two with 70-200 2.8 IS II, one on sticks and one on monopod, a locked off wide shot with the 28mm 1.8 and also added two Go Pros, one up high at the alter facing back on the entire church and one on the organist. It was a nightmare to shoot and a nightmare to edit. Nice client, very patient but incredibly picky, editing took weeks and weeks (she paid for it too with no complaint) but ughh, live events, they are really not my thing. I hate when you are charged with documenting some event, client wants and expects it to look good, then it seems as if EVERYONE involved does their best to prevent you from capturing good footage and sound. They stand in front of your cameras, blocking the view. The officiant moves your mics you had carefully placed at the podium without telling you. Someone knocks over one of your Go Pros and never tells you. The sound mixer just randomly lowers the levels being sent to your main camera and your audio recorder in the middle of the ceremony or they are using cheap wireless that sound like crap but you didn't have budget to hire your own sound mixer with pro gear. The list goes on and on. I have TON of respect for good wedding and event videographers, it's a hard job to do well. Just not my thing, I much prefer the chaos of shooting BTS on a feature or TV set. Some similar challenges but you usually get the luxury of multiple takes if something goes wrong.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Eric, while I commend you on what must make for a well-covered, high quality wedding video, I for one would never want to have someone running around during the ceremony. It would just distract everyone from the ceremony itself. At least that's where my mind goes. Mind you I also have attended weddings covered with drones, jibs and Steadicams, plus large monitors or projectors showing Live-Switched coverage during the ceremony. So, you do you. I have fully respect for the exhausting work of the modern wedding videographer. Those brides can be more demanding than the toughest producers.

You say it distracts everyone, but I don't think it does, at least not to the extent you're implying. As I said, a few people I'm close to will briefly look at me at times, but that's about it. Guests further in the center tend to not notice me, and guests toward the end and closer to me sometimes notice me for a short bit and then go back to looking at the altar. I think you exaggerate how distracting it is, or at least your perception of it is.

I for one would never want to have someone running around during the ceremony.

I'd say about 96% of photographers I work with are moving around a lot during the ceremony. If they can move, why can't the videographer move as well? The other 4% of photographers who don't move around during a ceremony are probably the least experienced and most lazy photographers who think one angle for the whole ceremony is good enough, when it isn't. They'll probably be out of business soon.

Uncle Jim can get one angle with his latest DSLR. It probably won't have good audio since Uncle Jim doesn't own lav mics, but it may look decent and if the speaker system is loud then his audio will be decent too. The professional, on the other hand, is getting quality coverage from multiple angles when a doc edit is part of the primary delivery.

That's not to say a professional can't get a good highlight video with just one angle at the ceremony, since you have a lot of other things to work with in a highlight video (story-based editing, preps, reception, voice over, music, etc.). But for a doc edit long form delivery, multiple angles is part of what sets it apart from amateurs. And most brides would rather pay for one videographer to walk from camera to camera than pay significantly more for 3-5 videographers (which would probably be more obtrusive) to stand in one place at each camera during the whole ceremony.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Eric, I did not mean to imply that you would in any way do a bad job of it. On the contrary, it sounds like you do excellent work and really have things covered. I'm sure with your experience you are also as discreet as one could possibly be.

My point is that my threshold for such things is low. I'm around shoots all the time and I've been shooting in various capacities for about 30 years. That includes a few weddings, although nothing to the extent that you do. I just know that what it would take for me to accomplish this is more than I would ever want to have someone else do it at my own event. It's akin to the fact that I would never let anyone shoot a big commercial or TV show in my home (in NYC, people knock on my brownstones door all the time). They would have to pay me an insane amount of money because I know what they're gonna do to the place -- it's exactly what I would do if I were DPing that commercial.

Like I said, I'm sure you do a great job. It's just not my thing.

 

[indiawilds]

I understand the pressures of live events and can't believe no body objects to all the moving around. In many events people are asked to just take their position and be there. It is great that you are able to pull it off.

Here, I drew a diagram so you can see more clearly.

So there are three stick figures, black (me on a monopod during processional), blue (groom), and white (bride).

So, in the diagram, I'm at A point for just the processional. Once the bride gets about 10-20 feet away from me, I pull back, leaving the center aisle, and either just take a few steps back (to A.1 point), holding my shot on the monopod for the father to give the bride away, or, if I feel like they're going to be there awhile, or there is no father with the bride, I'll put that camera (with the 24-105) on the tripod on the left side (B point) right away. I tend to play timing for that by ear.

Then, as I said, I move to the back (to C point), lower the two tripods there, and bring one of them to the far right side (D point), where I have drawn in black where the camera would go. It'd actually go further to the right and back more, in a similar spot to how it is on the left side, but this behind-the-scenes photo ends there, so I drew it as far to the right as I could.

Of course I'll go all the way around the pews on the far left and far right side aisles and behind the guests. Photo isn't wide enough so I drew lines through the pews and the center aisle which is not the route I would take. Generally I'll only go through pews if it's a big church and there aren't any guests behind where I'm crossing.

Then during the ceremony, I'm walking back and forth between cameras, checking shots, anticipating movements and making adjustments when people move (such as a reader at the podium), re-framing tighter for vows, wider when just the officiant is speaking, etc.

Now I'm on pretty long lenses and am either to the far left and right side or behind the guests, so I don't think it's all that distracting. Occasionally a guest or a few guests will look at me for a brief moment. I virtually never go on the sanctuary (altar area), except for some cultural weddings (such as Indian weddings) where that is often normal to be up there.

Full-size: http://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2016/08/24/WeddingCamerasDiagram6.jpg

 

[rudo_fr]

No 4k 60p = no c300, i own both cameras and sell my c300.