C300: C300 Mark II vs Ursa Mini 4.6k footage

dustylense said:
Lol. You guys are judging cameras based off of ONE video each! Really? I think they both look good. I think each can look better. One is shot all natural light, one with production...
Click to expand...

Agreed, but my experience in the past with BM is enough to keep me from considering their product. For my needs the Canon C300 MK II will check the boxes needed most of the time moving forward. If they don't at a given time, there is always rental.

Best Regards,

Chris McGuinness
www.pulsecinema.com
 
We have to wait to see more C300mk2 footage, but for now, as I expected, it still looks very videoish. In contrast with the mini URSA, which looks very Alexa -and precisely why the BMCC has been used as B/small cam, shooting high-end Commercials.

What I believe from the camera specs and price points, is that freelance guys who buy their own cameras will think along these lines:

ONE C300mkII costs the same as FS7 + miniURSA 4.6k + a7S.

And with the latter package not only you get a BACKUP camera and A/B/C shooting, but also a camera (miniURSA 4.6k) for controlled shoots (commercials/corporate/drama), and another one (FS7) for run&gun with better features than the C300, among them the 180fps which is so demanded these days in Broadcast sports/wildlife/reality.
 
Last edited:
jindrich said:
We have to wait to see more C300mk2 footage, but for now, as I expected, it still looks very videoish, in contrast with the mini URSA, which looks very Alexa -and precisely why the BMCC has been used as B/small cam, shooting high-end Commercials.

What I believe from the camera specs and price points is that freelance guys who buy their own cameras will think:

ONE C300mkII costs the same as FS7+miniURSA 4.6+ a7S. And with the latter package not only you get a backup camera and A/B/C shooting, but also a camera for controlled (commercials/corporate/drama) shooting (miniURSA 4-6k) and another one (FS7) for run&gun with better features, among them the 180fps which is so demanded these days in Broadcast sports/wildlife/reality.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of a ursa mini,dvx200 and keep my c100 package :)
Then again, I'd actually have to pay off the cc vs financing the c300 for 48 months
 
If that C300 II footage in any way represents (which I doubt - and to judge the two cameras by looking at two samples is kind of ridiculous) what this camera will be capable of doing, I won't buy it (well maybe if it goes below $10K).

Same color science or not, same market or not, there are simply options with $16K right now to get something better than in that short . BTW, I've been a Canon guy since forever, and I was among the first who bought C300 I (still shoot with it and will keep it regardless of whether I buy Mark II or not).
 
If this camera is like the original BMCC and the pocket, there won't be any noise reduction in-camera and it holds detail in the shadows really, really well. That means you can roll your own NR run it through Resolve or Neat Video and push 1600 ISO upwards of 3-4 stops and still have very useable footage. Bam. Instant 6400 ISO.

I will say that's more trouble than flicking the switch in a Canon, but the ability is there.

Example:

https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/06/blackmagic-cinema-camera/
"I worked carefully in keeping the image the same as we underexposed it and was very impressed in how far this camera could go way down. Even when I was all the way down to -3 stops under, I was able to bring the image back. When I went beyond that point, the detail in the shadow areas got really muddy and noisy. At -4 1/3 stops, I gave up, which you can see in the video"
 
Last edited:
SlyCooper said:
Using those two videos as examples, I think the URSA footage looks WAY better than the C300 MkII footage. Issue is though, they are two very different videos. URSA's appears to be natural lighting, which is kind of an odd marketing choice considering BMD has tended to lean towards controlled environment work.

If they haven't already, Canon really needs to release some real-world examples of C300 MkII footage; documentary footage, natural lighting, etc.
Click to expand...

The footage is 4.6k footage, not specifically URSA, because it applies to both the URSA and Mini URSA. The Mini URSA, imo, doesn't lean towards controlled environment work. So why not show what is possible when you can't control the environment, because at least you know it can only get better from there.
 
The C300mk ll video was really pretty dorky. All those interior cool blue skin tones is what Canon does best you know. My .02 is that canon really did a down and dirty on that demo film in comparison the original C300 launch. which is quite surprising. I think we all know what Canon is capable of Image wise and I wouldn't let this film color any expectations about what the camera can do.
Three years into owning a C300, which I bought with some serious reservations because it couldn't over crank in 1080 and even an AF 100 could do that, I have no regrets. Its great to have over crank capability but in reality shooting over cranked is a very small percentage of what I actually shoot. I like to have that capability but I don't use it as much as I would like to think I do. I have shot in so many places with my canon cameras in the last 3 years under some very tough conditions without any trouble. That is a huge value. Black magic may have finally made a useful camera, but in my little experience with Black magic cameras, I am going to opt to let some one else do the field testing, ***** about the poor quality, and wait for the firmware updates to finally complete the camera. I'd rather pay for Canon quality and go on about my business shooting.
 
reem12 said:
Just watched the canon c300 mark II short and actually thought it looked thin and very video like compared to what the original mobius looked like when laforet shot it.
Click to expand...

hey! i am glad i am not alone, to me the collors of that new c300 video looked like junk. I was hoping to see what sensor is capable for, but it just reminded me the the handycams i had back in a days....Maybe canon has some budget issues....
 
I think its just bad bad color grading, i saw some raw frames from the movie on the NAB c300 live show, and my good they make huge-bad grading for my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top