C500: C500 II an interesting little wrap up.

That guy. Haha.

I tried to watch it. It is surreal. Like online influencer referencing online influencer referencing online influencer. Now in this sort of self validating eco system which end up sounding more like television sales people more than educational. I have learned a lot about laundry detergent from a few of those commercials back in the day. Don't get me wrong.

C500ii is a great camera. The nice thing about a good camera, is that it will always be a good camera. But it does feel a little strange talking about $10K+ cameras this year.

Interesting fact about the latitude tests. They shoot them in the compressed format, so that more noise reduction is added in camera to help the results. I personally feel if noise reduction isn't too noticeable, it is a nice feature to get more latitude. But it doesn't exactly improve DR, just the perception. Interesting that they rate the BM ursa mini G2 1.5 stops less that the C500mkii. Which, a lot of people rave about the DR on that camera.

The C500mkii DR feels stretched to me. Like too little butter spread over too much toast. The highlights clip a little abruptly, and the shadows show a pattern. Denoise and desaturate is a little strong, and helps hide this. That said, it is still a good amount of DR. I've have the key light (a window) partially in the shot and it wasn't blown out. This camera can roll with the big boys.

Doing DR tests between the F35, BM pocket, and Sony A7sII, it appears that the A7sII has similar DR to the F35, but the extremes are so very different. A blown out window or lamp can ruin a shot on the A7sii, but can look organic on the F35. I'd rate the C500ii a stop less than most people do, and get a more relaxed organic look. The camera looks seriously great in soft light and studio use. And it is a joy to use. C series cameras are so much less formal than longer bodied cine cameras like the C700. And while the C3003 is looking great too, FF35 matters. Not to everyone, but yeah, it changes things. gives different possibilities. And it has ridiculously good RS for a FF35 camera.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
FWIW, in general, Gerald Undone is one of the smarter YouTubers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that whole camera world thing. Flickr and DP review are full of people that just like buying and upgrading cameras and gear. One shouldn't judge these guys based on their contributions to cinema or advancing the art of image capture. They do their jobs well. And there are definitely a lot of new shooters that can jump in with these videos to get a sense of their options. But the videos are sort of chase their own tale. Every new one that comes out is the one. watch one of their videos for 15min and come out with some serious fomo. I feel like you watch one of his videos is enough. Same stuff different camera. Same confident delivery. Same urgency.

DVX definitely is full of camera lovers, and it isn't just film makers, online content creators, and broadcast professionals any more. There is definitely an element of people just enjoying the next camera release. But idk, wake me up when it is no longer a 2D art form.
 
I like Gerald's videos.

And it looks like we may be upgrading our ancient C500 at work with this one, so that is good.
 
Thanks for posting, Chris. I also found it useful. i had an order in for the 500 but just in time the 300 came along. Now i'm really torn. It's a good choice to have but a difficult one to make. I'll have to wait till I can get hands on the 300 and compare it with the 500 footage I made. Also just want to say I find all your posts informative, well written and really useful. Thanks for the time and trouble you take.
 
Thanks there. Spread the info around I say.

Of the the YT ' influencers' I find Gerald to be by far one of the most technically astute YT'ers. He if pretty thorough with most of his technical assessments and I've not really found him to be too far of the mark with his scopes analysis of signal levels, noise etc, etc. His comments on the RAW noise and sensor patterning were the first I have heard anyone mention this with the 500 for example. He doesn't just talk about it he shows you. This I like. He also doesn't seem to be too biased towards any brand. Finally I honestly don't think Canon Canada would be giving him a 500 II to go over and YT on unless they felt he was reasonably technically proficient.

Yes you have a hard decision to make there. 500 II or 300 III. For me If I were in a functioning market and after a new camera the 300 III would probably be my pick as Canon do have S35 Cine Primes and zooms available in both EF and PL. True FF Cine lenses are fewer and further apart and I would rather work with true S35 cine glass them than live with FF still lenses that tend to breath a fair bit and that have very little in the way of parfocal zooms. I really do have to have parfocal zooms for a fair bit of my work. Asides from anything else If I need the much overworked shallow DOF look I can get that quite easily with fast glass on S35. For me most of my requirements would be well and truly covered with the S35 camera. I do shoot FF with mirrorless as well but for all the lightness and maneuverability it offers me the biggest thing is still the issue of it being harder to keep in critical focus as you move around so you tend to stop down more. Kinda works out much the same as a S35 that's a bit more open. Maybe just me. My background started in film at the Beeb and then on to video where in zoomland everything was basically constant aperture and parfocal. Been spoiled I guess some might say. As regards low light unless it's a Prime Minister or celeb lying in the gutter in the dark the FF's extra sensitivity is no bigge for me whatsoever. Most modern S35 cams are plenty capable of delivering decent results in pretty low light even with a bit of gain up as they aren't too noisy, especially with fast glass. All the same you have a hard decision to make. I would definitely give the 300 III a good work out comparison with the 500 II. Good luck squire. Be interested to hear how you go!

Chris Young
 
cyvideo said:
Yes you have a hard decision to make there. 500 II or 300 III. For me If I were in a functioning market and after a new camera the 300 III would probably be my pick as Canon do have S35 Cine Primes and zooms available in both EF and PL. True FF Cine lenses are fewer and further apart and I would rather work with true S35 cine glass them than live with FF stilil lenses that tend to breath a fair bit and that have very little in the way of parfocal zooms. I really do have to have parfocal zooms for a fair bit of my work. Asides from anything else If I need the much overworked shallow DOF look I can get that quite easily with fast foodglass on S35. For me most of my requirements would be well and truly covered with the S35 camera.
Chris Young
Click to expand...

This is a good point. There is so much great S35 glass out there. For me the C300 III seems like the best choice by far. Especially with the R5 right around the corner which would then give you a small, fullframe B camera in your kit. Feels like the perfect combo. The R5 will have that EF internal ND adapter and a bunch of great video features considering Canon’s new direction with video features on their mirrorless cameras. I‘m willing to bet that the R5 gives you an image that is pretty darn close to the C500 II. Essentially for the price of a single C500 II, you can buy a C300 III (with higher frame rates in all recording modes, Long GOP, DGO, etc), all the cards and batteries you need, AND a second camera that shoots full frame and can ride on small gimbals. It really feels like a fantastic combo to me. Also a great way to make a slow transition to RF over time.
 
owlbot said:
I interviewed Tim Smith of Canon and he basically told me to shoot as bright as possible without clipping for the best result (should say, best result for post to work with) but by that design they absolutely clip like a right angle. Just seems to be their thing.
Click to expand...

I was talking to a friend about doing some camera tests, and he mentioned how much he liked the one you did with the C500ii.
 
owlbot said:
.... but by that design they absolutely clip like a right angle. Just seems to be their thing.
Click to expand...

I think that for the most part, all cameras "clip hard"....or really...clipping is clipping, everything else "isn't clipping". When I look at Arri exposure ramps, they are simply compressing the highlight stops more, requiring more exposure, which improves their shadow detail and rolls off the highlight smoothly. Canon's WideDR LUT largely does the same thing (compresses the highlight stops), and by increasing exposure (Per Tim, or...anyone who's ever used a canon cine camera :-) you're doing what ARRI forces in its encoding.

Thanks for getting Mr. Smith on camera, I miss his annual NAB blitz of the blogosphere.
 
cyvideo said:
Yes you have a hard decision to make there. 500 II or 300 III. For me If I were in a functioning market and after a new camera the 300 III would probably be my pick as Canon do have S35 Cine Primes and zooms available in both EF and PL. True FF Cine lenses are fewer and further apart and I would rather work with true S35 cine glass them than live with FF still lenses that tend to breath a fair bit and that have very little in the way of parfocal zooms.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this line of thinking, and I don’t really understand it. If you want use S35mm lenses for a 4k image, you can do that on both the C500ii and the C300iii. You lose nothing by not using all of the sensor all of the time.

Deciding between those cameras should really come down to the different features each has (FF on the C500ii, and 4k 120fps and DGO on the C300iii).
 
Barry G said:
I think that for the most part, all cameras "clip hard"....or really...clipping is clipping, everything else "isn't clipping".
Click to expand...
That is a little misleading. True, but a little misleading.
 
Grug said:
I keep hearing this line of thinking, and I don’t really understand it. If you want use S35mm lenses for a 4k image, you can do that on both the C500ii and the C300iii. You lose nothing by not using all of the sensor all of the time.
Click to expand...

Can you shoot in S35 cropped mode in Raw on the C500 II? I thought the 4K mode on the C500 II was a scaled mode, and therefore uses the full sensor.
 
The 4096 x 2160 mode is cropped and S35mm lenses will cover it (and the 2K mode).

But not the 5.9K mode. Need FF lenses. (Although I bet some longer telephoto S35 lenses would cover most of it with some light vignetting.)
 
cyvideo said:
Yes you have a hard decision to make there. 500 II or 300 III. For me If I were in a functioning market and after a new camera the 300 III would probably be my pick as Canon do have S35 Cine Primes and zooms available in both EF and PL. True FF Cine lenses are fewer and further apart and I would rather work with true S35 cine glass them than live with FF still lenses that tend to breath a fair bit and that have very little in the way of parfocal zooms.
Click to expand...

Canon Cine Primes and their new Sumire are FF. Sigma Cine are FF, lots of good cine glass is now FF.
 
James0b57 said:
That is a little misleading. True, but a little misleading.
Click to expand...

Dive back into CML's camera tests and pay attention to what happens when a camera clips. They all pretty much do the same thing (most clip one or more colors sooner than the others, including Arri), and frankly, Canon isn't anywhere close to being the worst even of the big boys. Roll off by definition indicates a certain compression of the highlight tones, and this can be accomplished in encoding, as Arri and some others do, or in post as Canon, and many others do. Don't let the camera clip and then use a wideDR type LUT to compress the highlights, and you have a "soft" clip as a result. Clip the camera and then try to expand (darken) the highlights, and you will have a hard clip as a result. (this has been a hallmark of Cine type gammas since before we started calling these boxes "cinema" cameras.) Where Arri gets it right is with its dual gain read, as it allows for a much better looking shadow, while holding bright highlights, than Canon and most others. The new C300II seems to move Canon in Arri's direction with its cleaner shadows, and frankly the C500 II with its larger sensor, and either post NR, or a low level of spatial and temporal NR in camera, is pretty successful at arriving at the same result. (I need to get back to my in-camera NR test I started awhile ago...there were definitely some interesting results).

One thing I was a little surprised about in Undone's video involved his reading of ISO changes in-camera versus post in RAW. (and that the in-camera produced a better result). While it makes sense as we know canon has an analogue gain scheme that results in lower noise for higher ISO's...some incidental testing here led me to think that the Raw Converter was doing something to match what the camera does. (my test though was related to shooting at a Higher ISO and then lowering the ISO in CRD -- which has the neat effect of improving the DPAF function in low key, lower light scenes. I found the noise to be identical between a 12,800 pulled down to 1600 vs 1600 straight from the camera, and the AF worked remarkably better at the higher ISO.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top