ahalpert
Major Contributor
the truth comes out
C500 Mark II gets new RAW compression ratios
- Thread starter DustinSchmidt
- Start date
the truth comes out
cpreston
Veteran
To be clear, the R5c kitted out to work like a production camera does not actually cost appreciably less than a C500 MKII and nobody else is going to be able to work there way around my button layout. But as long as it is just me handling the camera and a producer isn't questioning why I don't have a full size camera, it isn't too bad.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Fair enough. It's not the price that interests me about mirrorless cameras as much as size, features, form factor. I suppose cost becomes relevant when I'm working with 3 or 4 cameras. But the interesting thing to me is that you didn't complain about the imaging capabilities of the camera.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Image quality has been there for years. Usability is Imo the lack from smaller cams.
DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
This is an especially prescient comment at the moment. When I bought my R5C it was pretty much right when it was released and it cost $4572 with tax. Now you can get them for much cheaper of course, but it was a pretty high price at the time.
But the REALLY interesting part is that I just picked up a used C500 II during the Borrowlenses sale for $5082. It was a deal too good to pass up and I was in the market for a full size cinema camera, so I'm kind of going the opposite direction in terms of not wanting to over rig a mirrorless and wanting all of the I/O and better button layout of the C500 II.
I think a C500 II purchased brand new for $11k is a big miss right now. But at $5k I think its a steal.
I say all of this not to hype up purchasing more stuff, but mostly because I'm amazed that Canon's flagship cinema camera can be had so cheaply at the moment. If they come out with an RF version I'm not sure I'd even go that route right now, since it would probably go for $15-$20k and offer some features that wouldn't even make a tremendous difference in my daily work.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Wow, bold move, I really like it.
It reminds me of my younger self when I would absolutely hawk or talk my way into every deal I could.
Now I still think the II is incredibly risky right now but at $5K it's just too good to pass up.
The pain letting it go might be worse than losing a couple thousand.
It reminds me of my younger self when I would absolutely hawk or talk my way into every deal I could.
Now I still think the II is incredibly risky right now but at $5K it's just too good to pass up.
The pain letting it go might be worse than losing a couple thousand.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
more or less. I mean, I have quibbles with the IQ of mirrorless cameras, at least the ones I own. It's not that it's bad. But there are certain issues you probably wouldn't get with a dedicated video camera. I saw a teardown that proved that the A7SIII has a quad bayer array (a 4x resolution sensor) and, as such, it's getting about an extra stop of read noise. Which may be why they won't let you turn off the noise reduction. Nevertheless, footage looks nice.
I think that because I'm not really a generalist I don't worry about usability/versatility as much. There are a few types of shooting I do a lot for a few clients where I don't need SDI and certain things. And for the other types of shoots I do, I'm usually a producer and can make executive decisions about such things. I also happen to think that people don't need quite as many accessories as they think they do. But it's not for me to say.
I power my mirrorless cameras off internal batteries. I own v-mounts, I could use those. But it's not that difficult to change their batteries every now and then. And I get a leaner rig as a result that can go in corners and stack up against each other without the need to reconfigure everything. Easier to manage on a gimbal, etc.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Its good you see the varience of approaches.
if run everything from V -,its a nightmare to get at onboard batts if the cam is in a car rig or over table food shot. You cant do it without moving the camera which can “break” a set of shots and cause hassle in post.
Client director or make up usually im with people who feel lost and excluded if they don't have vision
if run everything from V -,its a nightmare to get at onboard batts if the cam is in a car rig or over table food shot. You cant do it without moving the camera which can “break” a set of shots and cause hassle in post.
Client director or make up usually im with people who feel lost and excluded if they don't have vision
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Did a 2-camera tabletop shoot today (ancient Greek vases) with a7siii and fx3. A cam had accsoon nano cineview from hdmi going to Samsung tablet on a stand. For B cam I just used the in-camera wifi control going to Monitor+ app on a burner phone on a stand. Producer sees all, with LUT preview. Not the best monitor quality of all time but totally viable. Producer can pinch and zoom on accsoon app to preview potential croppings. And the accsoon nano can transmit to up to 5 devices simultaneously, if memory serves me. And I can have people monitor from my gimbal easily and without straining my little gimbal's balance with a larger transmitter. Tablet has a case with handheld grip if they'd rather carry it around.
The nano was cheap. Lately I'm thinking that my penchant for keeping costs down will let me survive the AIpocalypse. I'm a child of the great recession. I've always been waiting for the other shoe to drop.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
So i might be behind the times - for example i dont know what an acoon nano is.
Or maybe there is a difference from filming ancient vases to filming “action” in a forest
Generally hdmi “out the side” does me in
im pretty happy with hdmi on my zcam c200 and fs7
Or maybe there is a difference from filming ancient vases to filming “action” in a forest
Generally hdmi “out the side” does me in
im pretty happy with hdmi on my zcam c200 and fs7
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Generally, HDMI out the side is bad. In this case, I just use a 90-degree HDMI cable and redirect it to the Transmitter in camera's hot shoe. There's no snag potential on the side and I lose about 1/2" of clearance. I've used it on a dozen or so shoots so far and had no trouble with the cable or rigging yet.
Filming in a forest -- the nano probably has much less range than other offerings. I'm not going to look it up, but my guess is that it's rated for the distance you require but might not deliver it consistently. My producer is usually within 20' of camera or at worst in the adjacent room.
It's $130 and 2.6oz without NP-F battery - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...qERcIuZsjn4mLgfUSruXf0_N0GyHsn-YaAvQdEALw_wcB
cpreston
Veteran
It was actually the 24-105 f/2.8 lens that made me drop the C500 MKII as my main camera. I am stuck using zoom lenses to keep maintain pace, but I had gotten so tired of using the Canon L Zooms for work that I was looking at purchasing the Canon Flex zooms or an Angenieux. The RF 24-105 f/2.8 was the dream lens I had been waiting for and saved me a bunch of money because I was no longer looking at purchasing a set of much more expensive cinema lenses. As a camera, the C500 MKII has everything I need, but the advances allowed by the RF mount and these new zoom lenses that Canon has created are what made me decide to switch now rathe than waiting for an updated cinema camera.
As for the ports issue and monitoring issue, I bought a couple of SmallHD 702 Touches and Teradek monitor TX modules that stay attached to the rig and I just run everything wirelessly. It has solved most of my connection and monitoring issues that comes with only having an HDMI port.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
That would handle Sam's forest monitoring issue I should think -- a more powerful Transmitter. Does that mean that your operator monitor is taking wireless transmission as well? And the latency is low enough?
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
When hdmi is plugged in to mirrorless canon cameras you lose the rear screen and therfore “poke the screen af”
a critical flaw surely?
a critical flaw surely?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
dunno about others, but this is not true on Sony. I can even have my wifi smartphone control going at the same time. so, hdmi out to wireless transmitter + wifi to my smartphone where I poke the screen AF + rear screen still functional. at the moment, when I go into playback I do lose the rear screen and only see it on the HDMI wireless transmission. I don't know if there's a setting I am missing or if the option is there if I get the latest firmware. If this really bothered me, I could run loop-through HDMI to an on-camera monitor. But I either look at playback on client monitor or temporarily pull the HDMI out. the important thing is that everything works while shooting.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
This would seems to be a a big advantage to somy that no one mentions.
i have my r6 and enjoy solo work with it but using it on set (when i have c200 amd fs7) doesnt even cross my mind… even thought the fosus might be most sticky.
i have used it on a triple interview. R5 (borrowed) c200 and xlr mics and r6
the r5 operator cut a lot (to save heat cutout) which increased my post production time (synching) and cost the client as i bill by the hour for corporate edits
the c200 and xlr felt so solid for the big shot (in crappo codec)
i have my r6 and enjoy solo work with it but using it on set (when i have c200 amd fs7) doesnt even cross my mind… even thought the fosus might be most sticky.
i have used it on a triple interview. R5 (borrowed) c200 and xlr mics and r6
the r5 operator cut a lot (to save heat cutout) which increased my post production time (synching) and cost the client as i bill by the hour for corporate edits
the c200 and xlr felt so solid for the big shot (in crappo codec)
Last edited:
An issue with the a7Siii is that if you send info out via HDMI;
- the camera’s LCD turns off so you can’t use touch AF
- the image sent out via HDMI is a little window surrounded by crap so not much use anyway
You can send out a clean signal but that’s only really useful if you’re focusing manually and using the external monitor’s tools.
Not sure if this is fixed on the FX3.
- the camera’s LCD turns off so you can’t use touch AF
- the image sent out via HDMI is a little window surrounded by crap so not much use anyway
You can send out a clean signal but that’s only really useful if you’re focusing manually and using the external monitor’s tools.
Not sure if this is fixed on the FX3.
cpreston
Veteran
The R5c has both monitor and HDMI out at the same time. The lag on the R5c HDMI is fairly low and the Teradek's don't add any lag so it isn't a problem. The menu system on the R5c is exactly like the C200 or other cinema cameras so you can control the HDMI out resolution and OSD's. One of the nice upgrades to the R5c vs the C500 MKII is the addition of the "whole area" autofocus which is a much more intuitive method of using AF for gathering b-roll and run and gun. Also, the R5c has far more options for recording to the secondary SD card slot. You can record proxy or double slot, but they also allow you to create a sub recording that has conversions from 4K to 1080p, XF-AVC to MP4, Intra to longgop, 10bit 422 to 8bit 420. Hopefully, all of that will be added to the C500 III.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Hmm not sure about this. I can't remember the last time I shot without using the Monitor+ app on a wifi-connected smartphone. I get settings display and touch focus there so I only use HDMI for producer monitor. You can also check settings on the camera display itself. You can possibly also get monitors from...can't remember the name of that popular monitor company, but their monitors can supposedly do touch focus on Sony now.
you can also run Monitor+ from a wired USB-C connection and get all that touch focus and camera settings display to a phone or tablet if you don't want to go wirelessly
Fx3, i think they switched over to fx6 menu system... i havent updated that firmware in a while because they stripped out slog2 and i dont want to lose it, so I'm not sure...
I will say, regarding overheating which Sam brought up, really a non-concern on both a7siii and fx3