C500: C500 Mark II: Observations from a C200 point of view

chris f

chris f

Veteran
Spinning off from Bary G's thread (which has been super helpful!) I thought I'd start a new thread looking at the C500MKII specifically from a C200 owner's point of view. While the camera is the camera, I'm noticing that most people upgrading are either coming from a C300MKII or a C200 and each camp is coming from a different feature set and are bringing different expectations to the C500MKII.

While I certainly tested out all of the raw options, I was most interested in the 4K XF-AVC from the camera as I anticipate that would be what I would shoot in 90% of the time.

I rented the C500mkII for a couple days for an ongoing documentary shoot (from which my C200 got fired off of because lack of timecode sync with the A-Cam and the raw files caused too many headaches for their editors). This gave me 1 day to run some tests and then 2 days using it in the real world.

As everyone on here is well aware I've been on the fence about buying the C500MKII for several months now, so this was my chance to answer the key questions I had:

-How does the C500's XF-AVC compare to the C200's raw?
-Do I actually like shooting full frame?
-Does the new image stabilization work well?
-With the increased size and weight, can I continue to use my current accessories & my EasyRig Mini Max?
-How good is the 120fps (aka can I actually use it)?
-Would buying the C500MKII make sense from a cost/profit standpoint?

As I analyze the footage from my tests and the 2-day doc shoot I'll share my findings on here and on my YouTube channel. My first video goes over the key differences for me between the C200 and the C500MKII:


In my next video I'll post side by side comparison footage to show sharpness, latitude, and grain differences between the two cameras. After that will be a video on image stabilization comparisons. Then hopefully a video on the money side of things. And then my final thoughts and any other tests or observations I have.

Video #2:

Video #3 - Image Stabilization Tests


Video #4 - Is It Financially Worth It?
 
Last edited:
chris f said:
Spinning off from Bary G's thread (which has been super helpful!) I thought I'd start a new thread looking at the C500MKII specifically from a C200 owner's point of view. While the camera is the camera, I'm noticing that most people upgrading are either coming from a C300MKII or a C200 and each camp is coming from a different feature set and are bringing different expectations to the C500MKII.

While I certainly tested out all of the raw options, I was most interested in the 4K XF-AVC from the camera as I anticipate that would be what I would shoot in 90% of the time.

I rented the C500mkII for a couple days for an ongoing documentary shoot (from which my C200 got fired off of because lack of timecode sync with the A-Cam and the raw files caused too many headaches for their editors). This gave me 1 day to run some tests and then 2 days using it in the real world.

As everyone on here is well aware I've been on the fence about buying the C500MKII for several months now, so this was my chance to answer the key questions I had:

-How does the C500's XF-AVC compare to the C200's raw?
-Do I actually like shooting full frame?
-Does the new image stabilization work well?
-With the increased size and weight, can I continue to use my current accessories & my EasyRig Mini Max?
-How good is the 120fps (aka can I actually use it)?
-Would buying the C500MKII make sense from a cost/profit standpoint?

As I analyze the footage from my tests and the 2-day doc shoot I'll share my findings on here and on my YouTube channel. My first video goes over the key differences for me between the C200 and the C500MKII:


In my next video I'll post side by side comparison footage to show sharpness, latitude, and grain differences between the two cameras. After that will be a video on image stabilization comparisons. Then hopefully a video on the money side of things. And then my final thoughts and any other tests or observations I have.
Click to expand...

I stumbled across this a day or two ago. Didn’t realize it was you. Nice rundown of the differences. Will be curious to see if you buy the camera, or at least feel as if it’s a big enough upgrade.
 
Thanks for taking the time to do this! For events I still think the C200 is just as useful, and consider the S1H for stabilized/low light footage. Looking forward to your next videos!
 
I'm working on some IQ comparisons, but this one is stumping me. Is my math off on this? Shouldn't f/5.6 on full frame give the same exposure as f/3.5 on super 35mm? I really can't figure out why there's such a big change in exposure here (unless my eyes were oblivious to a major lighting change over the course of a few minutes which I'm just having a hard time believing is what happened, especially since I was keying from a 300DMKII from just outside the window)

exposure_off.jpg
 
NorBro said:
Maybe more dynamic range for the C500?
Click to expand...

That might be part of it, but I think something's still off somewhere else. When I put the C200 Raw and C500 raw version of the same clips above, in Premiere I'm having to bump the exposure adjustment by .7 on the C500 clip to match the C200 clip. Maybe since the C200 in raw mode is a 1.5 crop and a little bigger than super 35 the equivalent of f/3.5 on the C200 should have been closer to a f/5-5.6 split on the C500 in full frame?
 
Are you just doing 5.6/1.5?

With iris increment set to 1/3 stop, then turning the wheel on the hand grip, going from 3.5 to 4.0 takes 3 "steps" when turning the wheel. You can see micro adjustments being made to the brightness. Maybe you had it on the first f/3.5 and even turning two more times before hitting f/4.0 would've been the difference?
 
chris f said:
That might be part of it, but I think something's still off somewhere else. When I put the C200 Raw and C500 raw version of the same clips above, in Premiere I'm having to bump the exposure adjustment by .7 on the C500 clip to match the C200 clip. Maybe since the C200 in raw mode is a 1.5 crop and a little bigger than super 35 the equivalent of f/3.5 on the C200 should have been closer to a f/5-5.6 split on the C500 in full frame?
Click to expand...

It seems like there is something else going on because that is a major difference there in the window. Maybe you did just miss the light change...our eyes adapt so well.

I wouldn't think a few stops on the lens would have that much of an impact. That C200 frame is extremely blown out. Usually I would think you'd be able to see a bit more detail. I know you can see some on the edges, but that is just a pure block of white mostly everywhere else.
 
chris f said:
Shouldn't f/5.6 on full frame give the same exposure as f/3.5 on super 35mm?
Click to expand...
Similar depth of field, but exposure I'd imagine would be 1.5 stops brighter at f/3.5. With full frame you should gain better ISO performance, but that doesn't mean that your exposure would be different at the same ISO, f-stop, and shutter speed. As far as I know.
 
Last edited:
Here's the math to match FF to Super35 (~1.5 crop)

* Multiply the focal length of the lens by the crop factor
* Multiply the aperture by the crop factor
* Multiply the ISO by the crop factor squared

Super35: 50mm, F3.5, ISO 800
FF: 50*1.5 = 75mm, F3.5*1.5 = F5.25, ISO 800*1.5*1.5 = 1800. 85mm, F5.6, and ISO 1600 would be close.

Perhaps try again:

Super35: 50mm, F2.8, ISO 400
FF: 85mm prime (or use a zoom at 75mm), 2.8*1.5 ~= F4, ISO 400*1.5*1.5 = 900, try 800 or 1000 to match the Super35 setup.
 
Even though the C200 footage is clearly over exposed in your example, it does make me wonder about the C500 II's dynamic range vs the C200. I know a full frame sensor is more light sensitive and therefore should do better in lowlight. But aren't both the C200 and the C500 II cut from the same sensor (the C700's)? So wouldn't their dynamic range be the exact same?

And sorry, don't mean to hijack your discussion. Just seeing those two clips side by side makes me wonder if the C500 II will have the exact same dynamic range rating as the C200.
 
chris f said:
I'm working on some IQ comparisons, but this one is stumping me. Is my math off on this? Shouldn't f/5.6 on full frame give the same exposure as f/3.5 on super 35mm? I really can't figure out why there's such a big change in exposure here (unless my eyes were oblivious to a major lighting change over the course of a few minutes which I'm just having a hard time believing is what happened, especially since I was keying from a 300DMKII from just outside the window)
Click to expand...

That's not how exposure works. f/3.5 is 1+1/3 stops brighter than f/5.6 - that's why your exposure is different.

Around f/4-f/3.5 would approximately match your Depth of Field between the two formats. But you have to factor in exposure as well.
 
If you don't care about matching DOF and FOV, set the C200 to F5.6 in this example (same as the FF set up: focal length and crop factor won't affect exposure. Prove it to yourself with a zoom lens with constant F-stop (ideally T-stop) as well as enabling, disabling the C500's II S35 and S16 crop settings).
 
robotfist said:
Even though the C200 footage is clearly over exposed in your example, it does make me wonder about the C500 II's dynamic range vs the C200. I know a full frame sensor is more light sensitive and therefore should do better in lowlight. But aren't both the C200 and the C500 II cut from the same sensor (the C700's)? So wouldn't their dynamic range be the exact same?

And sorry, don't mean to hijack your discussion. Just seeing those two clips side by side makes me wonder if the C500 II will have the exact same dynamic range rating as the C200.
Click to expand...
Full frame means larger pixels which are later shrunk down to fit the same size screen that say a Super35 camera would be going out to, so the image noise gets shrunk down as well, which means a cleaner image. As far as dynamic range, having a cleaner image in the blacks means more usable dynamic range in the blacks, and therefore more dynamic range overall.
 
The size of the sensor won't change the exposure, just field of view and thusly depth of field. There's no sensor size option on a light meter.
 
Chris and JCS: I think your math on ISO increase is either coming from remembrance of the inverse square principle or from working with "speed booster" adapters where we almost literally squeeze the image circle down and thereby increase its intensity. But that's not what's happening here, we're merely sampling a larger area of the image circle--the ISO doesn't change.

Imagine a hypothetical lens with a 10" large image circle. You put up an 8x10 sensor (of a fixed ISO, let's say) to capture it and you get X for an appropriate exposure. Now tear that sensor in half twice, and it's still the same exposure (X), but you're only sampling 1/4 of the first image. Now tear it to a full-frame size, s-35, and s-16 and you would continually get a smaller and smaller portion of that original angle of view (fewer degrees, rendering the same lens more telephoto) but still the same exposure.

In other words the over-exposed image looks over exposed because it's over-exposed. Crop-factor math only matters with respect to trying to maintain the same DOF in the smaller sensor (on the "wider" lens) by opening to a wider aperture--in which case you would need that much less ISO in order to keep exposure "X" the same. X stays the same
 
Last edited:
djangosan said:
In other words the over-exposed image looks over exposed because it's over-exposed.
Click to expand...

LOL! That's the best explanation I've seen in 11 years.

That's how it used to be explained back in the day...now it's about charts and numbers...and math.
 
Yeah exposure should be the same regardless of the sensor size.... f/5.6 on super 35 will look the same in terms of luminance as on full frame.
 
djangosan said:
Chris and JCS: I think your math on ISO increase is either coming from remembrance of the inverse square principle or from working with "speed booster" adapters where we almost literally squeeze the image circle down and thereby increase its intensity. But that's not what's happening here, we're merely sampling a larger area of the image circle--the ISO doesn't change.

Imagine a hypothetical lens with a 10" large image circle. You put up an 8x10 sensor (of a fixed ISO, let's say) to capture it and you get X for an appropriate exposure. Now tear that sensor in half twice, and it's still the same exposure (X), but you're only sampling 1/4 of the first image. Now tear it to a full-frame size, s-35, and s-16 and you would continually get a smaller and smaller portion of that original angle of view (fewer degrees, rendering the same lens more telephoto) but still the same exposure.

In other words the over-exposed image looks over exposed because it's over-exposed. Crop-factor math only matters with respect to trying to maintain the same DOF in the smaller sensor (on the "wider" lens) by opening to a wider aperture--in which case you would need that much less ISO in order to keep exposure "X" the same. X stays the same
Click to expand...

That's a great explanation. For evaluation purposes if trying to match DOF between sensors and analyzing dynamic range, is it better to just leave ISO alone and adjust shutter speed?

This is cool, I haven't learnt anything on dvxuser in a while!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top