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

[NorBro]

I don't think there is anything more valuable than actually knowing what you like, or don't like—especially in today's world of opinions. Be it cinematography or wine tasting.

For the record, we might want to underline that there is nothing inherent to Full Frame per se. You could create this looks with S35 too. But it might be that FF makes things a bit more effortless, depending on what you're looking for and real world constraints.

You can only start to recreate it on the end of the wider lenses. (It's much easier mid to telephoto.)

No 14mm f/1.4 or 16mm f/2.8 full-frame look available on S35, but stopping down the lens or using an E-mount camera with a SpeedBooster could bring you closer to it if that's what you're going for.

___

To me this is where full frame really shines - shallow close to subject wides where you can still feel the background but there's that extra layer of separation that makes you feel closer to the subject, just beautiful:

That is what many see as the "full-frame look" because of the wider shallow DOF. It's indeed awesome.

 

[Barry G]

---Nice skin tones but the Promist makes the lens look dirty to me, I was over ProMists back in the 90s. Halated highlights just look dated and cheesy to me.
-----Here's where I start to lose interest in FF. Unnecessarily super shallow dof that distracts from the subject because only part of the face is in focus.....And this is where I really hate FF. Where the subject looks like they're on their own layer or green screened.
---I don't think there is anything more valuable than actually knowing what you like, or don't like

Count me among the folks that don't know what they don't like. To me, the use of low DOF, or lens diffusion, or anamorphic, or teal/orange, or low-con, or high key, or...or...or....they are just techniques, and a smart DP in combination with a director, finds a way to use them to help tell the story better, or influence the viewer. What does bug me is when Low DOF is used because it allows compositional or scouting laziness. What bugs me about ProMists, is when they are flaring the lights...just to flare the lights (the clip referenced here has a few examples of that, and plenty of clips where, on their own, the filtration doesn't call attention to itself. I would have used the 1/4 on scenes with out visible practicals and then switched to 1/8 or none for the hallway shots, or if I wanted the flares for some reason in telling the story, then maybe push it to a 1/2 for the studio shots as the looks don't currently match...that's if this wasn't a camera test, but a real project). Loved how PT Anderson used anamorphic flares (real and "created") in Punch Drunk Love as a creative tool. Dislike them in every "my car goes faster than yours" film of the last 20 years. (...and really hate them in almost every 20 year old indie filmmaker's youtube video.) I don't hate the technique, I just hate it when it's not being used to tell the story better.

Currently watching HBO's The Outsider, and they are doing a lot with ultra low DOF, but have also made a very strong compositional statement in nearly every shot. I think the way they are using low DOF enhances the mystery aspect of the show. Shot a project last year with a strong memory component, and we were looking at the work of Jean-Marc Vallée and Yves Bélanger in Sharp Objects. We went with a 1/4 black ProMist...same as the above test...and in our film it looks very natural and gives the frame a nice texture. I don't think anyone would notice that we'd used it though...at least that was the plan.

 

[Liam Hall]

Currently watching HBO's The Outsider, and they are doing a lot with ultra low DOF, but have also made a very strong compositional statement in nearly every shot. I think the way they are using low DOF enhances the mystery aspect of the show. Shot a project last year with a strong memory component, and we were looking at the work of Jean-Marc Vallée and Yves Bélanger in Sharp Objects. We went with a 1/4 black ProMist...same as the above test...and in our film it looks very natural and gives the frame a nice texture. I don't think anyone would notice that we'd used it though...at least that was the plan.

The cinematography in The Outsider is outstanding.

 

[AndreeOnline]

You can only start to recreate it on the end of the wider lenses.

There are a number of reasons why I think FF is preferable to S35. I'm simply pointing out, considering the big overlap between formats, that FF isn't a look of its own. But you are right that as lenses get wider and more open, at some point smaller formats won't be able to keep up.

Looking at my P6K and the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 (a common and popular lens for the Pockets), I can start matching at roughly 28mm f2.8 and up and/or more stopped down. Anything wider and faster will need another lens.

I haven't searched for the widest and fastest lens that covers the P6K's 23.10mm sensor—I'll leave that as an exercise for someone interested.

 

[Barry G]

For me, FF simply comes down to me being originally a still photographer and being more used to (and owning) the lenses. I think with the C500II its also about a camera that has a noticeably better noise profile due primarily to the increased sensor real estate. Essentially as we've moved to FF, the sensors are just growing with the same similar pixel pitch (for now)...that means a frame with more resolution. Again the still photographer in me likes that, even if no-one ever clicks 5k on my youtube or if you can't see that resolution as soon as the camera or subject starts moving.

 

[chris f]

Here's my latest C500MKII video. This time I dove deep into my own financials to help me decide if upgrading is actually worth it:

 

[Clermond]

Here's my latest C500MKII video. This time I dove deep into my own financials to help me decide if upgrading is actually worth

Thanks for this, Chris.
can you imagine shooting another 3yrs with these two C200 without thinking all the time "how nice a full frame image would look" ? Don't your clients ask if you haven't already upgraded to the new full frame camera your competitor last time shot with? I don't know how your local rental rates are but two C200 will cost here at least 400€ with very little accessories. I know GAS is very dangerous but not being up to date as well.

Actually everything is almost shut down here because no one wants to go any health risks.
I will wait until we come out this crisis anyway before making any decisions.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for this, Chris.
can you imagine shooting another 3yrs with these two C200 without thinking all the time "how nice a full frame image would look" ? Don't your clients ask if you haven't already upgraded to the new full frame camera your competitor last time shot with? I don't know how your local rental rates are but two C200 will cost here at least 400€ with very little accessories. I know GAS is very dangerous but not being up to date as well.

Actually everything is almost shut down here because no one wants to go any health risks.
I will wait until we come out this crisis anyway before making any decisions.

Being up to date is highly over rated.

 

[Clermond]

Being up to date is highly over rated.

I thought having full hair was overrated? No? :laugh:

 

[Guest]

For me, FF simply comes down to me being originally a still photographer and being more used to (and owning) the lenses. I think with the C500II its also about a camera that has a noticeably better noise profile due primarily to the increased sensor real estate. Essentially as we've moved to FF, the sensors are just growing with the same similar pixel pitch (for now)...that means a frame with more resolution. Again the still photographer in me likes that, even if no-one ever clicks 5k on my youtube or if you can't see that resolution as soon as the camera or subject starts moving.

See, i can relate to sensor size as a deciding factor. Not sure why, but APS-H resonates with me. Even before i knew it existed, i struggled with 35mm and 50mm focal lengths. Then when i went APS-H, everything clicked. Plus, i get to use the best part of FF35 glass.

 

[Guest]

I thought having full hair was overrated? No? :laugh:

You’re weird. I love it

 

[chris f]

Thanks for this, Chris.
can you imagine shooting another 3yrs with these two C200 without thinking all the time "how nice a full frame image would look" ? Don't your clients ask if you haven't already upgraded to the new full frame camera your competitor last time shot with?

Not worried about it at all. End clients don't care what I shoot with. Only ad agencies and production companies (aka directors) care and for those jobs I use whatever camera they want. My two most recent jobs have been on the C300MKII and the BMPCC6K camera as mandated by the director. I missed out on those as potential rentals, but I price my labor rate high and my camera rate low so I don't feel a pinch when client wants to use a different cam.

 

[Barry G]

Not worried about it at all. End clients don't care what I shoot with. Only ad agencies and production companies (aka directors) care and for those jobs I use whatever camera they want. My two most recent jobs have been on the C300MKII and the BMPCC6K camera as mandated by the director. I missed out on those as potential rentals, but I price my labor rate high and my camera rate low so I don't feel a pinch when client wants to use a different cam.

I totally hear that. I’m in a market where camera choice isn’t something clients talk about except “I heard so and so has a RED (usually an old scarlet or epic). Other than that the Canon C’s look exotic here because most of the “kids” are running A7’s or 80d’s.

I will say though that for me, I never was able to take full control of the DR of my c300ii, typically rating it at 4-500 or bumping the exposure up a stop to control shadow noise. With the c500Ii that’s not an issue. Camera stays at 800 or 1600 when needed, and noise is simply not an issue.. ever.

Due to some of the chatter on the “streaking” thread, I’ve been working on a small project shooting “DPReview-Chivo” style. — exposing for highlights in situations where I normally wouldn’t. It’s left me even more impressed regarding the camera’s DR. It’s also given me some insights about the camera (that I’ll be sharing soon) and what it can handle, and to me it’s the primary difference other than lens choice compared to the s35 Canon’s.

That said, this additional DR isn’t something I normally need on a job. There is little economic benefit to having it. But it’s nice to know it’s there.

 

[puredrifting]

Being up to date is highly over rated.

Hear, hear! I heartily agree. The majority of clients don't even know that 8K, FF, RAW, Log even exist, much less are willing to pay extra for them.
The more I have shot with my C200 over the past few months, the more I realize that an FX9 or C500 MKII would be a terrible business move for me.
But that's me in my unique little niche in production. For others, having the state of the art is actually important in their work for their clients.

Everyone just needs to be objective and realistic and think like a business person and a video geek. If paying $25k for a new loaded C500 MKII package will make you
more money than your FS7, C300 MKII or C200, hell yeah, go for it. I just bet that there are far fewer in that position than those who are in most of
our positions where clients won't significantly pay a higher day rate for the more expensive, shiny new camera. Thank goodness we have rental houses,
any of us can rent any of the newest, highest spec gear when needed.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Thank goodness we have rental houses,
any of us can rent any of the newest, highest spec gear when needed.

If only we didn't have rental houses, how nice that would be for owner/ops to own the market. Thankfully some smaller cities don't have legit rental houses.

 

[chris f]

Hear, hear! I heartily agree. The majority of clients don't even know that 8K, FF, RAW, Log even exist, much less are willing to pay extra for them. .

I did a shoot a few months ago and in preproduction talking with the director about whether my C200 would work into their workflow I recommended that we shoot compressed UHD but he said he wanted to shoot raw so that’s what I did… By day three of the shoot the producer was frantically out shopping for more hard drives while we were shooting because they ran out of space and I found out the hard way that the director thought raw meant log (as in it looks flat/raw).

 

[Liam Hall]

I love my C500 MKII. Incredible image. I don't like the repayments quite so much, particularly now Coronavirus has shut down the industry.

 

[puredrifting]

Here's my latest C500MKII video. This time I dove deep into my own financials to help me decide if upgrading is actually worth it:

Wow, you and I think so much alike, it's uncanny. My only comment about your video is, you only charge $250.00 per day rental for a C200 package? Is that possibly because of the San Diego market versus LA market? That seems low to me, do you include tripod, batteries, monitor, media and most significantly lenses in that rate?
I charge significantly more, but you also may be charging more for your own day rate as DP too. I charge $400.00-$450.00 per day for C200 or 300 MKII camera package rental, but that is for entire package and the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 lens. I charge extra for EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II,
which is the typically desired "extra" lens or for a set of 3-4 primes, etc. or I sub rent cine lenses when wanted.

I've projected out similar numbers and for me, owning the C500 MKII, from a business perspective, doesn't make much sense. Same with the FX9. For others, it may though. The takeaway is, be like Chris and think like a business person. Don't buy a $16k
camera because you perceive it to be better, buy it because it will make you more money than what you are using now. That's how business people forecast expenditures with all of their equipment. Maybe it's because most of us are or consider ourselves to
be "artists", a lot of this kind of thought process seems to go out the window.

I bid a small shoot yesterday for a new client and for their needs, the X-T3 on the gimbal seems to make the most sense. I'd rather use the C200 or 300 MKII to make a better day rate rental but for this clients needs (walk and talk tour, always moving,
will be used B2B for potential buyers of their product), the X-T3 will be great and they will pay a much smaller day rate rental charge. Sure, our Canons would look a bit better, but with three shoots cancelling this past week due to the virus, I'm glad to
have this little gig, it beats sitting around doing no shooting.

 

[Guest]

If only we didn't have rental houses, how nice that would be for owner/ops to own the market. Thankfully some smaller cities don't have legit rental houses.

Rental houses are fantastic.


It is ironically the owner ops on sharegrid that are dropping the bottom on prices. Rental houses get rid of things that don’t make a profit.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

If you own all the gear you need then rental houses are just competition. I rent from rental houses perhaps once a year or less and try to avoid it whenever possible, because that's money not going into my pocket. Even if I upcharge unless I have an AC picking up the gear the up-charge is likely not enough to be worth the hassle of me picking it all up and dropping it off later. I rent from owner/ops a couple or few times a year, not including the many times I subcontract owner/ops to show up with their gear (particularly audio guys). Yeah, owner/ops on Sharegrid are dropping prices more than rental houses. They should endure Cersei's walk of shame.

Wow, you and I think so much alike, it's uncanny. My only comment about your video is, you only charge $250.00 per day rental for a C200 package? Is that possibly because of the San Diego market versus LA market? That seems low to me, do you include tripod, batteries, monitor, media and most significantly lenses in that rate?
I charge significantly more, but you also may be charging more for your own day rate as DP too. I charge $400.00-$450.00 per day for C200 or 300 MKII camera package rental, but that is for entire package and the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 lens. I charge extra for EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II,
which is the typically desired "extra" lens or for a set of 3-4 primes, etc. or I sub rent cine lenses when wanted.

I charge $600 rental rate for C300 Mark II w/tripod. I always package them together, but I suppose if I separated them it would be $500 for the C300. Lenses are separate. If I had a C200 I'd probably do $350-$400 for the body rental.