C500: C500 Mark II: Observations from a C300MkII point of view

[Barry G]

Barry:

Thank you for your tests and observations. I am working on a C500 MKII review but rather than just cover tech data, I am also writing about the value equation of the C500 MKII. As a C300 MKII owner/renter, did you buy the C500 MKII because you need features it has (6K, RAW, IS, etc.) that your C300 MKII didn't have?
In your pricing breakdown for your clients, will owning the C500 MKII allow you to increase your camera rental day rate? If so, by how much? The C500 MKII is obviously a very good camera, as was the C300 MKII and the C200, I'm just curious why various users are paying the price

I'm in maybe an unusual situation compared to others, in that I work in a small market, where access to rentals is limited/expensive, and work often directly with clients as a producer. I am a one-stop shop, providing creative direction, Graphic Design, still photography and video production. I have been in business for over 30 years, and have made a very decent living for myself. I tend to work for a very small group of clients, providing some or all of the above services. Within that group of clients, I have several that go back more than 25 years.

If I were a better businessman, I would probably put the equations I often hear mentioned on this forum to better use. Will camera A make me more money? Will Camera B increase my profit margin. Would renting be a more judicious approach? But for me it's always been a different set of questions. What camera can I afford? What camera has the features I need? What camera will make me happy? Those are the questions I deal with. I have to go out there and sell myself, and what camera I use, and in this market, that means I have to feel good about it. (the discussion about RED above is interesting, because a few of them have made their way into Lilliput, and I do get to explain why I'm not using one occasionally.)

As an owner of the C300 mark II since it's launch, did I need this new camera? Certainly not for my clients. Rarely do any of them need even 4k, and certainly wouldn't understand a post upcharge for RAW workflow, or any charge for "rental" of my camera. So why did I buy it?

It probably starts with the launch of the C700FF, which I actually considered buying a few years ago, as I was interested in a shoulder mounted FF camera. I commented right here on this forum though, that with that camera, Canon had lost its way. That slapping a hugely expensive recording system with even more expensive media on the back of it was a betrayal of what had made the original C300 such a success. That the only way to get the "best" image out of that camera brought it into the price range that made it a rental only camera was messing with what makes the canon's great: a huge feature set, priced for owner operators. That's their brand in this market segment, and the C700FF was a huge step away from that.

2 years later we have the introduction of the C500II. A camera with almost everything I was looking for 2 years ago, at a price in a range that I can afford. For 25k kitted out with extension units and a the EVF-V70, cards, media and batteries, I have a system with specs that are way above my needs. It has a lightweight RAW workflow that I can handle, and will let me do my best work. This is a camera that...I think...will make me happy. I'll be very comfortable in marketing it as the latest and greatest... and superior to whatever second-hand dragon, or scarlet that shows up at some job across town. (My clients aren't used to paying for focus pullers, and back up cameras if you get my drift).

If I had a dream camera right now, it would probably be the ALEXA Mini LF. Would that camera make any sense in my market, for my clients? None whatsoever. Could I run the thing without a crew? Probably not. Can I afford it? Not, and stay current with my still equipment, from which I earn the bulk of my income. While I read here on this forum that somehow Canon lacks the magic image quality of the ALEXA or a RED, every time I see someone who really knows how to set up both cameras shoot a side by side, I'm shocked by how similar these cameras look. I think the magic is in the lenses, and the DP for the most part. But that's me.

This camera seems to be a bargain, given it's feature set, and in that way, The C500 mark II may just be a poor man's ALEXA Mini LF. That sound's just about perfect to me.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I feel like the Alexa Classic or a used Amira are the poor man's Mini LF. The C500 Mark II is a corporate and doc camera. If all I did was movie work I wouldn't own Canon cameras.

 

[Barry G]

Neither of those Arri cameras are full frame, 4k capable et al. So they aren't "poor man's" ALEXA Mini LF's. (maybe they are poor men's Alexa XT). Last I checked, I'm not shooting any movies. I'll stand by my statement that the C500 is a relative bargain, given it's feature set.

 

[DLD]

... And the C300 was a workhorse in television.

Yes, reality television mostly. Which is still big money.

As an owner of the C300 mark II since it's launch, did I need this new camera? Certainly not for my clients. Rarely do any of them need even 4k, and certainly wouldn't understand a post upcharge for RAW workflow,
. I'll be very comfortable in marketing it as the latest and greatest... and superior to whatever second-hand dragon, or scarlet that shows up at some job across town. (My clients aren't used to paying for focus pullers, and back up cameras if you get my drift)...

Curious. Do you have a basic camera/hardware pitch when someone asks?

I assume that, with a constant client list, there's a great deal of trust involved and the individuals involved have full confidence in your judgement. Howevah ... let's say, new/potential clients, with reasonable requests.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Neither of those Arri cameras are full frame, 4k capable et al. So they aren't "poor man's" ALEXA Mini LF's. (maybe they are poor men's Alexa XT). Last I checked, I'm not shooting any movies. I'll stand by my statement that the C500 is a relative bargain, given it's feature set.

Yeah, and often times big budget movies don't care about 4K or full frame, hence the majority of big budget movies being shot in 3.4K ArriRAW over the past years despite other 4K and up RAW offerings from Red and other companies being available. But yeah, I said for movies. If you don't shoot movies, then cheaper Arris aren't worth it as they're old and outdated for the corporate and doc world. No one wants to rent Alexa Classics, but it'd probably be my first choice for a feature if my camera budget was under $10k.

 

[jcs]

After having owned the C300.2, and still owning only Canon gear at this point, IMO the C500.2 is what the C300.2 should have been. Again IMO Canon is releasing old tech in 2020 that could have been released at least 5 years ago.

I agree that the ~1.5x oversampled 4K is finally legit 4K and looks pretty good when lit and exposed correctly.

Take any ARRI Alev.3 camera and do an exposure ramp with a model (or models with different skintones) against the C500.2 and any notion of magic being involved will evaporate (after doing recovery/grading in post). Remember a correctly exposed shot will have highlights and shadows. You don’t want green/magenta/yellow/red shadows with highlights having yet a different bias. The exposure ramp on skintones shows the hard truth of a cameras color science, especially in mixed lighting: do the test again with mixed WB lights and RGB lights especially blue, and you may not want to shoot Canon cinema cams again (that’s where I am; IMO Canon’s still cameras have better color science, though ARRI still remains impressive after all these years).

ARRI is more accurate as the eye sees, and so far does the best in exposure invariant color.

 

[Barry G]

Yes, reality television mostly. Which is still big money.

Curious. Do you have a basic camera/hardware pitch when someone asks?

I assume that, with a constant client list, there's a great deal of trust involved and the individuals involved have full confidence in your judgement. Howevah ... let's say, new/potential clients, with reasonable requests.

It's come up with good clients. More of a "I heard so and so has 2 REDS". Most of my clients put a lot of trust in my opinion, but there's no such thing as blanket trust any more...there's always some board member pushing for their niece or friend. Often it's not the client (agency) but the actual client that starts asking...mostly because they don't know what it is you're shooting with, and they may have "heard" of a RED. Again, for me it's about being confident in my equipment, and knowing that for me it's a camera that I'll be proud of the image.

I wouldn't say I "market" the hardware specifically. I learned something from a retailer I worked with once. She had an enviable business in women's apparel, and over the many years I worked with her, I defined her selling technique downed to one word. "Enthusiasm". She got into the business because she was a "shopper" to the core. She bought things she loved..and was able to persuade her customers by simply, honestly sharing her enthusiasm for the lines she sold. I'm the same way with my "hardware" marketing. In casual conversation around a set, I'm always on about "some new feature" or this new camera does this, or that...It may seem cheesy, but it's really just me sharing my opinion on things and given the relative sophistication of my customers, it's effective, honest and has worked for me.

 

[robotfist]

I'm in maybe an unusual situation compared to others, in that I work in a small market, where access to rentals is limited/expensive, and work often directly with clients as a producer. I am a one-stop shop, providing creative direction, Graphic Design, still photography and video production.

I am in a similar situation, I just happened to be in a larger market (LA). And I am also a one stop shop as well. I've got a handful of clients and I've been making stuff for them for over 10 years. Camera rentals have now become so cheap in Los Angeles (thanks to Sharegrid) that honestly, it's hard to justify buying something as expensive as an Alexa. Cameras have practically become luxury items in this city, which is why rentals are now so cheap. There are a ton of rich kids with $65k Arris and Red Monstros in this town and none of them know how to shoot. Heck, I just saw a guy the other day with a C500 II holding it out in front of him and using it as his V-Log camera. I asked him if he owned it and he said he got it to shoot his vacations so he could put them on his YouTube channel. It's like he bought himself a $16,000 web cam. A lot of these cameras end up on Sharegrid renting for rock bottom prices, which is why I can now rent an Alexa Mini with accessories for just $385/day or $1100/week in LA, which is crazy cheap considering what those systems cost.

 

[rob norton]

I am in a similar situation, I just happened to be in a larger market (LA). And I am also a one stop shop as well. I've got a handful of clients and I've been making stuff for them for over 10 years. Camera rentals have now become so cheap in Los Angeles (thanks to Sharegrid) that honestly, it's hard to justify buying something as expensive as an Alexa. Cameras have practically become luxury items in this city, which is why rentals are now so cheap. There are a ton of rich kids with $65k Arris and Red Monstros in this town and none of them know how to shoot. Heck, I just saw a guy the other day with a C500 II holding it out in front of him and using it as his V-Log camera. I asked him if he owned it and he said he got it to shoot his vacations so he could put them on his YouTube channel. It's like he bought himself a $16,000 web cam. A lot of these cameras end up on Sharegrid renting for rock bottom prices, which is why I can now rent an Alexa Mini with accessories for just $385/day or $1100/week in LA, which is crazy cheap considering what those systems cost.

Sounds like they weren't being serious. Was it potato jet?

-

 

[DLD]

... I learned something from a retailer I worked with once. She had an enviable business in women's apparel, and over the many years I worked with her, I defined her selling technique downed to one word. "Enthusiasm"...

As someone who had worked in sales for quite some time, I wholeheartedly endorse enthusiasm as tactics.

Side story - a few days ago, a friend posted an article on Facebook about the attractiveness of being positive. So I replied that being excessively positive can be an irritation too. The third person chimed in that it might be if it's deemed "fake enthusiasm". I ended the conversation that 'fake enthusiasm" is what you often get from a salesperson at an electronics store ... based on the personal experience of me being a salesperson at an electronics store. I even got a couple of "likes" for that remark.

PS. Potato Jet did take his new C500 MKII on a trip to Thailand and some shots taken there looked real nice. Others were shaky hand-held footage. But, hey, the AF works quite well.

 

[djangosan]

Well, time is money. With my C200 I have to transcode and spend more time in post to get what I want. Transcoding 4 days of Canon Raw Light is very time consuming and takes a lot of drive space. It can take forever and tie up my machine. If the C500 II eliminates my need to transcode, or reduces the time I have to spend grading the footage, then that is a big deal. And it translates into a lot of money saved, which equates to more profit.

I own a C200 and have not made the choice yet, but transcode time, better loadable LUTs, and the ability to hand off a 422-10bit deliverable out of camera (if only 4x /year) are the business drivers. "Full Frame", or more precisely, the same look but 1 stop faster & shallower (if desired) & the commensurate/proportional lens choices available is the back-end business driver: in other words, can I make my work a tiny bit "prettier' without changing my workflow. Third rationale would actually be another back-end business driver: improved AF and sensor-based IS could help workflow and results in a 3-man-band to indie feature scenario. But most of this is not immediately monetizable, and my C200 is paid off, so....

 

[Wmartz]

C500 Mark ii

C500 Mark ii

I'm in maybe an unusual situation compared to others, in that I work in a small market, where access to rentals is limited/expensive, and work often directly with clients as a producer. I am a one-stop shop, providing creative direction, Graphic Design, still photography and video production. I have been in business for over 30 years, and have made a very decent living for myself. I tend to work for a very small group of clients, providing some or all of the above services. Within that group of clients, I have several that go back more than 25 years.

If I were a better businessman, I would probably put the equations I often hear mentioned on this forum to better use. Will camera A make me more money? Will Camera B increase my profit margin. Would renting be a more judicious approach? But for me it's always been a different set of questions. What camera can I afford? What camera has the features I need? What camera will make me happy? Those are the questions I deal with. I have to go out there and sell myself, and what camera I use, and in this market, that means I have to feel good about it. (the discussion about RED above is interesting, because a few of them have made their way into Lilliput, and I do get to explain why I'm not using one occasionally.)

As an owner of the C300 mark II since it's launch, did I need this new camera? Certainly not for my clients. Rarely do any of them need even 4k, and certainly wouldn't understand a post upcharge for RAW workflow, or any charge for "rental" of my camera. So why did I buy it?

It probably starts with the launch of the C700FF, which I actually considered buying a few years ago, as I was interested in a shoulder mounted FF camera. I commented right here on this forum though, that with that camera, Canon had lost its way. That slapping a hugely expensive recording system with even more expensive media on the back of it was a betrayal of what had made the original C300 such a success. That the only way to get the "best" image out of that camera brought it into the price range that made it a rental only camera was messing with what makes the canon's great: a huge feature set, priced for owner operators. That's their brand in this market segment, and the C700FF was a huge step away from that.

2 years later we have the introduction of the C500II. A camera with almost everything I was looking for 2 years ago, at a price in a range that I can afford. For 25k kitted out with extension units and a the EVF-V70, cards, media and batteries, I have a system with specs that are way above my needs. It has a lightweight RAW workflow that I can handle, and will let me do my best work. This is a camera that...I think...will make me happy. I'll be very comfortable in marketing it as the latest and greatest... and superior to whatever second-hand dragon, or scarlet that shows up at some job across town. (My clients aren't used to paying for focus pullers, and back up cameras if you get my drift).

If I had a dream camera right now, it would probably be the ALEXA Mini LF. Would that camera make any sense in my market, for my clients? None whatsoever. Could I run the thing without a crew? Probably not. Can I afford it? Not, and stay current with my still equipment, from which I earn the bulk of my income. While I read here on this forum that somehow Canon lacks the magic image quality of the ALEXA or a RED, every time I see someone who really knows how to set up both cameras shoot a side by side, I'm shocked by how similar these cameras look. I think the magic is in the lenses, and the DP for the most part. But that's me.

This camera seems to be a bargain, given it's feature set, and in that way, The C500 mark II may just be a poor man's ALEXA Mini LF. That sound's just about perfect to me.

Thanks for experience Barry. It's seldom that I read a post about anything on these video forums that's written by some one who is writing about their experience with anything. I just wanted to say that I bought a new C500 Mark ii because of several reasons number one being the 3 sensor readouts. That makes changing lenses not as neccesary to much for me as I shoot only wild wildlife for 30 years. I have had many cameras ( sony, red, panasonic and lately Canon C300 Mark ii's. I bought 2 C300 mark ii's and am selling one of them because after buying the new C500 MK ii Idon't need 2 C300's. The picture from the C300's is ok for what I do but the full sensor makes it easier with less lens changes for me as I use mostly prime telephotos. I also think that the C300's and the new C500 are the best wildlife cameras and or spur of the moment shooting you can buy. Of course there are some who shoot captive animals and park animals who can get by with Red cameras and maybe an arri. But in the real world of animals you don't have all day to focus and change nd filters. When I used two different Red cameras I also had to buy a C motion remote focus system ($16,000) and a $5000 monitor which had latency reading the reds output which almost made the whole setup useless. So in closing I will just say thank God for Canon. Also the color balance of the Canons is just great. Oh, and by the way. I hear a lot of groaning about how time consuming it is to process raw footage. Nonsense, again if the people complaining had some actual experience they wouldn't even bring that issue up. Just one more complaint I hear on a regular basis on these forums, C500 IQ. I can say from experience that it's just great. Anyway, thanks for the common sense and your experience putting these matters to rest.
Bill Martz

 

[puredrifting]

I'll probably hold off the C500 Mark II because I don't see it as a good business investment. Yeah, nice to have the feature set, but this is a business. I'm saving up for an Alexa Mini LF, and then after that likely Arri Signature primes, which means it'd be awhile before I could afford a C500 Mark II. Awhile as in, as much time as it take for the C500 Mark II to become popular with producers, like a year or two, so it could all work out perfectly that way. It'd be nice to have one C500 Mark II to go with my C300 Mark IIs; use the C500 as primary for the improved feature set and nice to have 4K 60p when producers ask for it, and have the C300s for multi-cam.

C300 now is still the name brand, so if you only have a C500 Mark II, some producers are going to go, "I don't know that camera," or, "We've been shooting this show on the C300 so we want to hire a C300." I could almost argue that if it's your only camera, you could make more money in 2020 from owning a C300 over a C500. As far as day rates, if I had a C500 Mark II, I'd probably list on my rates, "C500 Mark II or C300 Mark II," and charge the same rate for both. I charge an additional $900 for an Amira over a C300, and I don't want to complicate my rates by adding a third pricing tier for a newer camera that offers very similar quality to the client (4K 10 bit 4:2:2). So, buying the camera would be about getting the occasional extra client who either knows the camera and wants that (which won't happen until producers know the name), or having features such as 4K 60p that producers sometimes want.


As far as primes being cheaper than zooms, at the high end that's not the case. A couple Fuji Premistas cost $80k, two high end Angies cost $80k or $170k if you add in the 24-290, two Leitz zooms cost $150k...meanwhile, a set of Letiz primes costs $500k, Signature primes around $400k, Masterprimes around the same. Perhaps you don't need a full set of primes, but even a half set still will cost more than zooms come out to.

On one thread you say 1080p from the C100 looks good, and put down the need for the sharpness of 6K, yet, now you need primes to get more sharpness. Which is it, is more sharpness needed or not?

Thanks for the pricing perspective Eric. To me, sharpness and raster size are two distinct, yet slightly related issues, you're equting raster size with sharpness, which I don't. You can have soft 6K and sharp 1080, right, all that's different is the size of the raster and yes, there is the factor of oversampling when down resolutioning.
I have been editing reels with a wide variety of material I have shot with the C100 MKI, C300 MKI, MKII, C200, FS7 and a few shoots with Arris and REDs that we rented. I still think that SOOC, thge 1080 from the C100 MKI is superior to the C200/C300 1080, which is interesting. The C100 MKI, in 1080, to me, seems to have
overall more pleasing colors and it looks sharper than the C300 MKI or C200. I haven't used the C300 MKII to shoot 1080 so I don't know how it compares, we have always shot 4K with the C300 MKII.

As far as lenses, big factors besides sharpness are cost, size and weight as well as speed. I've been a still photographer for decades and it's always been a fact in stills that even the highest cost zooms aren't quite as sharp as the low to medium priced still lenses. All you have to do examine the element cross sections the manufacturers publish to see that any prime is going to have far fewer elements for the light to be focused through which generally equals sharper images as well as fewer elements to distort the image. The size, weight and cost are just bonuses on top of that. Of course, I am talking low end stills and low to medium end cine lenses and you are talking the best glass money can buy. I will never own an Arri $28K prime because my market doesn't justify owning it but for your market, that's cool that you are making enough profit to consider buying such glass. My general path, after owning big heavy, expensive video, film and digital cinema gear is to go small, light and much less expensive and just rent the big boy toys when the client's needs and budget justify it, which is less and less often as budgets continue to plummet.

 

[puredrifting]

Well, time is money. With my C200 I have to transcode and spend more time in post to get what I want. Transcoding 4 days of Canon Raw Light is very time consuming and takes a lot of drive space. It can take forever and tie up my machine. If the C500 II eliminates my need to transcode, or reduces the time I have to spend grading the footage, then that is a big deal. And it translates into a lot of money saved, which equates to more profit.

I know what you mean, if you are shooting long form. For instance, my few remaining BTS and EPK gigs, with the C200, I hook up my old Ninja Blade and shoot Prores HQ because all of those clients don't even want 4K much less RAW. I usually roll XF-AVC 4K as a backup but deliver the Prores to the clients and they are happy as clams. I often shoot 2-4 hours of coverage per day, sometimes more so RAW is definitely NOT the right tool for those gigs. But for my own projects, when we are shooting races for our series, we can shoot 2-3 hours per day of RAW but we have no timeline, we can bring it back to to the office and download it into FCP X and let it do it's thing. So for our use case, the C200 was the perfect camera. If I had more broadcast clients, the C300 MKII would have been a better choice but I only have a few broadcast shoots per year and we either rent or shoot to the Blade and it works out well. Hardly anybody (clients) in LA at least, seems to want 4K, it's amazing how much 1080 is preferred. This is mostly for the studios and only a few want 4K (Netflix, Sony)

 

[puredrifting]

I feel like the Alexa Classic or a used Amira are the poor man's Mini LF. The C500 Mark II is a corporate and doc camera. If all I did was movie work I wouldn't own Canon cameras.

I think you nail it here Eric. The Canons can definitely be used for anything, but I agree, with scripted, narrative, even music videos and commercials, it's an Arri/RED thing. I would never use an Arri or RED on most of my type projects,
I tried a few OMB documentary shoots last year and the year before with the RED Epic, then an Alexa Mini and both were terrible for how I needed the camera to work. I was whinging the whole time that I wish I had ACs, even just for
the camera prep, much less the shoot.

It was shades of when I used to rent 35mm film cameras, I hated camera prep, scratch tests, and having to order and rent every single little piece of the camera package item by item. Those are
all an ACs job, not a DPs, IMHO, well other than the DP has to order the package with what they want. If I am hopping on a plane and flying to distant country, the Canon C500 MKII would be a
far superior tool for run & gun, documentary, travel. AF, as raster size continues to increase, is more and more important to me as it's difficult to judge focus on a 5" screen when time is limited or
you aren't shoulder mounted with an EVF.

I am talking with the client about shooting a music video. Normally I would want to rent an Arri to shoot it but like most music videos these days, the budget is severely limited so it will be my C200
shooting RAW and the money will go into location and actually paying the tiny crew and myself over renting an Alexa Mini. I don't care about building my reel because I don't want to be a music video
director or pursue music video work and the C200 will look great with good lighting. Not even sure if it will happen but if it does, won't be renting a high end camera because the client can't afford to
give me a budget that would pay for that. I just want to do the music video for fun and because I love the artist's work.

 

[puredrifting]

I'm in maybe an unusual situation compared to others, in that I work in a small market, where access to rentals is limited/expensive, and work often directly with clients as a producer. I am a one-stop shop, providing creative direction, Graphic Design, still photography and video production. I have been in business for over 30 years, and have made a very decent living for myself. I tend to work for a very small group of clients, providing some or all of the above services. Within that group of clients, I have several that go back more than 25 years.

If I were a better businessman, I would probably put the equations I often hear mentioned on this forum to better use. Will camera A make me more money? Will Camera B increase my profit margin. Would renting be a more judicious approach? But for me it's always been a different set of questions. What camera can I afford? What camera has the features I need? What camera will make me happy? Those are the questions I deal with. I have to go out there and sell myself, and what camera I use, and in this market, that means I have to feel good about it. (the discussion about RED above is interesting, because a few of them have made their way into Lilliput, and I do get to explain why I'm not using one occasionally.)

As an owner of the C300 mark II since it's launch, did I need this new camera? Certainly not for my clients. Rarely do any of them need even 4k, and certainly wouldn't understand a post upcharge for RAW workflow, or any charge for "rental" of my camera. So why did I buy it?

It probably starts with the launch of the C700FF, which I actually considered buying a few years ago, as I was interested in a shoulder mounted FF camera. I commented right here on this forum though, that with that camera, Canon had lost its way. That slapping a hugely expensive recording system with even more expensive media on the back of it was a betrayal of what had made the original C300 such a success. That the only way to get the "best" image out of that camera brought it into the price range that made it a rental only camera was messing with what makes the canon's great: a huge feature set, priced for owner operators. That's their brand in this market segment, and the C700FF was a huge step away from that.

2 years later we have the introduction of the C500II. A camera with almost everything I was looking for 2 years ago, at a price in a range that I can afford. For 25k kitted out with extension units and a the EVF-V70, cards, media and batteries, I have a system with specs that are way above my needs. It has a lightweight RAW workflow that I can handle, and will let me do my best work. This is a camera that...I think...will make me happy. I'll be very comfortable in marketing it as the latest and greatest... and superior to whatever second-hand dragon, or scarlet that shows up at some job across town. (My clients aren't used to paying for focus pullers, and back up cameras if you get my drift).

If I had a dream camera right now, it would probably be the ALEXA Mini LF. Would that camera make any sense in my market, for my clients? None whatsoever. Could I run the thing without a crew? Probably not. Can I afford it? Not, and stay current with my still equipment, from which I earn the bulk of my income. While I read here on this forum that somehow Canon lacks the magic image quality of the ALEXA or a RED, every time I see someone who really knows how to set up both cameras shoot a side by side, I'm shocked by how similar these cameras look. I think the magic is in the lenses, and the DP for the most part. But that's me.

This camera seems to be a bargain, given it's feature set, and in that way, The C500 mark II may just be a poor man's ALEXA Mini LF. That sound's just about perfect to me.

Thanks for your perspective Barry, I totally understand where you are coming from.

 

[puredrifting]

But most of this is not immediately monetizable, and my C200 is paid off, so....

Same exact boat here. C500 MKII looks great but I can't justify it so it ain't happening unless some new project rears it's head that will pay for it.

 

[puredrifting]

I hear a lot of groaning about how time consuming it is to process raw footage. Nonsense, again if the people complaining had some actual experience they wouldn't even bring that issue up.
Bill Martz

Right? CRL in 4K is only slightly larger than Prores, yet people act likes it's dealing with Cinema DNG. In FCP X, CRL is a dream to work with, even on a laptop. We've been very happy with the C200 and the C500 MKII is just more of everything that's good about the C200 with a bit of C300 MKII updated thrown in.

 

[Barry G]

Right? CRL in 4K is only slightly larger than Prores, yet people act likes it's dealing with Cinema DNG. In FCP X, CRL is a dream to work with, even on a laptop. We've been very happy with the C200 and the C500 MKII is just more of everything that's good about the C200 with a bit of C300 MKII updated thrown in.

Exactly...CRL is barely more overhead than any of the current production codecs. It works in FCP like it is a production codec. (although last night, editing some 6k 60p footage was probably the first time I've ever heard the fans turn on on my iMac Pro!

 

[Liam Hall]

Thank you all for your C500 MKII feedback. Interesting through that not one response, really, about the business case, day rates, will spending $16k on a body get you more business/clients or more profit?

You might be asking the wrong question; I'd ask, can you afford to stand still while others upgrade? If yes, then you don't need to upgrade, if you feel competitors may get an edge over you than perhaps you need to upgrade or you will start to lose business.