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

Barry G, thanks for posting and sharing this footage. Looks to be every bit as good as the C700. But now in a small modular build. Superb.

I’m sure there are still stylistic reasons for using a bounce, or not, but it is great to see how well this camera handles the extremes. Seems to have that high end composure.
 
James0b57 said:
Barry G, thanks for posting and sharing this footage. Looks to be every bit as good as the C700. But now in a small modular build. Superb.

I’m sure there are still stylistic reasons for using a bounce, or not, but it is great to see how well this camera handles the extremes. Seems to have that high end composure.
Click to expand...

I like that word. :-) In this situation, we had planned for overcast, (which was the up to the minute forecast) and to light it quite strongly for a very edgy look (we ended up doing that later as the setting sky melted away, but I'm debating whether I like it). In this situation, some fill would have let me drop the exposure a little, and provided more contrast on her face, and improved the color in her skin (bouncing more neutral colors into the shadows, rather than a mix of the blue sky, and newly sprouted green grass around us. As we were set up at an intersection of a couple of farm roads with some traffic, I decided to keep it minimal and also see how well the camera handled some pretty extreme exterior dynamic range. In reality I could have probably taken the exposure down a stop from where it is, and held the sky a little better (really only the sun was clipped), but overall, I'm quite happy with what the camera did (not quite as sure about my work, but the kind words are nice, so thanks).
 
I'm finding it interesting that one expert is impressed and another is not.

I don't seem to get a strong read on Chris' opinion and wonder if he's still considering buying one.

And is it banding or is it not?
 
Barry G said:
I like that word. :-) In this situation, we had planned for overcast, (which was the up to the minute forecast) and to light it quite strongly for a very edgy look (we ended up doing that later as the setting sky melted away, but I'm debating whether I like it). In this situation, some fill would have let me drop the exposure a little, and provided more contrast on her face, and improved the color in her skin (bouncing more neutral colors into the shadows, rather than a mix of the blue sky, and newly sprouted green grass around us. As we were set up at an intersection of a couple of farm roads with some traffic, I decided to keep it minimal and also see how well the camera handled some pretty extreme exterior dynamic range. In reality I could have probably taken the exposure down a stop from where it is, and held the sky a little better (really only the sun was clipped), but overall, I'm quite happy with what the camera did (not quite as sure about my work, but the kind words are nice, so thanks).
Click to expand...
Thanks for the extra insight.

I suppose it’s all about intention. The cooler shadows are very complimentary to the dancers blond hair. And the slight rough edge within the shadows looks rather honest, which seems to work with the choreography. If it were something the rrquired bright and warm and ‘no flaws’, then i can see a big 20x20 bound off camera and a few other tricks, and some colour grading and vfx.

But as far as what you ended up with, intentional, or not, it represents something very pretty and also honest feeling. The fact that the camera didn’t detract, even in extreme situations, is fantastic.
 
Stills2HDConvert said:
I think it's a little bigger than just that. I wouldn't have posted if it was so simple.
Click to expand...

I see. I was trying to be a little funny. It is that simple, but i can see how my answer is not informative or helpful.

Perhaps they can describe why they might disagree.

To me, there are only several high end looking video cameras. Some that might appear at first glance like great cameras, end up not being so good.

Alexa, Red, Sony, Varicam, C700/C500, and that’s about it. Black magic and zcam have ugly highlights. The Veedict on the Nikon Z is still out. The C300mkii falls a little shy. The EVA1 does too. There are so many “good” cameras, but only a few top tier looking ones.

The fact that Canon looks to finally be in that top tier with a small modular camera, is very cool for some, and not mind blowing enough for others. By some logic, Canon should be raising the bar, instead of meeting it. In any case, Canon colour science is a welcome addition to the high end club.
 
Stills2HDConvert said:
I'm finding it interesting that one expert is impressed and another is not.

I don't seem to get a strong read on Chris' opinion and wonder if he's still considering buying one.

And is it banding or is it not?
Click to expand...

I'll be honest. The more at I looked at this supposed streaking, the more there was nothing to see. People can continue ginning it up, but it doesn't make it so. Take an underexposed image from any camera and dig deep enough into the shadows and you will not like what you see. Simple as that. Every Canon camera I've ever owned has shown un-evenness at the noise floor. My Fuji gFX100 shows striping at the noise floor. Sony's new camera based on the same sensor shows striping at the noise floor, and all my hasselblads over the past 15 years have all shown some form of banding at the noise floor. There's a simple lesson to all that: Stay away from the noise floor. Not one of these cameras has kept me from making a good living with them because of it.
 
Here is a collection of clips I shot last evening testing the AF in a less controlled street scene.

Shot in xfAVC 4k FF. 60p. All but the last two shots are at 50% speed, which will exaggerate any temporal focus errors. Scene was dusk, and thus relatively dark as you can tell by the store interiors. Shots are made using Face Priority Face Detection.

Observationally, the C500 II doesn't seem as "sticky" as the new Sony camera, but it is a significant improvement from the C300 mark II I'm upgrading from. It doesn't hunt even in the most challenging situations and seems to transition relatively naturally. This was shot with a 70-200 2.8L at 3.5 or 2.8 -- this is the very old, non stabilized version, which isn't particularly sharp, and generally autofocuses with very staccato movements. The C500 seems to be smoothing this out rather well. As has been documented, the face detect isn't great at grabbing a "small" face, but combined with touch screen selection, it generally did a good job at following a subject from a good distance, and then picking up the face when the head got big enough. One note is that the electronic stabilization used in these shots was spotty when mounted on a tripod, causing the occasional "jerk" as the system reached the end of its range on long pans. You can see that in the shot with two middle aged people in puffy jackets crossing the street. The stabilization must be using image data along with the gyroscope to calculate the corrections. Will test this more.

 
Barry G said:

So this is fuller edit of the material I shot last weekend, with additional angles, closeups etc. The first shot contains a 50% zoom in post to see how well the 5.9 scales.

I downloaded a copy of Color Finale Pro 2 and tried a "prettier" grade of the material. (I like how CFP2 rolls off the highlights better than FCPX's native tools, but there is enough to hate a about that plug-in currently that I'll be un-installing it today :-(. This grade is quite a bit warmer and brighter than what I've shown before, although probably much less of a stretch from the original shots in terms of contrast and exposure. As should be the case, this raw light material, can really be stretched in almost any direction. This grade is far from perfect, but as I'm not planning on using this material this way, I'm not going to spend any more time on it (as the shots were taken over the 25 minutes before sunset, there's a lot of color variation between takes coupled with lots of "flare" moments, so matching color on a shot to shot basis isn't something I've attempted here. The original material is much cooler and less saturated, but it handles changes in WB, saturation and gain easily and extremely well. (there is probably too much saturation in the bright highlights of the sky, a result of the grade not the original material, and I may deal with that in a secondary grade at some point.)

Overall, I'm really pleased with how the camera handles the lighting challenges I've presented it with on this project. I'm not used to trusting the DR of a camera to allow me to shoot without lighting and fill, and in situations like this with the C300II, while it could handle the DR, the shadow areas would have never been this clean, and thus would have been much more challenging in the grade.

Bonus Clip: This is a "pretty" grade of the first shot with more balanced coloration, preserving some of the cooler tones
Click to expand...

Nice stuff Barry, I like it. Def some of the best looking C500 MKII footage I've seen yet. Which lens did you shoot it with? I kind of dig the flares
 
puredrifting said:
Nice stuff Barry, I like it. Def some of the best looking C500 MKII footage I've seen yet. Which lens did you shoot it with? I kind of dig the flares
Click to expand...

most were shot with the 35mm 1.4L II which is simply a great lens, very pretty controlled flares that I’m digging too. The 50mm 1.2L is most of the closeups..this lens has a beautiful soft feel, although I’m always concerned about its LoCA which are pretty severe. Looked fine here, maybe not the best match for the 35, but it’s what I have. There might be a shot or 2 on the 80 1.8. I’ll check. I’m shooting some interviews next week and may shoot with my Cn-e, although we’ll see.. af is probably the way to go..
 
NorBro said:
The 35mm II is considered by many to be Canon's best lens ever made.
Click to expand...

Certainly one of the best EF lenses. The new RF primes and and mid-range zooms are proving to be an impressive next generation for canon. I really love my 85mm CN-E, and the 35 T1.3 cine lens, while I think is based on the older design, is really pretty great too. I really wish there was a way to mount the RF glass onto this camera, I'd be all over that new 50, and the 28-70 f/2 as well.
 
Barry G said:
I really wish there was a way to mount the RF glass onto this camera, I'd be all over that new 50, and the 28-70 f/2 as well.
Click to expand...

The 35mm II is indeed the best lens they've ever made. And I've heard amazing things about the 85mm 1.4 IS, as well, though I don't own that one. It's no coincidence that those two lenses are some of their newest EF models. And it's a real shame they won't be updating the 50mm 1.2 EF. That lens really needs new coatings to deal with 4k. In the right conditions, it's still beautiful, but in the wrong conditions, it exhibits some of the worst CA I've seen. I've had my 50mm ruin shots for me before thanks to that CA.

It really is strange that Canon announced their flagship cinema camera while simultaneously announcing the death of the very mount that camera uses. Especially when the EF to RF adapter is supposed to be great, and in some cases even add functionality to the system, such as the ability to throw in an internal polarizer, or control the aperture on the lens. But I guess Canon wouldn't be Canon if they weren't frustrating their customer base in some fashion. Just as Sony can always find a way to make their menus make no sense, Canon always finds a way to eliminate a major feature everyone wanted. 60fps in the C300 II? Nope. 10 bit middle ground codec in the C200? Nope. RF mount on the C500 II? Nope, and BTW, there won't be anymore EF lenses for you either!

I'm positive the next C500 III (or maybe C400) will feature RF mount and make everyone want to upgrade. So maybe they're just marketing geniuses? Because I'm a C200 owner and here I am wanting to upgrade to the C500 II for that middle ground codec. They got me. I will say, it's frustrating when you know that the capabilities are there, and yet the manufacturer is perpetually dangling a carrot from a string, and continuously dropping bread crumbs on a trail that never ends.

Oh well, that's the video technology industry. We're never satisfied.
Maybe I'll just go back to using an XL1 and editing mini-Dv with Radius EditV or Media100?
Or hell, maybe I should go the distance and shoot 3 1/4" tape and edit deck to deck, with a grass valley switcher and a Video Toaster?
Hmmmmm.....
 
robotfist said:
... It really is strange that Canon announced their flagship cinema camera while simultaneously announcing the death of the very mount that camera uses. ....
Click to expand...
My comments are similar to what I just made on the "industry" thread on this topic. The lens production itself can be stop/started since it involves a great deal of manual labor. Additionally, there is some very decent third party glass.

But I'll reverse my stance on the cinema EF AF product. Sony can do it because they offer a single mount across their consumer/prosumer/pro line. Canon is moving toward it too. Its upcoming 2020 releases will be in RF only. And one has to assume that, beside all the consumer tier hybrid bodies, there will be a cinema style model. The only question is whether it'll be in the C 100 or the C 300 weight class. IOW, $5,000 or $10,000?

PS. Their third mount EFS seems to be at the end of its line. That likely means the end of the "stand-alone" APS-C models. An RF version of the Rebel should be coming out soon with an "affordable" RF 24-70 kit lens. The rest are likely to be full frame. Which means no more APS-C/s35 cinema cameras either. Given the overall decline of the photo-video industry - primarily due to smartphones - the paring of the various model numbers sees to be a foregone conclusion as well.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apologies if that’s a sheepish question. On my information the output of the C200 on sdi/hdmi is also only 8bit? What’s the advantage of the external recorder if it’s just 8bit in a ProRes container?
 
Barry G said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was really happy to read this as I’m quite in the same position as a one man show working for my own production and doing stills and video both. For me the price point of the C500II is hard to justify at the moment. I have a double investment for both stills and video equipment but only one man’s working power and hours to earn the money. Do clients pay higher rates for offering both? No. Nevertheless it’s a business model that makes good profit. The clients don’t care if I am shooting with a C300 FS7 or EVA1 as long it’s looking good and I’m not charging ARRI rates for DSLR shots.
What makes a big difference for my profit In general is efficiency. That’s why I sold my FS7 and went for the EVA1 two years ago. Color science is just great and it saves me so much time in post. But that’s also the reason I did not go for the C200. 4K/50p in 10bit is a must but converting hours of raw is not very efficient. As a one man shooter without a focus puller I often wished I had AF though. I’m quite happy with the results of the EVA1 and so the question is: will the investment of 16,000€ return? Is “I would like to have” reasonable? For me it’s not answered yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top