C500: C500 + Zeiss Master Prime for Wedding

S

spinkscapes

Well-known member
Hi guys,

Would love your input into a decision I have to make.
Currently my modus operandi for my videography business is that the quality of the final product is more important than making a profit. However, I am not satisfied with the current quality of my work.
I have a wedding in December. Now I hold out some hope that the C300 mkII's will be available for rental by this point, however, none of the rental companies in Melbourne are able to confirm whether they will be purchasing the C300 mkII PL mount for rental purposes.
So, in light of this, I am considering the combination of the C500 + Zeiss Master Prime.
For those of you who have used such a combination would you recommend it for a wedding? I am particularly concerned about low-light shooting and size (last wedding we lugged around the Arri Amira, which was too big for us).
And, as I can only afford to rent one Zeiss Master Prime, what would be the one focal length that I ought to have attached to the C500 for a full day wedding shoot?

EDIT: I understand that the Canon C500 is not a good choice for a camera on a wedding, nor is the Arri Amira, or the Zeiss Master Primes. You don't have to keep repeating it.
 
Last edited:
I've found that having one good A-cam which may end up being 60% of your wedding short film's footage doesn't really make the wedding film much better if your B and C cameras are considerably inferior; you really need at least two matching high quality cameras so then the two will be 90% of the footage, and ideally 3-5 matching cameras. What do you plan to use for additional cameras?

The C500 seems like a good choice if budget isn't an issue (assuming you can get a run n gun 4k raw recorder setup, otherwise you're going internal and may as well get a C300 Mark I), but since budget almost always is an issue just make sure that you're spreading out your budget well to things like lighting, additional lenses, audio, stabilization, etc. Only if you have all that covered should you consider spending more money on a camera than what most wedding people do.

I used to film preps primarily with a Canon 35 f/1.4L before I got my current setup which is a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and Canon 24-105 f/4. So I'd say if you're going with just one prime go with a 35mm. Or possibly a 50mm. You'll still need telephotos for the ceremony and parts of the reception such as the toasts. If you don't have telephotos available then you shouldn't be wasting money on a particularly expensive camera before getting more necessary things such as telephoto lenses.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I've found that having one good A-cam which may end up being 60% of your wedding short film's footage doesn't really make the wedding film much better if your B and C cameras are considerably inferior; you really need at least two matching high quality cameras so then the two will be 90% of the footage, and ideally 3-5 matching cameras. What do you plan to use for additional cameras?

The C500 seems like a good choice if budget isn't an issue (assuming you can get a run n gun 4k raw recorder setup, otherwise you're going internal and may as well get a C300 Mark I), but since budget almost always is an issue just make sure that you're spreading out your budget well to things like lighting, additional lenses, audio, stabilization, etc. Only if you have all that covered should you consider spending more money on a camera than what most wedding people do.

I used to film preps primarily with a Canon 35 f/1.4L before I got my current setup which is a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and Canon 24-105 f/4. So I'd say if you're going with just one prime go with a 35mm. Or possibly a 50mm. You'll still need telephotos for the ceremony and parts of the reception such as the toasts. If you don't have telephotos available then you shouldn't be wasting money on a particularly expensive camera before getting more necessary things such as telephoto lenses.
Click to expand...

My current gear.
Cameras:
GH4 x 2
Canon 5D mkIII

Lenses:
Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8
Olympus 12mm
Olympus 45mm
Olympus 60mm
Panasonic 25mm
Canon 35mm f/1.4L
Canon 85mm f/1.2L II

Audio:
Roland R-26
Olympus recorders with lapels x 4
Rode NTG-3
Rode VideoMic X
RodeLink x 2 (to be purchased)

Accessories:
Gitzo tripods + Manfrotto 500 heads
Sliders
Moza Lite (haven't received yet)
Lights
MustHD screen

Should I consider getting two C500 EL mounts and putting the 35mm on one and the 85mm on the other?
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
Sounds on par with business that are 3 years or younger in age. That will change with time. It must.
Click to expand...

Yep, in that younger than three year bracket.
My pricing has continued to climb, I've basically bought everything I need (barring the primary camera).
I'm sure the business will start operating in the black soon.
Seeing as the discussion has turned to my business I would love feedback on my latest work.
Many improvements need to be made, I would like your advice on how you believe I can improve.
 
Last edited:
spinkscapes said:
Yep, in that younger than three year bracket.
Seeing as the discussion has turned to my business I would love feedback on my latest work.
Shot with Amira + Cookes as primary camera:
Shot with FS7 + Canon 35mm and 85mm:
Click to expand...

I like, but maybe ease up a bit on the slo-mo. It's fine in spots, but when used in excess it becomes gimmicky (IMO).
 
I found the second wedding video, of Nikki & Jye, to be a pretty big improvement over the former, which is odd considering I'd think the Amira plus Cookes would be an awesome combination. In the end, I think I personally much preferred the stable tripod shots on the FS7 to the handheld shots with the Amira. I also think the scenery, framing, and lighting were a bit more conducive to a pleasant video in the latter, as some of the shots in Stewart and Elise's wedding are a bit high key/overexposed for my tastes. I do think the Cooke lenses have some awesome bokeh, and the final shot in Stewart and Elise's wedding was a great way to end it. That being said, overall, I found these videos to of pretty high quality and I don't envy anyone the task of wedding videography. Without devolving into an argument about cameras, it seems to me you probably got a way better bang for your buck with the FS7 than the Amira. The difference could be spent on those nice Cooke primes I'm sure!
 
KeilProductions said:
I found the second wedding video, of Nikki & Jye, to be a pretty big improvement over the former, which is odd considering I'd think the Amira plus Cookes would be an awesome combination. In the end, I think I personally much preferred the stable tripod shots on the FS7 to the handheld shots with the Amira. I also think the scenery, framing, and lighting were a bit more conducive to a pleasant video in the latter, as some of the shots in Stewart and Elise's wedding are a bit high key/overexposed for my tastes. I do think the Cooke lenses have some awesome bokeh, and the final shot in Stewart and Elise's wedding was a great way to end it. That being said, overall, I found these videos to of pretty high quality and I don't envy anyone the task of wedding videography. Without devolving into an argument about cameras, it seems to me you probably got a way better bang for your buck with the FS7 than the Amira. The difference could be spent on those nice Cooke primes I'm sure!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback.
With the Amira we didn't know what we were getting into.
The rental place said shoulder mounting would be easy (it wasn't).
It looks like renting a Canon C300 mkII will cost approximately the same amount as a C500 or a FS7 (less if you consider I don't need to get an adapter).
The FS7 is nice but then you tend to want to shoot super slow mo too much. The image is also reasonably "video" looking.
Also it doesn't mix well with the GH4's in catering for low light shooting (which is also why I'm considering moving to the Canon range).
I'm really looking to push the final product to make it better again.
That's why I've ordered the Moza Lite. I need some gimbal shots dispersed in the film I think.
 
Last edited:
jthabel said:
I like, but maybe ease up a bit on the slo-mo. It's fine in spots, but when used in excess it becomes gimmicky (IMO).
Click to expand...

Noted.
What about my colour grading?
I'm really struggling to match cameras like the Amira and FS7 to my secondary cameras (the GH4s). The former have such great dynamic range (as does the C300 mkII presumably) which is where the GH4 struggles. The camera on Stewart is a GH4 with Olympus 60mm combo. The GH4 has this tendency to render the colours bronzish when I use LUTS as well.
I am contemplating whether I outsource my colouring (as I work a full time job and have another casual job on the side).
 
You shot the first one on the Amira and Cookes? Not nitpicking...just seemed like some "interesting" highlight issues and blue LED color rendering on some of the clips.
 
Here is my advice. You may not like it, but it is coming from a position of honestly wanting you to have success. I have been making wedding films for years, and more importantly, make a good living at it.

There is no difference between filming a wedding with a C500 with master primes and a C100 with L glass. No difference whatsoever. Finally delivery is likely web, right? IN fact, an argument could be made that using a 5DM3 or GH4 would be fine too. What really matters is composition, thinking creatively, being emotionally aware of what is going on around you, and focusing on recreating emotion in the edit. None of those things have anything to do with equipment. In fact, if you have two versions of yourself, one with fancy equipment and one with average equipment, the version with the average stuff would 9 times out of 10 create a better film. Why? Because all of your energy would be focused on your filmmaking.

Think about this, one of the top in our industry, Rob Adams, up until recently was shooting primariliy with 5D Mark II.

Now, if you are telling me you have C500s laying around and you are made of cash, then by all means, disregard my advice above.
 
DC Brandon said:
Here is my advice. You may not like it, but it is coming from a position of honestly wanting you to have success. I have been making wedding films for years, and more importantly, make a good living at it.

There is no difference between filming a wedding with a C500 with master primes and a C100 with L glass. No difference whatsoever. Finally delivery is likely web, right? IN fact, an argument could be made that using a 5DM3 or GH4 would be fine too. What really matters is composition, thinking creatively, being emotionally aware of what is going on around you, and focusing on recreating emotion in the edit. None of those things have anything to do with equipment. In fact, if you have two versions of yourself, one with fancy equipment and one with average equipment, the version with the average stuff would 9 times out of 10 create a better film. Why? Because all of your energy would be focused on your filmmaking.

Think about this, one of the top in our industry, Rob Adams, up until recently was shooting primariliy with 5D Mark II.

Now, if you are telling me you have C500s laying around and you are made of cash, then by all means, disregard my advice above.
Click to expand...

I can't really disagree with anything here. I think, minus the slow motion, these videos would have been 98% as good for web delivery on a C100 and L glass or Sigma primes. Youtube compression does seem to kill a lot of the detail that might otherwise be present here.
 
I wouldn't use the C500/recorder setup on an event. The fan and the data rate is significantly detrimental to event shooting. As much as I love the image off that camera it's a bit of a pain.

I applaud the effort to make the best final product, keep in mind though that no man is an island and once you're doing this full time you have to consider that some work may come from the competition that you're undercutting. The guy with the C100 asking for a reasonable day rate can't compete with a someone showing up with an Arri and doing it at cost or spending his own money. Client's might not see the difference in equipment, but pros will and it's a good way to burn bridges before you've made them.
 
spinkscapes said:
Noted.
What about my colour grading?
I'm really struggling to match cameras like the Amira and FS7 to my secondary cameras (the GH4s). The former have such great dynamic range (as does the C300 mkII presumably) which is where the GH4 struggles. The camera on Stewart is a GH4 with Olympus 60mm combo. The GH4 has this tendency to render the colours bronzish when I use LUTS as well.
I am contemplating whether I outsource my colouring (as I work a full time job and have another casual job on the side).
Click to expand...

I can’t speak to matching the looks between your cams, but as far as LUTs are concerned, I’ve found them mostly useless. Shooting log on my C100, I use MB Looks (mostly the Colorista tool) to achieve a general look I want for whatever project I’m working on, and I then I apply said look to all my shots, making adjustments to account for exposure among scenes as I edit, etc etc. Going much deeper than this requires expertise, time, and equipment (a broadcast monitor, for example), that frankly you don’t need to invest in for this type of work.

I can’t imagine hiring a dedicated colorist for any gig I shoot, unless money simply isn’t a barrier. You’re talking big bucks, especially if you’re not even in the black yet with your current workflow.

Like some of these other posts have suggested, you might be bringing a gun to a knife fight. You can get by with much less (and cheaper) equipment than you’re using. Have good equipment, yes, and take care of said equipment, but focus on your craft first and foremost.
 
All very valid points for me to consider.
I am trying to position myself to buy something like the Ursa Mini in the near future.
At the current price of cameras do you think this would be a reasonable option for a first camera?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top