C100: Video I made on C100 and 5D3

We have an expression in the musical world "Psycho Acoustics"....... perhaps there is a similar term in the film world.

I'm absolutely convinced the audio sense can change ones perception of the visual sense, and the visual sense the perception of audio.

What can change everything is to say I got a bad lens...... that really screws with your head.
 
I say spend money on cameras and not lenses, assuming your current camera isn't that great. You put a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS or a $10,000 cinema lens on a 5D shooting h.264 and you'll still get mushy images, while you can put a cheap but good quality $100 Nikon AIS lens on your C100 which will have a sharper image than the 5D no matter how good the 5D's lens is.

I did a wedding once where I rented a 5D Mark III when it first came out and also rented $8k of Canon L lenses, along with another $5k of Canon L lenses we already had. Looking back, the images out of it were not nearly as good as what the lackluster Canon 24-105 f/4 provides when put on my C100.

That said, I just bought a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II because I was tired of the not as sharp images I was getting from the Canon 24-105 f/4. Keeping the latter for the longer reach and IS when I need it. I have a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for telephoto which is great optically but I'll probably get a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS before long for the IS and AF.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I say spend money on cameras and not lenses, assuming your current camera isn't that great. You put a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS or a $10,000 cinema lens on a 5D shooting h.264 and you'll still get mushy images, while you can put a cheap but good quality $100 Nikon AIS lens on your C100 which will have a sharper image than the 5D no matter how good the 5D's lens is.

I did a wedding once where I rented a 5D Mark III when it first came out and also rented $8k of Canon L lenses, along with another $5k of Canon L lenses we already had. Looking back, the images out of it were not nearly as good as what the lackluster Canon 24-105 f/4 provides when put on my C100.

That said, I just bought a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II because I was tired of the not as sharp images I was getting from the Canon 24-105 f/4. Keeping the latter for the longer reach and IS when I need it. I have a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for telephoto which is great optically but I'll probably get a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS before long for the IS and AF.
Click to expand...

Eric, your advice is exactly the opposite of what every photographer tells me...... invest in glass not cameras!

I don't quite know what to say to the fact you preferred the image of the 24-105 over the 70-200 2.8 IS USM II. I compared my 70-200 f4 to the f2.8 and my mouth dropped open, dare I even compare it to the 24-105 then I might have a heart attack. I don't think your comparison with the 5D3 and the C100 are valid...... did you compare both lenses on the C100? Unless you did then your ideas don't carry any weight.

This is consistent with the advice given here about lenses for the C100...... sorry but I don't buy it. I shoot in the exact same spot for three years so when I get a better lens I see it immediately. The only thing I can say as to why you like the 24-105 over the 70-200 2.8 is you don't shoot in a consistent controlled environment so you can't see the difference.
 
Doug_EX said:
Can I ask what mic was used in your video?
Click to expand...

Doug, I recently bought my dream mics, Schoeps CMC6 MK4's. I also have a pair of Oktava MK-012's modified by Michael Jolly, and use his MJE K47H large diaphragm capsules, but I just can't see myself ever going back to those mics after the Schoeps. I run this through a Metric Halo ULN-2 preamp converter.
 
Here are two videos, first one shot on the C100 with the 70-200 f4 IS, and the second video shot with the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM II. The camera was the same distance away, I didn't move the guitarists chair ...... nothing changed except for the lens, the only other difference was the second video was shot with the "second Shooter" in Loop mode. Oh of course the ISO was different as well.

The lighting was different as well, there was much less lighting with the f2.8 naturally, and more lighting with the f4.

I just don't know what to say to you guys who can't see how much sharper the 2.8 lens is. I mean really? Maybe I'm insane!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCUpgGODNb0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCNCsyUL9jo
 
Michael Thames said:
BTW, here is exactly the kind of video camera angles many of you are suggesting. This is really what I want to avoid..... so crazy and confusing. On top of it, he is lip sinking the guitar to pre recorded audio, something that I never do, as I like live unedited performances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTjehbBeblU
Click to expand...
Well Michael, no one suggested this type of shooting angles. We (or I) suggested to do some close-ups with you 2nd cam...big difference here.
 
Michael Thames said:
Eric, your advice is exactly the opposite of what every photographer tells me...... invest in glass not cameras!

I don't quite know what to say to the fact you preferred the image of the 24-105 over the 70-200 2.8 IS USM II. I compared my 70-200 f4 to the f2.8 and my mouth dropped open, dare I even compare it to the 24-105 then I might have a heart attack. I don't think your comparison with the 5D3 and the C100 are valid...... did you compare both lenses on the C100? Unless you did then your ideas don't carry any weight.

This is consistent with the advice given here about lenses for the C100...... sorry but I don't buy it. I shoot in the exact same spot for three years so when I get a better lens I see it immediately. The only thing I can say as to why you like the 24-105 over the 70-200 2.8 is you don't shoot in a consistent controlled environment so you can't see the difference.
Click to expand...
Eric did not mention that he like the 24-105 over the 70-200 2.8. He said that he prefer the image of the C100 with the 24-105 over any L lens on the 5D.
 
I too believe in investing in good glass..and keep it forever (or at least a very long time). But having a great camera is also a good idea for sure. Both are very important.
 
Michael Thames said:
Eric, your advice is exactly the opposite of what every photographer tells me...... invest in glass not cameras!
Click to expand...
That's because even cheap hobbyist photographers are already shooting approximately 5.7k RAW images with their $650 Canon t5i cameras. To shoot 5.7k RAW for video you'd need a Red Dragon for $50,000. Video cameras are still catching up to still cameras in terms of image quality to price ratio. As I said, "assuming your current camera isn't that great."

A 5D for video is in my opinion not that great (while it is great for photography), and for those who have a 5D as their A-camera or perhaps even B-camera and are thinking of spending $2-4K on L-series lenses, I'd suggest they consider upgrading their camera first to something with passable image quality such as a C100, GH4, A7S, FS5, FS7, C300, etc. After they've got a camera with good image quality to actually get their money's worth out of the expensive lenses they buy, then they can start buying those expensive lenses.

I just consider putting sharp lenses on a camera that will always yeild mushy results (a 5D shooting in h.264) mostly as a waste of money. I say "mostly" because yes, you will get slightly sharper mushy images with a sharper lens on a 5D, but in terms of how much you have to spend, you can get better images for cheaper by first investing in a better camera such as the C100 with cheaper lenses.


Michael Thames said:
I don't quite know what to say to the fact you preferred the image of the 24-105 over the 70-200 2.8 IS USM II. I compared my 70-200 f4 to the f2.8 and my mouth dropped open, dare I even compare it to the 24-105 then I might have a heart attack. I don't think your comparison with the 5D3 and the C100 are valid...... did you compare both lenses on the C100? Unless you did then your ideas don't carry any weight.

This is consistent with the advice given here about lenses for the C100...... sorry but I don't buy it. I shoot in the exact same spot for three years so when I get a better lens I see it immediately. The only thing I can say as to why you like the 24-105 over the 70-200 2.8 is you don't shoot in a consistent controlled environment so you can't see the difference.
Click to expand...
As Doug said, "Eric did not mention that he like the 24-105 over the 70-200 2.8. He said that he prefer the image of the C100 with the 24-105 over any L lens on the 5D."

In your situation since you need two cameras for multi-cam if you don't do photography I'd consider selling the 5D and buying another C100 as your second camera. If you do need the 5D for photography, I'd consider buying a second C100 and using current lenses on it (say a 24-105) instead of spending $2k on a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. A used C100 without autofocus costs about $2200, so is around the same price as a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Then once you have good cameras to use, you can start thinking about upgrading your lenses.



This is a lens and camera test I did awhile ago comparing the 60D, 5D, and C100 with various lenses. The Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is sharper than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non IS V.1. I didn't have an IS V.2 to test. I know the V.2 IS one is supposed to be a lot sharper than the V.1.




I'll also mention that as far as day rates for freelance jobs people can generally get higher day rates with more expensive cameras, while getting a higher day rate for having some extra L-series lenses is not as common.
 
Last edited:
Eric, I enjoyed the video. I would also like to see a comparison in low light.

Yes, I'm well aware of the problems with the 5D3, but I do need it for photography so I won't be selling it anytime soon. I have wanted another C100 and will probably get one at some point. In a way I guess I'm a gear junkie, but I'm not gonna go and trash the venerable master (5D3) just yet, it is still an amazing video camera, at least I don't think I can exhaust it's potential just yet.

But, lets get back to my original point. Lets also stay within the price range of the C100, C300 etc. and not bring the "Red Dragon" into the conversation as this is a whole other thing.

I just shot two videos one with the 70-200 2.8 IS USM II, and the 70-200 f4 IS which you can see. No mention of one being sharper than the other? Seriously, to me it's pretty obvious, let me know if I'm imagining this, so far I've been told my lens might be a bad one, and then told both lenses are the same etc. either I'm imagining it or my lens is broken, it's easy to say my lens is a bad one, and that is the reason the 2.8 appears to be sharper. No mention about the difference in the two videos which was the point. I've also provided tests that clearly show the 70-200 IS USM II is noticeably sharper than the first version, then of course we all know the 24-105 is a dog of a lens, but a useful dog.

All I know is I saw enough of a difference in these lenses that at this point I would buy a 70-200 IS USMII over a new MKII C100 or comparable camera, as the #1 single best improvement I could make for $2000.

Even if you buy a C300 MK 2 you are still going to need good lenses. I've seen countless YouTube comparisons between the C100/with a Blade, and the C300 and can not detect any difference in the image. I could however, see a huge difference when I switched lenses on my C100.

Concerning photographers - I believe in many ways they are more knowledgable than videographers in general, they have been at it a lot longer. Certainly if a photographer tells me I will see a big difference between the 24-105 vs. the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM II, I take that to heart and tend to believe them. If it works for cameras, the same can be applied to video cameras, doesn't that make sense?
 
Michael Thames said:
I just shot two videos one with the 70-200 2.8 IS USM II, and the 70-200 f4 IS which you can see. No mention of one being sharper than the other? Seriously, to me it's pretty obvious, let me know if I'm imagining this, so far I've been told my lens might be a bad one, and then told both lenses are the same etc. either I'm imagining it or my lens is broken, it's easy to say my lens is a bad one, and that is the reason the 2.8 appears to be sharper. No mention about the difference in the two videos which was the point. I've also provided tests that clearly show the 70-200 IS USM II is noticeably sharper than the first version, then of course we all know the 24-105 is a dog of a lens, but a useful dog.
Click to expand...

Like I said, both lenses SHOULD give you about the same results, except at 2.8 the subject will pop more than at f4 because of the shallower DOF. Search on Google, it's pretty unanimous...both lens are pretty equal. Even the F4 IS is sharper at some focal lengths. But generally speaking, they are pretty much equal. Maybe your lens is not as sharp as it should be...don't know.

Anyway, you really can't go wrong with the 70-200 2.8 IS II...a fantastic lens!
 
Michael Thames said:
Concerning photographers - I believe in many ways they are more knowledgable than videographers in general, they have been at it a lot longer. Certainly if a photographer tells me I will see a big difference between the 24-105 vs. the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM II, I take that to heart and tend to believe them. If it works for cameras, the same can be applied to video cameras, doesn't that make sense?
Click to expand...

Of course you'll see a difference between the 24-105 and the 70-200 2.8 IS II. No one will argue with that. You mentioned in a earlier post that one should expect (according to your photographer friend) to see a relatively big difference between the 70-200 F4 IS (not the 24-105) and the 70-200 2.8 IS II. The 24-105 is not as good as the 70-200 F4 IS.
 
I think the 70-200 2.8 IS II is a great buy that will last forever (or almost). This lens will be used on multiple camera bodies through it's life span.
Also, there will always be a better camera out there. Yes, the C100 is better than the 5D, but the Arri Amira is also better than the C100...so, is it a good reason not to buy good lenses for the C100?
 
I can't believe we are actually having a conversation as to which of these lens are better. I concede and hand the victory to both Doug and Eric. My lens is obviously broken.
 
Michael Thames said:
I can't believe we are actually having a conversation as to which of these lens are better. I concede and hand the victory to both Doug and Eric. My lens is obviously broken.
Click to expand...
Well that's because you can't (or don't want to) acknowledge that those 2 lenses should give about the same results. You rely only on your personnal experience...and that is NOT everyone exerience.
 
Michael Thames said:
I can't believe we are actually having a conversation as to which of these lens are better. I concede and hand the victory to both Doug and Eric. My lens is obviously broken.

"No mention of one being sharper than the other? Seriously, to me it's pretty obvious, let me know if I'm imagining this,"
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, you ask for input...then complain when people with oodles more experience than you and I offer their opinion which you asked for in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top