August 01, 2014, 09:19:13 PM

Author Topic: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3  (Read 8382 times)

Sith Zombie

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
    • Lightroom Images
Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2013, 09:01:03 AM »
The BMPC 4K looks insane for the price: full frame, 4K. It's definitely the choice for future proofing!
I do photography for work and video for pleasure and the BMPC would be great for the stuff I do [short films] but I think you would really have to know the menus well for it to perform in your line of work. The c100 with it's physical controls might suit you better. The choice basically comes down to something that's ok in terms of features but will serve you well in your line of work, or something that's more exciting and better spec'd but may prove to be 'quirky' in use.
Maybe try out the BM but i'v got a feeling that your heart lies with the Canon.

Also, I wouldn't worry too much about accessories, as no matter what camera you get, chances are you'll end up buying some sort of rig/adapters/accessories.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2013, 09:01:03 AM »

dirtcastle

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2013, 02:21:24 PM »
Either image quality is important, or it's not. In this case, it doesn't sound like it's that crucial (if it were, you would have stated the minimum quality needed).

Image quality is important.  Our films are played to an assembled audience of up to 1000 people, and are frequently broadcast as part of a programme edit.  And I do this at present from my 7D and T3i (and ENG and HDV)

I'm not going to composite.  Beyond colour correction off my header qpcard reel I'm not going to grade anything.

Image quality is important.

Do I need RAW, no. 

I'm just sorry I gave the impression that, as a professional cameraman, that image quality wasn't important.

If you've only shot with the 5D3 then maybe you aren't best placed to provide a helpful answer?

And in terms of ease of use?

I've done the DSLR route,  love the large sensor look for certain things.  Hate the handling, hate the ergonomics, hate the cobbled on audio, hate the WB procedure.  Nothing about what I shoot is about 'ease of use' it's about buying something designed for the job.

You say 'if I were a pro shooter'?  What are you then? Shooting to show your pals on vimeo?

I'm not being chippy, but to throw in a line like 'Either image quality is important or it's not'...

..thats divisive and going to get a response.

Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I made sure to tell you my experience so you could put it in perspective. I didn't mean to suggest that you would be okay with bad image quality. The choice is between 1080p AVCHD and the more high-end formats. You said you don't need RAW, so that would seem to be a big argument for C100.

What I notice here in the advice is you have two camps. The first camp assumes you want the maximum image quality. The second camp assumes you want ease of use. Maybe there is a third camp that believes there is a camera that has both the highest quality and ease of use. Take it for what it's worth but I don't see evidence that there is an under $6000 camera that has it all. And I think the comments here (from "pros" and stupid annoying know-nothing-amateurs (like me)) seem to back up that hypothesis.

You say 'if I were a pro shooter'?  What are you then? Shooting to show your pals on vimeo?

Currently I'm a Photoshop/Illustrator professional. Over the last year, I've been learning video and motion graphics.

I'm definitely not above shooting something for my pals on Vimeo.  ;)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 03:39:09 PM by dirtcastle »

syder

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2013, 05:02:01 PM »
Either image quality is important, or it's not. In this case, it doesn't sound like it's that crucial (if it were, you would have stated the minimum quality needed).

Image quality is important.  Our films are played to an assembled audience of up to 1000 people, and are frequently broadcast as part of a programme edit.  And I do this at present from my 7D and T3i (and ENG and HDV)

I'm not going to composite.  Beyond colour correction off my header qpcard reel I'm not going to grade anything.

Image quality is important.

Do I need RAW, no. 

I'm just sorry I gave the impression that, as a professional cameraman, that image quality wasn't important.

If you've only shot with the 5D3 then maybe you aren't best placed to provide a helpful answer?

And in terms of ease of use?

I've done the DSLR route,  love the large sensor look for certain things.  Hate the handling, hate the ergonomics, hate the cobbled on audio, hate the WB procedure.  Nothing about what I shoot is about 'ease of use' it's about buying something designed for the job.

You say 'if I were a pro shooter'?  What are you then? Shooting to show your pals on vimeo?

I'm not being chippy, but to throw in a line like 'Either image quality is important or it's not'...

..thats divisive and going to get a response.

Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I made sure to tell you my experience so you could put it in perspective. I didn't mean to suggest that you would be okay with bad image quality. The choice is between 1080p AVCHD and the more high-end formats. You said you don't need RAW, so that would seem to be a big argument for C100.

What I notice here in the advice is you have two camps. The first camp assumes you want the maximum image quality. The second camp assumes you want ease of use. Maybe there is a third camp that believes there is a camera that has both the highest quality and ease of use. Take it for what it's worth but I don't see evidence that there is an under $6000 camera that has it all. And I think the comments here (from "pros" and stupid annoying know-nothing-amateurs (like me)) seem to back up that hypothesis.

Look - if you want zomg ultimate image quality you're buying something like a Sony F65, Arri Alexa or waiting for the new Red Dragon sensor. None of which can be had for anything like 6k. This also is only really relevant if you're making films which will be shown on cinema screens (or maybe big budget tv drama).

As a professional you use the correct tool for the job at hand. Based on what Paul has already said about the types and volumes of work he does, that's probably the C100. Whose image quality is actually still pretty damn good (as in way better than most cameras that people were making perfectly competent and watchable content with a couple of years ago), even if on paper it sounds unexciting.

The BMC 4k on the other hand sounds fantastically exciting, but is likely to be useful for a far less diverse series of circumstances. Compared to the C100 its ergonomics are crap. Compared to the C100's low light abilities (which are amazing) the BMC will almost certainly be crap (as it doesn't actually exist yet we cant say for sure). The lack of ND filters and professional audio (read phantom powered balanced xlr) inputs on the BMC also sucks. 

Now if you're making shorts/fiction where you have control over your lighting conditions, time to set things up precisely, a separate sound crew and the post facilities and additional time (as a pro time spent grading and creating proxies is worth money as its time not spent working on other projects) to deal with the 4k raw footage there's a very strong argument for getting the BMC 4k.

On the other hand if you're shooting events or documentaries where you regularly have to deal with crappy (or at least far from ideal) in-situ lighting, record your own sound, and work handheld regularly then the BMC is a terrible camera for your needs. As is a Red Epic.

There isn't one-camera that fits all occasions (or even two cameras which cover two separate camps), and there is more to cinematography/videography than resolution, codec and colour depth.

Part of the issue here is likely that with the proliferation of decent S35mm and FF35mm sensors and cameras which use interchangeable lens systems, image quality (which is still a bit of a bleurgh term imo) has generally improved so much over the past few years that in many cases you don't gain that much more by prioritising it over everything else. Visually a C100 is a lot closer to an Alexa than an EX1 was to a Red One a few years back.




Etienne

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2013, 05:31:14 PM »
Making business case for new camera, currently using 7d / 600d for production video and eng for event video.

Very keen on c100 as it will work well with current lenses (or at least, predictably given transition from aps-c to s35)
but niggling doubts as to go for 5D3 and new lenses (would need a tascam dr-60d) or (if it can be supplied) the bmd 4k.   

I don't need 4k yet, but our stage crews are buying a 4k projection and screens... 1080 looks great on their exsisting screens, but any camera I buy is going to be used in 3, 5 years time.

I threw the 5d in there as an option...  I don't need stills on this camera... My gut tells me go dedicated video camera route, but is the BMD just too out there?

Philip Bloom has used and reviewed a lot of cameras. At the end of one of his recent reviews he said that if he had to have one and only one camera he would choose the Canon 1D-C. It's about $12,000 but it shoots 4K in camera, no external boxes required, and in low light it practically creates photons out of nothing.

The 1Dx is half the price and may do everything but 4K in Camera.

If you're looking at C100 you're in the 1Dx ballpark

Etienne

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 567
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2013, 05:32:03 PM »
BTW ...  Magic Lantern will have RAW video on the 5DIII soon.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #35 on: August 12, 2013, 06:47:23 PM »
Either image quality is important, or it's not. In this case, it doesn't sound like it's that crucial (if it were, you would have stated the minimum quality needed).

Image quality is important.  Our films are played to an assembled audience of up to 1000 people, and are frequently broadcast as part of a programme edit.  And I do this at present from my 7D and T3i (and ENG and HDV)

I'm not going to composite.  Beyond colour correction off my header qpcard reel I'm not going to grade anything.

Image quality is important.

Do I need RAW, no. 

I'm just sorry I gave the impression that, as a professional cameraman, that image quality wasn't important.

If you've only shot with the 5D3 then maybe you aren't best placed to provide a helpful answer?

And in terms of ease of use?

I've done the DSLR route,  love the large sensor look for certain things.  Hate the handling, hate the ergonomics, hate the cobbled on audio, hate the WB procedure.  Nothing about what I shoot is about 'ease of use' it's about buying something designed for the job.

You say 'if I were a pro shooter'?  What are you then? Shooting to show your pals on vimeo?

I'm not being chippy, but to throw in a line like 'Either image quality is important or it's not'...

..thats divisive and going to get a response.

Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I made sure to tell you my experience so you could put it in perspective. I didn't mean to suggest that you would be okay with bad image quality. The choice is between 1080p AVCHD and the more high-end formats. You said you don't need RAW, so that would seem to be a big argument for C100.

What I notice here in the advice is you have two camps. The first camp assumes you want the maximum image quality. The second camp assumes you want ease of use. Maybe there is a third camp that believes there is a camera that has both the highest quality and ease of use. Take it for what it's worth but I don't see evidence that there is an under $6000 camera that has it all. And I think the comments here (from "pros" and stupid annoying know-nothing-amateurs (like me)) seem to back up that hypothesis.

You say 'if I were a pro shooter'?  What are you then? Shooting to show your pals on vimeo?

Currently I'm a Photoshop/Illustrator professional. Over the last year, I've been learning video and motion graphics.

I'm definitely not above shooting something for my pals on Vimeo.  ;)

Ok, I maybe took your opinion the wrong way and over-reacted.

C100 is 1080i or 1080p (and even the p is in an i wrapper) this makes it more viable than a DSLR as 50i is preferred by most broadcasters.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #36 on: August 12, 2013, 06:49:29 PM »
Visually a C100 is a lot closer to an Alexa than an EX1 was to a Red One a few years back.

For the blue moon occassions where we'll need an alexia, we'll hire one.  You make good points and I'm pointing generally to the c100.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #36 on: August 12, 2013, 06:49:29 PM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #37 on: August 12, 2013, 06:51:49 PM »
Making business case for new camera, currently using 7d / 600d for production video and eng for event video.

Very keen on c100 as it will work well with current lenses (or at least, predictably given transition from aps-c to s35)
but niggling doubts as to go for 5D3 and new lenses (would need a tascam dr-60d) or (if it can be supplied) the bmd 4k.   

I don't need 4k yet, but our stage crews are buying a 4k projection and screens... 1080 looks great on their exsisting screens, but any camera I buy is going to be used in 3, 5 years time.

I threw the 5d in there as an option...  I don't need stills on this camera... My gut tells me go dedicated video camera route, but is the BMD just too out there?

Philip Bloom has used and reviewed a lot of cameras. At the end of one of his recent reviews he said that if he had to have one and only one camera he would choose the Canon 1D-C. It's about $12,000 but it shoots 4K in camera, no external boxes required, and in low light it practically creates photons out of nothing.

The 1Dx is half the price and may do everything but 4K in Camera.

If you're looking at C100 you're in the 1Dx ballpark

1Dx not been on my radar at all.  I don't need stills from this camera at all, and so the benefits over the 5D3 are largely negated, and I am very much leaning away from DSLRs because of form.  Good on board audio is also largely a must for me.

The business case has been put in, so I'll see what the accountant says.  Thanks all.

that1guyy

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2013, 05:21:06 PM »
BTW ...  Magic Lantern will have RAW video on the 5DIII soon.

soon? It's been working for a couple months now.

syder

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2013, 05:24:05 PM »
Visually a C100 is a lot closer to an Alexa than an EX1 was to a Red One a few years back.

For the blue moon occassions where we'll need an alexia, we'll hire one.  You make good points and I'm pointing generally to the c100.

I wish I could say that I needed an Alexa even once in a Blue Moon... I almost forget that my previous place of work had a Scarlet - I shot some tests with it, but never ended up using it for anything because of the extra crew and post requirements it demanded.

Hope your accountant comes back with a thumbs up  :)


canon rumors FORUM

Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2013, 05:24:05 PM »