Thread: Would you choose a Canon C200 over the Ursa Mini Pro NOW?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11  
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    NYC Metro Area "Jersey"
    Posts
    70
    As always rent and test before you buy. A little time with both will help decide which camera works better for you.
    And test through final delivery- put the cameras through your workflow.

    All the cameras are surprisingly good now. Some work better others for different people, different applications. The good thing is, either will work. It's not about a specific camera anymore, unless you have a very specific application.
    Local 600
    karlkimdp.com
    k2camera.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrey Blanco View Post
    are you joking right?

    I had done 12,800 iso on the c200 in total darkness and is sparking clean. ISO 800 on the Ursa mini is unusable is low light situations.

    Dynamic Range is an arguable topic but I prefer Canon C300-C200 Color Science.
    Do a test, light a set properly to iso 800. Set both cameras next tl each other. The c200 image will have more noise in it. (Offcourse if you will expose incorrectly the ump will fall short)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by polaroid22 View Post
    Do a test, light a set properly to iso 800. Set both cameras next tl each other. The c200 image will have more noise in it. (Offcourse if you will expose incorrectly the ump will fall short)
    Any confirmations on this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    682
    Quote Originally Posted by polaroid22 View Post
    Do a test, light a set properly to iso 800. Set both cameras next tl each other. The c200 image will have more noise in it. (Offcourse if you will expose incorrectly the ump will fall short)
    I have not tested scientifically, but this has not been my impression owning both cameras. In fact I've shot north of 6400 ISO on the C200 and it's been much cleaner than my Ursa 4.6k was at 1600. The C200 has more options for developing its RAW file. If you develop in CLog 3, it will be much cleaner than CLog 2. I'm also finding the C200 files to be better when it comes to pushing shadows. The Ursa was clearly better when recovering highlights. You have to expose these two cameras differently for optimal results (no surprise there).

    Ironically neither is better in terms of latitude than the original bmcc, which allowed me to push shadows more than 2 stops before starting to get unpleasant, and could overexposed to the point where it looked like things were mostly clipping and still recover the image.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member daydreamersproductions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    854
    Denjin Zaboga, I grew up in Hawaii and watched that show along with Kikaida, Kikaida 01, Kamenrider, Ranbow Man and others on KIKU TV.

    As to your question, Nope. I love BM's color science. Canon's looks like Canon.
    Go to my site to see my current Production and Post Production Gear
    http://www.daydreamersproductions.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by daydreamersproductions View Post
    Denjin Zaboga, I grew up in Hawaii and watched that show along with Kikaida, Kikaida 01, Kamenrider, Ranbow Man and others on KIKU TV.

    As to your question, Nope. I love BM's color science. Canon's looks like Canon.

    That is wonderful, daydreamers, I'm always very happy to find out others have enjoyed those great shows. Many have even pursued filmmaking because of them.

    I believe Canon to look more like Japanese shows. I have decided on purchasing the C200 later this coming week.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,681
    I've been shooting with the C200 for the past few of months. It's a nice camera for events and documentary because of the built-in features and low light capabilities but not for narrative films. I own BMD URSA, Pocket, and their Cinema 2.5K in the past and there is no way that the Canon raw light (CRL) profile can come any close to the BMD color science and RAW flexibility. CRL will break when push to far. I have to transform from CRL to Arri RAW gamma in DVR to just get better DR and grading. With narrative filming, my opinion is that you need a camera that has the highest DR and filmic color science for IQ. Only BMD, RED, and of course ARRI can deliver that. For broadcast, the Canon and Sony's are fine. Now let's see what the Pocket 2 can deliver because that will be a good camera to test against the C200. The C200 is not in the league for the UMP, IMO not to mention more expensive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by fahnon View Post
    I have not tested scientifically, but this has not been my impression owning both cameras. In fact I've shot north of 6400 ISO on the C200 and it's been much cleaner than my Ursa 4.6k was at 1600. The C200 has more options for developing its RAW file. If you develop in CLog 3, it will be much cleaner than CLog 2. I'm also finding the C200 files to be better when it comes to pushing shadows. The Ursa was clearly better when recovering highlights. You have to expose these two cameras differently for optimal results (no surprise there).

    Ironically neither is better in terms of latitude than the original bmcc, which allowed me to push shadows more than 2 stops before starting to get unpleasant, and could overexposed to the point where it looked like things were mostly clipping and still recover the image.
    Thats not what I wrote. I said expose both camera's at the same iso and light properly. Offcourse the c200 at iso 6400 will look better then ump at 1600! Which means the set was lit to iso 6400, offcourse the ump cannot beat that!
    1: light a scene to iso 800.
    2: Set both camera's at iso 800
    3: See what image is the cleanest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    10
    On paper yes, the c200 autofocus and low light seems superior (not to mention i still hate the magenta corners of my um4.6k) but I still haven't seen any good looking films made with the c200, would love to some though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by yxfilm View Post
    On paper yes, the c200 autofocus and low light seems superior (not to mention i still hate the magenta corners of my um4.6k) but I still haven't seen any good looking films made with the c200, would love to some though.

    I have seen many wonderful looking tests. Here are two.



    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. FS: URSA MINI PRO 4.6 CANON kit
    By C.H.Haskell in forum For Sale / Want to Buy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-11-2018, 04:33 PM
  2. About to do a Canon c200 vs ursa mini 4.6k test
    By paulrossjones in forum Cinematography
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 01:36 PM
  3. For sale Canon EOS C200
    By perrostar in forum For Sale / Want to Buy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 03:45 AM
  4. URSA Mini 4.6K (EF) + Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS
    By NorBro in forum For Sale / Want to Buy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 11:54 PM
  5. URSA Mini 4.6k (Canon mount)
    By dregenthal in forum For Sale / Want to Buy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-29-2016, 03:45 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •