Author Topic: 4K with Canon lenses (Read 6904 times)

tickstock · « **on:** December 07, 2016, 00:32 »

What would you guys recommend for shooting 4k, preferably with Canon lenses? Any thoughts on the URSA mini, 5d Mark IV, GH5, A7sii, or something else.

PinHead · « **Reply #1 on:** December 07, 2016, 02:34 »

I'm shooting with canon lenses using a GH4 and the metabones adapter. U don't need expensive cameras, invest in good lenses to cover all range of shooting. I am very satisfied and I do not think I'll change my camera in the next 2 years. Not to say that neither is worth investing in new cameras because it devalues very quickly and u can lose a lot of money. sorry for my bad english

Video-StockOrg · « **Reply #2 on:** December 07, 2016, 02:37 »

It depends on your budget. URSA mini is probably the best, if you don't mind size of equipment. I we like it because it's not that portable and it has big battery. It's heavy too because of that too. OTherwise the a7sii is the smallest and most efficient, it has 100% fullframe sensor use at 4K. But you'll probably need external monitor to get the focus right while shooting.

We too use Canon lenses with a7s+atomos shogun for 4K. We use 5dmk3 for photo (ex video). We don't like 5dmk4 because of serious crop factor. Neither any other camera with crops factors (gh4).

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2016, 04:35 »

As with most cameras, it depends on:

1. Budget.
2. Size/portability requirements.
3. What you film the most.

Naturally, the URSA mini (or Red/Arri) will be the BEST in terms of quality, but not for portability and price. How is single frame stuff (time lapses) with the URSA? I've never tried...

This is what I currently use (with Canon lenses): Panasonic GH4 with Metabones adapter and a Canon 5D mk III. I mainly film wildlife, nature and cityscapes (time lapses) and I need to be able to carry my gear while walking in difficult terrain for 5 hours (along with motorized slider, various lenses, two tripods etc.).

For filming, I almost always use the GH4. For time lapse, standard photography and low light filming I use the 5D.

The GH4 is miles ahead of the 5D mk III (and IV) when it comes to handling while filming. Just not having a foldout screen means you have to lie in the mud if you film wildlife since you usually want to get down to eye level of smaller animals. That's a big deal-breaker for me... It's a pain when I do time lapses as well (often odd angles like straight up in the sky) but the difference in RAW quality from the 5D is enough to stand it.

The GH4 produces extremely good 4k footage with plenty of light up to ISO 800. After that it's not as fun anymore and the 5D will have to work. I film in RAW HD with Magic Lantern (kind of a pain but quality is great).

I use a 600mm lens with the GH4 (1380mm equivalent!!!) which is really awesome when filming wildlife. Heat and air density becomes more of a problem than filling the frame...

langstrup · « **Reply #4 on:** December 07, 2016, 05:57 »

We´re shooting a RED Raven + Canon 50mm L 1,2 & 16-35mm L 2.8. Never miss anything in that setup

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2016, 06:05 »

Quote from: langstrup on December 07, 2016, 05:57

We´re shooting a RED Raven + Canon 50mm L 1,2 & 16-35mm L 2.8. Never miss anything in that setup

Nice setup and portfolio langstrup. Just quickly slightly off-topic (another thread going): I notice you have everything at 23.98 fps. So do I, but lately I've been wondering where the most sales are. What was your reasoning to go with 23.98 and I suppose sales are good? Always hard to compare of course when you don't have the same clips up in different frame rates...

tickstock · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2016, 10:44 »

Thanks everyone good information. As far as price these cameras are all similar, the URSA is about $3,000 which is not even close to the cost of a RED or Arri. I have a few more follow ups: Considering the GH4 or GH5 are the improvements worth the wait? Does the metabones adapter work well, any issues to know about first? With the URSA I see it shoots in CinemaDNG Raw (265mbps), how is that for editing? I've done some 4k editing with XAVC S (I think 100mbps) and I know my computer can handle that pretty well.

langstrup · « **Reply #7 on:** December 07, 2016, 10:53 »

Thanks Increasingdifficulty :-)

We are pretty new to video. Only been doing it for 3 mont´s time or so. I don´t have enough data yet to compare framerates, I can say that we shot the last shoot in 25, just to try it out.

The reason we go for the 23.98 is for two reasons.

1) I talked to some TV/Broadcast people, who said the mainly worked in that framerate. That´s the clients we try to target as they will buy the more expensive quality.

2) I like the 23.98 look better than 30 fps look because it looks more real. At least to my eye :-)

We do sell the 23.98 clips, that I can say.

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #8 on:** December 07, 2016, 11:36 »

Quote from: tickstock on December 07, 2016, 10:44

Thanks everyone good information. As far as price these cameras are all similar, the URSA is about $3,000 which is not even close to the cost of a RED or Arri. I have a few more follow ups: Considering the GH4 or GH5 are the improvements worth the wait? Does the metabones adapter work well, any issues to know about first? With the URSA I see it shoots in CinemaDNG Raw (265mbps), how is that for editing? I've done some 4k editing with XAVC S (I think 100mbps) and I know my computer can handle that pretty well.

1. Yes, the Metabones adapters work well but are expensive for an adapter... Auto-focus will be slower and not as good as a native lens or a Canon lens on a Canon body but it works. If you will just use it for filming I suppose auto-focus isn't that important. Issues: The lenses stick out a bit longer meaning the GH4 will often be a bit front heavy, especially with Sigma Art lenses (the 18-35 1.8 is really popular to pair with the GH4).

2. CinemaDNG Raw is not 265mbps, it's 265 MEGABYTES (MB) per second which is 8 times more (over 2gbps). It's an incredibly high bitrate and without a big SSD drive you stand no chance.

But you can of course record directly in 10-bit ProRes (HQ) at around 800mbps which is really really nice. Needless to say, the quality of the URSA will be better than the GH4, but it's quite a bit bigger.

You can record 10-bit with the GH4 with an extra device that's quite expensive (Atomos Shogun for example, extra $2,000). The GH4's internal 4k records at 100mbit/sec bitrate. That's 12.5MB per second.

It seems that the GH5 will be able to shoot 10-bit internally which is a big deal. Editing 10-bit ProRes is a different world compared to 8-bit footage from the GH4 (even if that footage can be very, very good).

So, if you want the GH4 to get close to the functionality of the URSA you would have to spend at least $2,400 extra (adapter + 10-bit recorder). If you don't need a camera right now, the GH5 would probably be worth the wait since it seems to be able to handle 10-bit 4:2:2 4k internally. And 4k 60p.

tickstock · « **Reply #9 on:** December 07, 2016, 12:26 »

Thanks for that correction. I was thinking you needed a mac to work with ProRes but I see that's not the case. The size of the camera isn't something I'm too concerned about, I have smaller 4k sony already that I can use if I need to. Do you notice any quality loss for the lenses using the metabones adapter?

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2016, 12:35 »

No quality loss with the standard adapter as there is no glass.

However, there is quality IMPROVEMENT with the speed booster version (opposite of teleconverter = more light and more of the lens squeezed in over the sensor).

The classic combo for the GH4 is a Metabones Speed Booster with the Sigma 18-35 1.8 Art. This reduces the crop factor (0.71x = 13-25 equiv. on a GH4 body) and makes the lens function as a 1.2 aperture lens would on the GH4 body. You gain (or rather, get BACK what you've lost on the small sensor) one stop of light.

Original crop factor for 4k filming on the GH4 is 2.3x, so with the speed booster it is reduced to 1.633.

Kokkoros · « **Reply #11 on:** December 07, 2016, 12:58 »

I shoot with a Canon 24-105mm 4.0 on the Blackmagic Ursa Mini 4.6K and I love it.

The lens covers the range I need for stock (I just leave it on), it's tack sharp, the VR is supported and works like a charm.

Best,

Mark

tickstock · « **Reply #12 on:** December 07, 2016, 13:00 »

Quote from: Kokkoros on December 07, 2016, 12:58

I shoot with a Canon 24-105mm 4.0 on the Blackmagic Ursa Mini 4.6K and I love it.

The lens covers the range I need for stock (I just leave it on), it's tack sharp, the VR is supported and works like a charm.

Best,

Mark

I've seen some of the reviews mention problems with noise or other issues. I guess you haven't seen anything like that?

Kokkoros · « **Reply #13 on:** December 07, 2016, 13:23 »

Quote from: tickstock on December 07, 2016, 13:00

Quote from: Kokkoros on December 07, 2016, 12:58
I shoot with a Canon 24-105mm 4.0 on the Blackmagic Ursa Mini 4.6K and I love it.

The lens covers the range I need for stock (I just leave it on), it's tack sharp, the VR is supported and works like a charm.

Best,

Mark
I've seen some of the reviews mention problems with noise or other issues. I guess you haven't seen anything like that?

Noise is minimal. There are occasions noise will appear when pushing the shadows really hard in Blackmagic Da Vinci Resolve during post. That noise is easily eliminated in Resolve's amazing noise-reduction feature. My acceptance with this camera is 100 %

langstrup · « **Reply #14 on:** December 08, 2016, 01:32 »

Don´t think a little noise is a issue. The RED camerae´s are known for being noisy.

I put it thrue Neat video, and all noise gone in a couple of minuttes :-)

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #15 on:** December 08, 2016, 15:42 »

Quote from: langstrup on December 07, 2016, 10:53

Thanks Increasingdifficulty :-)

We are pretty new to video. Only been doing it for 3 mont´s time or so. I don´t have enough data yet to compare framerates, I can say that we shot the last shoot in 25, just to try it out.

The reason we go for the 23.98 is for two reasons.

1) I talked to some TV/Broadcast people, who said the mainly worked in that framerate. That´s the clients we try to target as they will buy the more expensive quality.

2) I like the 23.98 look better than 30 fps look because it looks more real. At least to my eye :-)

We do sell the 23.98 clips, that I can say.

Good reasons. I sell plenty of 23.98 clips too, but I suppose it's only natural to wonder, "what if?". Would I have sold even more using 25p, 29.97p? Questions that haunt me at night...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 4K with Canon lenses (Read 6904 times)

tickstock

PinHead

Video-StockOrg

increasingdifficulty

langstrup

increasingdifficulty

tickstock

langstrup

increasingdifficulty

tickstock

increasingdifficulty

Kokkoros

tickstock

Kokkoros

langstrup

increasingdifficulty

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors