Thread: About to do a Canon c200 vs ursa mini 4.6k test

Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1 About to do a Canon c200 vs ursa mini 4.6k test 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    124
    I have both the cameras today on loan from my local dealer.
    I use to own the ursa, but sold it thinking I would get the ursa pro, but then the c200 got released. I know the c200 eats the ursa in AF, ISO and stripped down weight, but the ursa is quite a bit workflow and shoulder mount friendly, and a heap cheaper. It also can take a speed booster inside the mount as some Italian guy has made one that works (the c200 might too- it has some room in there, but no one has tried).

    So I will have a few hours today to try the two together. Any requests for tests that aren't too techical? I will shoot like I ususally shoot, some back lit with fast lenses and I'll do some 120fps tests. I'll plonk the cameras both one my tripod somehow and shoot the same stuff moving (not a head shot with a colour card)

    So far just playing with the two-

    I shot with the c200 yesterday and I like the size and weight, but it's still big. The c200 also needs a lot to make it a comfortable shoulder cam. With a base you need to add a v-mount battery to run an evf or deal with a gratical and another type of battery, same with a video transmitter or follow focus. It's starts to look rigged Dslr very quick.
    The ursa, even though almost a kg heavier is so much better on a shoulder. The evf is light years ahead of the the built in c200 one. The screen is larger, the codecs are easy as well as the menu is simple.
    The ursa feels far less refined in build quality, but the ursa menu is far better refined than the slightly confusing canon menu. Most Japanese products have bad menus (sonys are the worst), I don't know why they can't get a better designer in to improve these, it can't be rocket science!


    Paul
    Paul Ross Jones


    -------------------------
    www.paulrossjones.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Note Suwanchote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by paulrossjones View Post
    I have both the cameras today on loan from my local dealer.
    I use to own the ursa, but sold it thinking I would get the ursa pro, but then the c200 got released. I know the c200 eats the ursa in AF, ISO and stripped down weight, but the ursa is quite a bit workflow and shoulder mount friendly, and a heap cheaper. It also can take a speed booster inside the mount as some Italian guy has made one that works (the c200 might too- it has some room in there, but no one has tried).

    So I will have a few hours today to try the two together. Any requests for tests that aren't too techical? I will shoot like I ususally shoot, some back lit with fast lenses and I'll do some 120fps tests. I'll plonk the cameras both one my tripod somehow and shoot the same stuff moving (not a head shot with a colour card)

    So far just playing with the two-

    I shot with the c200 yesterday and I like the size and weight, but it's still big. The c200 also needs a lot to make it a comfortable shoulder cam. With a base you need to add a v-mount battery to run an evf or deal with a gratical and another type of battery, same with a video transmitter or follow focus. It's starts to look rigged Dslr very quick.
    The ursa, even though almost a kg heavier is so much better on a shoulder. The evf is light years ahead of the the built in c200 one. The screen is larger, the codecs are easy as well as the menu is simple.
    The ursa feels far less refined in build quality, but the ursa menu is far better refined than the slightly confusing canon menu. Most Japanese products have bad menus (sonys are the worst), I don't know why they can't get a better designer in to improve these, it can't be rocket science!


    Paul
    Could you provide raw files if possible?
    www.lightformfilm.com
    https://vimeo.com/suwanchote

    follow me on instagram @lightformfilm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    287
    Hi Paul. I'd be interested to see some MP4 footage from the C200. These 8 bit codecs feel underwhelming on paper, but my C100 Mk2 seems to squeeze some impressive images from such little data. I wonder if the C200 can do the same?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    152
    More so grading capability, I'd like to see a comparison of grading for cinematic effect, and also grading to video "real" style look (like real estate) and how difficult it is to get to each. For example the colors on the micro are super easy to get to a dramatic cinematic look, but a little more difficult to get a realistic, documentary style. Canon is usually the opposite. If you provided some dngs from each we could do this comparison for you.

    Would also like a rolling shutter comparison.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    124
    im downloading some footage now. but here is an ursa file thats blown me away- i thought is was well overexposed, but its pulled back really well. ive used photoshop to open it as im a stills guy.

    Screen Shot 2017-10-15 at 3.40.35 PM.jpg

    Then darkening a fair bit-

    Screen Shot 2017-10-15 at 3.40.56 PM.jpg
    Paul Ross Jones


    -------------------------
    www.paulrossjones.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Hi Paul - which camera did you end up going with, and why? I'm facing an identical decision....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Perry Mulder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Hulst, Netherlands
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by paulrossjones View Post
    im downloading some footage now. but here is an ursa file thats blown me away- i thought is was well overexposed, but its pulled back really well. ive used photoshop to open it as im a stills guy.

    Screen Shot 2017-10-15 at 3.40.35 PM.jpg

    Then darkening a fair bit-

    Screen Shot 2017-10-15 at 3.40.56 PM.jpg
    That has to do with Adobe, if you load that same image into Davinci Resolve you'll get a much better exposed image. I have the same with my bmcc 2.5k. Adobe reads the dng's diff somehow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,813
    Paul, If you still have the C200, can you check for panning speed judder. I'm shooting with the big BM URSA4K and the C200. When panning, even at normal pan speed (roughly 6-7 secs frame-to-frame), I don't get any judder on the BM. A noticeable judder is evident with the C200. I was using the same Sigma 50mm EF lens (no SB) focal length and F stop of 2.8, natural ISO which was 400 on the BM and 800 on the C200, in 4K DCI at 24fps. It will be nice to know if you are experiencing the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. C200...
    By RAWlover in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 193
    Last Post: 11-15-2017, 07:43 AM
  2. A short test with the Ursa Mini 4.6k
    By wyatt in forum Footage / Frames
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-15-2016, 08:21 PM
  3. THE LOOK TEST // URSA MINI 4.6K, RED SCARLET MX and BMPC4K
    By olan_collardy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 05-18-2016, 02:42 PM
  4. Ursa Mini 4.6k vs Alexa test (over/under exposure)
    By xbourque in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-11-2016, 09:03 PM
  5. URSA Mini 4K Test
    By ty_lowcountry in forum Footage / Frames
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-25-2015, 01:15 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
  •