Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Canon C500 Mark II

C500 or Gemini. Hmmmmm.

C500 or Gemini. Hmmmmm.

I'm pretty torn right now. My next camera will either be the C500 II or the Red Gemini. I've previously owned a C300 I, Red Dragon and a C200. Of those 3 cameras, I liked the image of the Red Dragon most of all, which is why I'm considering the Gemini.

That being said, the usability/durability of Canon cameras is undeniable. My original C300 I is still going. It's been all over the continent. It's been dropped, banged, soaked, etc. It's been through 110 degree deserts in Arizona and through -30 degree blizzards in Alaska and northern Minnesota. It's still going. It's been working for 8 years straight now and every button still works. No issues with it at all. It looks like shit at this point, but it's NEVER been serviced. Not once.

The C500 II ticks off so many boxes. It's got endless power on a tiny battery. It's got touch screen autofocus. It's got full frame. It's got built in XLR with a built in scratch mic. It's got a 10 stop ND. It's got dual card slots and an extra SD for backups/proxy. It's got physical buttons. And it's usable out of the box. Aside from the lack of higher frame rates, it has everything you could ever want.

The Gemini has RedRaw and ProRes. It has higher frame rates. And it has the Red image (which is a big one).

I shoot all kinds of stuff. I am sometimes thrust into editorial and doc scenarios where I have to shoot by myself on-location with minimal equipment. Other times I am shooting commercials for major brands with decent crew sizes and medium sized budgets. I can't help but think the C500 II is a better fit for the variety of shooting scenarios I work in. That being said, I really do love everything I shot with the Dragon. It just looked so filmic and beautiful out of the box (at lower iSOs). I wouldn't even be considering the Gemini right now if it weren't for my experience with the Dragon. Every time I looked at the monitor on the Dragon, I would smile. It just looked so cinematic to me.

That all being said, I think the Dragon's image looked cinematic to me due to a combination of traits (and even flaws) that I'm not so sure are present in the Gemini today. As we move closer and closer to cameras that can universally capture perfectly clean, high resolution, raw images with high bitrates and high dynamic range, the camera sensor becomes less of a factor in the equation as the playing field is leveled. I would argue that the skills and tools of the person doing the post work/color grade is becoming more important than the camera sensor. And the usability features of the camera begin to trump its image acquisition capabilities. When all the cameras out there can capture more data than our eye can visibly see, it's all in how you bend, push and work that infinite data. In which, case shouldn't you just pick the most user friendly camera out there?

Does anyone out there own a C200 and a Gemini?
And if so, how do you feel the images from those two cameras compare to each other?
 
I don’t think there is one perfect camera for every scenario. I feel like in the extreme shooting scenarios such as you’ve described, you really need a camera like the Canon C Series with its built-in NDs, long battery life, weather sealing, light weight, and compact form factor. It’s also on those jobs where you typically don’t have as much crew to help (if any), you’re in and out of vehicles all day, packing, charging batteries, dumping cards constantly, dealing with TSA and airline baggage. And you need to own the camera package because of the extended project schedules and often short notice. So unless you’re planning on transitioning away from such work, the C500Mk2 makes a lot of sense to me.

However, on commercial jobs there’s a lot more camera support crew (often to the point where you don’t need to touch the camera at all until the shot needs to be operated), and none of the attributes mentioned above are strictly necessary. So in that case, going for maximum image quality makes a lot more sense. Also, the commercial DP rates are usually a lot higher, so getting the camera rental fee is not as much of a concern, at least to me. It makes a lot more sense to me to just have production rent the camera package you really want in this case, unless you have the funds to own both types of cameras.

Re: Gemini.

I don’t own one, but have shot several projects with it. I enjoyed the images from it, but honestly prefer shooting with Alexa and 35mm film more. Have not used the C200, but if I had to compare with the C300Mk2, the Gemini is much cleaner, sharper, and has a richer image. The noise that is there feels like film grain, which makes it more acceptable to me. The only things I don’t like are how the highlights clip when you go below 800 ISO, very harsh and digital looking to me even with ‘very soft’ highlight roll-off applied. And I don’t think it handles mixed lighting that well, it seems to emphasize that green spike in fluorescents, whereas other cameras don’t as much. That could be a negative or positive, depending on your point of view.
 
Thanks for your response. And yeah, I agree. I think you're right, it's probably best to go with the C500 II. Currently I rent an Amira or a Mini when I do my commercial work. But I've been wanting to carry over the cinematic image quality I get from my commercial productions over to my doc/editorial stuff. The Mini is too much to rent for those extended gigs and it's too expensive for me to want to buy one. The Gemini sits relatively close to the price of the C500 II, so I've been contemplating going that route to add some more polish to my smaller gigs, even if it makes those solo productions a bigger pain in the ass. Though, when I go into the Gemini thread and read some of the posts about people's technical issues with the Gemini, it brings me back to the multiple quirks I experienced with the Dragon. And that doesn't sound fun.

It's interesting you mentioned the noise of the Gemini being more like film grain. That's good to know. Looking back at my Dragon footage, I can't say the grain at 800 ISO was necessarily indicative of film, but I can say that it added a pleasing texture to the image that I really liked. I think the new Canon sensors are lovely, but it's possible they might be too clean and shiny, which is what is making them a bit less cinematic? If I go with a C500 II, perhaps I should look into Film Convert to dirty up the image a bit.
 
Derek Doublin said:
That all being said, I think the Dragon's image looked cinematic to me due to a combination of traits (and even flaws) that I'm not so sure are present in the Gemini today.
Click to expand...


They are.

It is even more "cinematic".


Derek Doublin said:
Does anyone out there own a C200 and a Gemini?
And if so, how do you feel the images from those two cameras compare to each other?
Click to expand...

Both can shoot beautiful cinematic imagery.
C200 holds reds better. Gemini is superior in DR, lattitude, sensitivity and tonal depth.

C500mk2 should have superior image to C200 in all aspects.


Derek Doublin said:
It's interesting you mentioned the noise of the Gemini being more like film grain. That's good to know. Looking back at my Dragon footage, I can't say the grain at 800 ISO was necessarily indicative of film, but I can say that it added a pleasing texture to the image that I really liked. I think the new Canon sensors are lovely, but it's possible they might be too clean and shiny, which is what is making them a bit less cinematic?
Click to expand...

In the case of C200, it is more noisy than Gemini and noise is more electronic looking.

Red also has a special debayer/processing aesthetic for very organic texture, which is where Gemini shines.
 
Alternately, you could go with the Gemini and keep using the C200 for the brutal run-and-gun doc work. Sometimes you might not want to put a $20K-ish camera into those situations.

Not sure why the Gemini’s noise character feels sharper, compared to Dragon. Maybe better pixels and less compression?

I do like Filmconvert (the old one, haven’t upgraded to the new one), but I find it a bit limited. I only use 2x stocks and the grain tool. But it’s a nice option to have if you do your own post. I have been using Resolve to make my own in-camera LUTs for my projects over the past two years, and some of them are based on a Filmconvert profile. I find it helps to make the in-camera image exactly as you want it, as opposed to what the manufacturer thinks is a good Rec.709 look.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
C500mk2 should have superior image to C200 in all aspects.

In the case of C200, it is more noisy than Gemini and noise is more electronic looking.

Red also has a special debayer/processing aesthetic for very organic texture, which is where Gemini shines.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do find C200's noise to be really ugly, even compared to the original C300's. That was quite a shock to me. It's also not as good in lowlight as I thought it would be.

You mentioned the C500 II should be have a superior image to the C200, but they're literally using the same sensor. I guess since it's full frame, it should be better in lowlight? And maybe because it's shooting 5.9k which will be scaled to 4k in editing?
 
Jaime Vallés said:
It's not the same sensor as the C200. It's using the same sensor as the C700 FF.
Click to expand...
The C200 is the same sensor as the standard C700. I thought the C700FF is essentially just the same sensor as the original C700, just larger. Which would make the C200, C700, C500 II and C700FF all have a similar tonal quality. The full frame cameras should theoretically be a bit sharper, better in low light and have less noise. But the dynamic range, rolloff, color science, and tonal characteristics should be almost identical. But please correct me if I'm wrong. I've been under the assumption that there are not any huge differences between the sensors inside the latest round of Cinema EOS cameras.
 
Derek Doublin said:
The C200 is the same sensor as the standard C700. I thought the C700FF is essentially just the same sensor as the original C700, just larger. Which would make the C200, C700, C500 II and C700FF all have a similar tonal quality. The full frame cameras should theoretically be a bit sharper, better in low light and have less noise. But the dynamic range, rolloff, color science, and tonal characteristics should be almost identical. But please correct me if I'm wrong. I've been under the assumption that there are not any huge differences between the sensors inside the latest round of Cinema EOS cameras.
Click to expand...

Not the same sensor and not the same camera. The thing they do share is the Canon name.
 
Misha Engel said:
Not the same sensor and not the same camera. The thing they do share is the Canon name.
Click to expand...

Just curious, have you shot with the C700FF? Just wondering how much of a departure the C500 II will be from the C200 aside from the obvious full frame vs super35.
 
Derek Doublin said:
Just curious, have you shot with the C700FF? Just wondering how much of a departure the C500 II will be from the C200 aside from the obvious full frame vs super35.
Click to expand...

No I normally read tons of reviews before we rent and after the first 2 reviews about the C200 and the C700FF, I stopped reading, the C500 mark II has my attention though.
https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Canon-EOS-C500-Mark-II--Modulare-Vollformat-Kamera-mit-6K-RAW-und-Dual-Pixel-AF---Teil-1--Hauttoene--Autofokus.html
https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Canon-EOS-C500-Mark-II---die-beste-Doku-Kamera--Ergonomie--Stabilisierung--Sensorreadouts-und-Fazit---Teil-2.html

Lot's of options these days.
 
I've shot with a C500MK2 prototype.

In fact, it does share the same sensor with the C700FF but has a new processor and improved colour science.

For a long shooting day, 4 90wh V-Mount batteries will do it. It records 5.9k off a full-frame sensor in raw, similar to Redcode mildly compressed. You can window the sensor to S-35mm which will deliver pristine 4k, both Raw and YUV 10Bit, or even down to 2K matching S-16. With a PL-Mount and S-16 glass a cool offering. There's also an anamorphic sensor crop option. On an SD card, you can record matching proxies.

Canon allows you to change the mount from EF to PL on your kitchen table in 2 minutes (done that). It's very lightweight and has for everything a button, and of course internal ND, up to 10 stops. The original C700 EVF (very good EVF!) works, of course, with the C500MK2. With the additional rear-module, it becomes a serious production camera with 4 XLR audio inputs, TC-in, power outlets, you name it. And it has the most impressive AF in the industry of today that allows you to use algorithms that mimic a human focus puller. Seen and tried it, and it's just plain awesome.

In my opinion, the only reason why one would go with a Gemini or Sony is a personal preference when it comes to colour. But even then, you can set colour to neutral and skip Canon's colour interpretation. With CLog2 the camera is fully ACES compatible, and other IDT like Arri's CLog can be used for colour interpretation (you can do that with Red too).

Finally a milestone from Canon that dwarfs many offerings from the competition, especially Sony's FX9 and in my opinion everything from Red, being Monstro the exception, albeit a pretty expensive one if you consider the C500Mks pricetag. This time Canon got a lot right.

Hans
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
I've shot with a C500MK2 prototype.
In my opinion, the only reason why one would go with a Gemini or Sony is a personal preference when it comes to colour. But even then, you can set colour to neutral and skip Canon's colour interpretation. With CLog2 the camera is fully ACES compatible, and other IDT like Arri's CLog can be used for colour interpretation (you can do that with Red too).

Finally a milestone from Canon that dwarfs many offerings from the competition, especially Sony's FX9 and in my opinion everything from Red, being Monstro the exception, albeit a pretty expensive one if you consider the C500Mks pricetag. This time Canon got a lot right.

Hans
Click to expand...

Wow, it's great to hear from someone that's actually used the C500 II. And super encouraging. I can't wait until it's released next month and we can start seeing some footage posted. The C500 II does appear to be much more future proof than the Gemini. And I can't help but feel the Gemini is going to experience a drop in value in the next year or two, which is usually the dynamic with the Red ecosystem. Much like the FS7, it sounds like the C500 II will be relevant for quit a long time.

I will say, I've worked with multiple Canon cameras throughout my life, 5D II, 5D III, C300, C300 II and C200, and not to discount the stuff I've shot with my Canons, but the footage I've shot with my Red Dragon is still my favorite of the cameras I've owned. I've also shot plenty of stuff with a rented Alexa that I absolutely love. And when I look back at everything, it's very clear to me that the footage I captured with the Red and the Arri look the most "cinematic" to me, which isn't surprising. But I'm open to seeing what the C500 II can do when put in the right hands. It sounds like they finally nailed it. I certainly prefer my Canon cameras when it comes to usability, durability and longevity.
 
Yeah, with Red did dropping Dragon repair after four years , c500mk ii is my next camera. Such utter bullshit.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #76
My 2 cents regarding the Dragon sensor. Without doubt, when Red brought the Dragon sensor to market, it was a very good answer to Arri. It was about a stop slower but offered considerably more resolution and colour-wise a cinematic interpretation that could hold its own. Sparsely exposed the Dragon sensor exhibited a texture second to none. But it was just as well prone to noise when unintentionally underexposed (what happened many, many times as hundreds of threads on Reduser prove).

I shot 6 years with my Epic and the Dragon sensor for many projects. It failed me 2 times, but Red swapped the faulty sensors at no costs. I only had to pay the rent of a camera when my Epic was at the repair shop. I consider this as the natural behaviour of a vendor in this particular market.

Fast forward to today. S35mm is history. Not as a format but as the sensor size in a top tier cinema camera. A sensor of 2020 delivers in FF min. 4k, better 6K and has a real-world sensitivity of ISO 1600. This is 2 more stops compared to the Dragon sensor. Colour shouldn't be an issue but somewhat still seems to be and is still connected to resolution. Pros tend to prefer colour over resolution.

Regarding Red's proposed end of Dragon repair which is now extended to 'when parts run out": Red is not Canon, nor Sony. It's like Arri a speciality vendor of high-end digital cinema cameras, albeit in a different segment of the market but with many overlappings. Red camera's lifecycles are shorter than for instance Arri's. This is due to Red's faster pace of product releases and a less streamlined product range, but also to the manufacturing quality which cannot compete with Arri. But the technical advancement was always remarkable (and still is).

Their customer relation is not built upon life-long development of mutual trust like Arri's but more on the zeitgeist. Red is damned to innovate. In this regard closing down Dragon's sensor repairs are only logical and understandable. The question remains whether Red's innovation pace and price policy compensate that. In the past, it did - at least for me. Today not so much, unfortunately.
The big Japanese mass-market camera companies are closing in, there is no current Red offering that makes me to invest. And I'm in the market.

Red has to innovate. But in which direction? Monstro is now positioned against Arri's Mini LF. Pretty hard endeavour.

Hans
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
My 2 cents regarding the Dragon sensor. Without doubt, when Red brought the Dragon sensor to market, it was a very good answer to Arri. It was about a stop slower but offered considerably more resolution and colour-wise a cinematic interpretation that could hold its own. Sparsely exposed the Dragon sensor exhibited a texture second to none. But it was just as well prone to noise when unintentionally underexposed (what happened many, many times as hundreds of threads on Reduser prove).
Hans
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what you mean. When I kept the ISO at around 640, the Dragon just shined with a specific texture that looked so cinematic to me. And the colors just looked so damned good. And there-in lies my dilemma. I've been mostly shooting with Canons for the last 10 years, and to me the Canon look is extremely prevalent in every Canon I've used. Colors look great, but skintones push heavily towards magenta which is more obvious in certain lighting conditions than others. And frankly, there is a certain look to the image that screams "Canon" to me. It's not a bad thing, it just seems like I work a little harder to create a "cinematic" image to me whereas with that Dragon (with the right settings), I would just look at the monitor and think, "Damn. That looks like a friggin' movie right there." I realize the term "cinematic" is a hotly debated, unscientific term and means different things to different people. To me, when I look at an Alexa image or a Red image, I think "movie". When I look at a Canon image I think, documentary or corporate/editorial video. Under a microscopic, I know this all has to do with the usual variables of highlight rolloff, latitude, noise, bitrate, color fidelity, chroma subsampling, yada yada yada. To keep it simple, most people just say "cinematic" or that image has "mojo".

I just got off the phone with my tax attorney and I'm being advised that if I have a big camera purchase to make soon, then I need to make it in the next 5 weeks because I'm gonna really need that write-off this year. My original plan was to just wait, rent both of the C500 II and the Gemini, do my own shoot off, and make an educated decision from that experience. Now I'm calculating how much waiting will cost me in spent tax dollars. I may have to just make a decision without a test, which sucks.

I wish there was more C500 II stuff out there to look at. The most promising thing on the internet is just this, which doesn't really show me a ton. It looks like a really, really nice Canon image to me, but with shallower depth of field. Though, to be fair, I'm not sure a Gemini in this scenario would look vastly superior.

 
This is the video that made me want to revisit Red again. Some people don't like it, but I think it looks amazing. I know he's doing a ton to this image, both with his lens whacking, modifications and heavy post grade. But looking past all that, there is clearly a depth/richness and texture to this image that just looks so awesome to me. I am not sure I could achieve this with any Canon I currently have. I could be wrong though. And the C500 II might be a different beast.

I will say one thing though, this video seems like a perfect example of how useful DPAF is on the Canon when being a solo shooter. He can't seem to keep his subjects in focus at all. But maybe that is intentional? Even so, while the loose racks and ultra blurry image works well with this sort of ethereal type of footage, if this was any other form of shoot, an extremely skilled 1st AC would be absolutely required. Whereas with the Canon, you might actually get away with not having a 1st AC and could still end up with comparable footage. So there is a lot to be said for that.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top