But what I see is, that is has much more chromatic aberration in the green area than the Ursa. You can see it on the earring.But mybe it is the lens :) But overall the image looks better of the canon :)
@@MadMusicLine Its likely to come from the difference in Sensor stack, The less paralell the light falls on to the sensor the more this issue becomes aperent.
Its really an impressive visualisation of what ARRI enginiers have ben preaching for years, its not about the amount of pixels, it about the quality of pixels and how you process the data coming of the sensor. So even if your goal is to punch in on an Image, more resolution might sill be worse then slightly upscaling a more detailed image. Also Interesting is, how the aberrations on the earrings only apear on the R5, i think its because the sensorstack is more optimised for RF Lenses, wich have a shorter flanch distance and proberbly can achive a more paralell light beam to hit the sensor. I dont think ELM or almost anyone else should really keep or buy the URSA 12k. It really sets prioritys in wierd places. Was anyone really asking for a 12k camera? I think a Full frame 6k Ursa with dual Base Gain and better noise perfomance would have been more apeeling for most customers. I only see purpose for high resolution video, in VFX heavy productions, or Controlled Studio Environments like Tabletop. But those guys all already use RED cameras for good reason. But then again what do i know, im just some guy commenting on a comment on a youtube Video...
Thanks for this Armando and @Epic Light Media! The differences in color are interesting. The Ursa looks rather more magenta than the Canon which matches my experience with the Ursa Mini Pro as well. And those specular highlights on the forehead - really useful to see the differences there. Really nice comparison!
Lol, I saw the opposite! I didn't think the Ursa looked magenta, I thought the Cannon looked greenish/blue?! However, we all have different monitors and our color settings are likely different!
@@danielmerkley4543 That is definitely the challenge on the web and everyone with a different monitor, most of which are not calibrated. I shot with an Ursa Mini Pro for about 2 years and found that the image from my copy of the UMP definitely tended magenta (both on scopes and Flanders Scientific DM240 grading monitor). Strangely, my brother also has one and shooting in the exact same lighting, same lens, his was far less magenta. But I haven't experienced the magenta tendencies on the Pocket 4K or 6K, at least not the copies I have here. Strange.
@@danielmerkley4543 The color does look more magenta. You can see the IR pollution clearly at around the 9:05 mark of the video. The face, shirt, dog's mane, etc are all impacted by it.
I like that someone is being optimistic and reasonable about the R5. It is honestly truly amazing that both Canon and Sony are innovating and putting so much into these smaller cameras that have no business being as good as they are. I’m just excited for what is coming next, because now that the door has been opened, there will definitely only be more exciting innovations and features to follow.
I think it depends on the shoot. for outdoors I know a lot of people get that brown looking footage with the blackmagic cameras (although that is mainly due to them not using "ir cut" filters)
@@legendp2011 This is absolutely due to lack of IR CUT filters. It's shocking that people use these cameras and don't realise an IR CUT filter is essential in natural light. And ideally some kind of OLPF filter also. Otherwise moire and IR pollution will ruin your footage.
@@GarethStack after shooting features on this cameras and having 2nd unit shoot without one day, i can COMPLETELY attest that an IR filter is 100% needed. really they need to start including ir on the camera.
No joke Armando, I feel like you've REALLY stepped up your videos in the past year or so. What I mean by that is, there are TH-camrs who get a camera, review it and make a video. While technical deep dives are needed and appreciated, those TH-camrs are a dime a dozen. Seeing videos of someone who's working with the gear in real-world settings, on actual productions and then bringing what you've learned to TH-cam is a breath of fresh air in a garbage dumpster of content creators.
It's kinda hard to tell the difference of resolution if you add sharpening to the 12 k footage, also, when it comes to 12k, the sharpness of the lens is a big factor, I know the sharpest sony lenses are meant for up to 100megapixels, and 12k is 80megapixels so the lens you used might not be sharp enough to take full advantage of the 12k sensor.
The other thing to take note of, the power of braw can't be understated. It completely transforms a workflow in post from something painful to something smooth and effortless. Both in playback speeds to color and even in raw adjustments like white balance and ISO.
Exactly. Too Many people are using final cut and premier to edit it instead of using resolved which really just bring dad a whole Other level in that post processing workflow
The big thing for me is the framing options with 12k. The Ursa gives you so many choices for resolution and codec. Honestly all these new cameras have amazing image quality and nobody is going around pixel peeping and zooming into 400% except us creators. At the end of the day resolution is no substitute for GOOD STORY=) We are spoiled as creators in 2020 for sure.
@@mondobytes wanna hear your thoughts armando on these two things: 1. canon cinema line is rocking and practical too. can't wait for you to use the canon c70 with the speedbooster. imagine how insane is that. but still canon has better skin tone than ursa in your footage 2. man you need to have a really master level lens if you don't want those 12k pixel to destroy your lens.
Watching a review for cameras I can't get. But it's always good to know such useful informations in this video to help influence decisions for buying cameras in the future
when you try to match the grade that closely between multiple cameras, all you're doing is realizing the lowest common denominator in all cameras you're comparing. No offense. You're not the only one to do that. But, it achieves nothing other than making the best cameras stop short of what they are capable of. The value of a digital camera is essentially what you can do with its image in post. What are its horizons and limitations. The best way to compare cameras is to make available raw/log frames of each camera to the public and let everyone grade each camera footage to their very best and let's see what everyone out there can do with each camera footage. It would also be a lot of fun. :)
Most intelligent response in here. I hate these side by side d*ck sizing competitions, because they lead consumers to buy into the theory behind whoever is catering to one said camera brand. People should buy a camera because they can afford it, it is appropriate for the kind of work they do, or they need a technical ability of one camera in particular. EVERY camera has its limits, yes Arri and RED too. I own a RED Raptor, and there are days where I wish I had a little DSLR because its less work, and less storage is needed.
Best 12k review I've seen. Obviously BM has some development issues they have to work out, but from past experience it's kind of amazing how much improvement they can get from firmware. Only nitpick is correction should have happened through a color chart. I get the reason not to, but if your going to spend $10K-$16 on a camera body - you're likely not going to just slap a generic conversion LUT and go on your way. Lastly, worth mentioning how easy it is to fix that highlight roll off, but in the RAW panel there is a slider just for that - not sure if that was touched at all in this video, but it's there.
I love black magic. I’m definitely a fan boy for them 😂 However, that c500 mk2 looks stupid good! Both look really good! Also you always kill that color grade bro!
Kinda comes down to workflow, tbh. Blackmagic Cameras + BRAW + DaVinci Resolve = absurdly good results. Obviously you can shoot great stuff on Canon gear (heck, you can shoot great stuff on an iPhone), but there just doesn't seem to be a realistic justification for paying $16,000 for that camera given the alternatives (unless you are already HEAVILY invested in the Canon ecosystem or have an incredibly specific use case). Especially when you start looking at postproduction. That said, the 12k also clearly needs some firmware updates, as is to be expected with any new piece of gear like this. But you could get a G2 and two BMPCC 6ks for about the price of one 12k. When you consider how much that opens up your possibilities on a shoot, it's just hard to recommend spending that money on one capable camera over 3.
BRAVO, what a great review. I'm so impressed with all of them but I think the Ursa 12k has an edge. I liked the image a fraction better than the others. Can't wait for future content!
Another very interesting video! Thanks Armando and Epic light folks, keep up with the useful content that inspires and helps us all learn more and more. 🙏
The moiré on camera B was the dead giveaway for me. I am Canon guy but I am surprised that I liked the URSA's reds (and oranges) a bit more. Armando, as always, excellent video content and production. King of video! ❤
right the c500Mk2 is so damn expensive, and lets not forget the r5 fails after 29.59 minutes of recording if you need it continuous. glad there is a cameras for everyone's needs
They different ways that the camera processes the information from the sensor may be the reason for it. If they shot in RAW then it shouldn’t have mattered, but I can’t remember if they did or not
Awesome collab Armando! Great comparison. It’s cool seeing all three of those cameras side by side. By the way, really digging the diffusion in your A roll! New filter I’m assuming 🔥
Blackmagic color is rick. canon color is flat. blackmagic is reder and canon is greener. The compaint about "color WB is different" is true. even set same K degree WB cross brand is different, even with R5 vs R6 is different. Only way to know which one is right, use color checker like Undone. With Braw you can adjust easyly zero img damange. RAW in C500 MKII is the same too I think prores RAW is supported now
Pixel peeping on a 4K monitor, the URSA 12K almost looks like someone jacked up the sharpness slider on some 6K footage. It has an over sharpened digital feel. I think the clear winner here is the C500 MarkII, the footage from that camera is just beautiful.
I agree with everything but the statement at 7:18 Just look at the left earring and the hair around it. The Ursa MIni 12k looks sharper. Do you think it is because of the depth of field or the contrast?
As much as we can give blackmagic flack, I think they will actually improve the image and noise over time and morie can be fixed with 3rd party filters, intesting that 12k braw is smooth in premier thoXD
Canon is applying sharpening by default into the RAW footage settings. I've tested the C300 mk III and it was the first feature I was curious about - XF-AVC Intra was way softer compared to RAW images. In resolve the default sharpening was set to 10 in the raw tab, while setting it to 0 made the image look the same as XF-AVC Intra. It does seem like a small marketing trick to make the RAW footage stand-out.
I like the URSA better in almost all the shots. I work in a studio. It is important to consider what it looks like by the time it has been compressed by TH-cam and other streaming services.
You made it easy to tell the difference when you pointed out the moiré from the Ursa. Holy wow, 12K brings a whole new world of moiré pain. Back in the SD days you'd have to try pretty hard to wear something stripey enough to moiré but now it's literally coming up from the knit on a shirt. Oof.
For me the EOS is the winner. The chromatic aberration on specular highlights was odd, but the gamut balance between channels is much better. My monitoring is only 4K. Great job guys.
I think for me the biggest difference is the fact that the Ursa 12k retails for $6,000 USD, while the C500 mk.ii costs $16,000 USD. I do think the image of the C500 mk.ii is nicer; but for 3x the price... it better be.
Both cameras are really amazing considering what we had only a few years ago.. That said I really prefer the color of skin on the URSA it just looks more filmic, but the C500 MKII may only need some color correction tweaks. The R5 definitely is sharp and low noise but it has a more videoish look, too bad you didn't also compare the Panasonic H1S in 6K. I would like to see that. My choice in a fast production turnaround, however, would probably be a C300MKiii / C500MKii or the Sony FX9 depending on the type of shots needed.
I appreciate BM and what they are doing, they just need to do it better. If this was aimed at high end, the failures severely outweigh the features. Even if ghost recording is fixed, that doesn't address the horrible moire, limited 4K compression ratio, and noisy RAW. In my honest opinion, the Pocket 6K is BM's best camera to date. But man, this really has brought me back to canon. I love the C500 MK2!!! My GOD! Thank you Armando for uploading and for being an amazing content creator and filmmaker.
wow 3:27 3x Zoom - the answer. to me it was like looking at the difference btwn a Bluray and a DVD. Both nice, but really no comparing the visual superiority of the higher bits. But, just a few mins before when looking at both zoomed out - i thought, one couldn't go wrong with either. Both beautiful. But once zoomed in, for me it was night and day with the clear winner being the 12K dowscaled by far. But overall, by the end of video presentation, i was convinced simply that all 3 cameras would offer exceptional image, and if not compared side by side, the client would in most cases be 100% satisified.
What interests me is that a lot of people in this comment section prefer the look of the c500, and a lot of people prefer the Blackmagic. That tells me that it's ultimately just subjective; and, hey, which look is "better" also depends on what your particular project is, and what you're aiming at. I think it's objective to say, though, that, regardless of which look you like, the Canon does produce flatter colours. The light on the hair is more golden for the Ursa, for instance. Now, this difference might partly be down to grading. I don't know. But I've always had issues making Canon Log footage saturated. In terms of most other features, apart from resolution and sheer preferred look, I think the c500 wins. Autofocus, stabilisation, weight (2.55kg for the Ursa vs 1.77kg for the Canon), recording options (not restricted to raw workflow), low light. Slow motion -- Ursa basically wins, but then there's aspect ratio or sensor crop trade-offs. In terms of cost, an Ursa body is 2/3 the price of a c500 ii body, but I don't know who ultimately wins if you factor in media cost, battery cost, and the cost of rigging them out equivalently. That said, one perhaps underappeciated point of comparison is that, at max data rate, the c500 produces 2.1Gbps, while the Ursa produces 578 MB/s. So, even though you're shooting 12K, you're producing about a quarter of the data. I suppose that's the real price of full frame.
C500 looked amazing. BM 12K needs some work for sure.Too many lesser cameras actually look much better with little work. Moire is bad.....several problems to be worked out. I expected 12k to look much better. Great work guys
Lowest common denominator comparisons are being made here when matching grades, it lowers the ceiling on every camera that isn't the "worst". Plus coloring in Davinci is basically half the reason you'd get a BlackMagic camera and the only way you'd be able to take full advantage of it. It's like testing the "sport" version of a car without using any of the sport features considering how much post-production has to do with the value of cameras these days.
I am watching in an 8K TV. I can see the difference. I can see the difference even on my 1080p laptop. My phone is limited to 720p youtube playback, they all look similar.
There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to resolutions... At some point, clients can tell the difference. No need spending more money on resolutions that are all viewed on 4k and 5k monitors.
I remember when 1080p was being rolled out and all the video's were telling us how great it was. We even had Gareth Edwards (God Zilla & Star Wars Rougue One) telling us that was all would ever need as 1080p was cinema quality. Now we're being told we can't live without 4K, 6K, 8K and 12K. Do we get the message yet that it's all just a never ending sales pitch. 1080p is good enough and 4K is good enough to shoot and edit with. In truth 3K is probably good enough for reframing and post stabilization when required. I reckon I'd rather spend some of that processing power on other features like All-i and a standardized version of RAW-Light like the Black Magic BRAW codec. Something that offers more flexibility in post for grading and something easier to edit without having to transcode.
I just don't feel there's a lot of validity unless you shoot direct to the highest quality option for each camera. That might prove the same outcome, but it's difficult to surmise anything if you don't.
I absolutely love my R5 and C300 mk III. If it was your choice, would you get a second c300m3 or a c500 mk II? Getting a second c300 would leave more room for lenses or gear. So many videos have given me the idea that it is better than the c500 in some areas.
@@mondobytes I run a non-profit right now that mentor's youth how to create their own documentary films. Right now I'm making a feature about black migrants in Mexico (Tijuana & Tapachula, so both of Mexico's borders). What are the chances of making a video comparing the c300m3? I love you videos and keep up with them all!
@@nathanieldennison4272 that’s great! Even more reasons to get the C70 as it’s more attainable. Not sure I’ll do a C300 MKIII video mainly because it’s a camera that doesn’t interest me. I just don’t think it’s worth the price, honestly Canon should have priced it at $7000 or less. It should have been the C200 MKII. I feel the older C300 MKII is a better buy.
Also the 500MKII has color fringing everywhere and loses details on faces somehow, while also changing skin colors and losing color on reflections, yellow lights look white.
From 3.15-3.45 the difference in skintones (Highlights RollOff on the face) , as well as in resolution is EXTREME , in favour of URSA 12K. (In my 42inches 4K monitor was to be expected , yet being THAT obvious in my 6inches youtube cellphone screen , is quite remarkable !!!!) Yet you seem to diminish the actual extend of such difference. Thank you for ALL your information you provide , as well as your effort to test the cameras.
The C500 II really is an amazing camera. I want one now...
Do I subscribe??
I'm not going to help Canon further... I'm tired of them to cripple their 'DSLR' to promote their more expensive C serie.
But what I see is, that is has much more chromatic aberration in the green area than the Ursa. You can see it on the earring.But mybe it is the lens :) But overall the image looks better of the canon :)
@@MadMusicLine Its likely to come from the difference in Sensor stack, The less paralell the light falls on to the sensor the more this issue becomes aperent.
Its really an impressive visualisation of what ARRI enginiers have ben preaching for years, its not about the amount of pixels, it about the quality of pixels and how you process the data coming of the sensor. So even if your goal is to punch in on an Image, more resolution might sill be worse then slightly upscaling a more detailed image. Also Interesting is, how the aberrations on the earrings only apear on the R5, i think its because the sensorstack is more optimised for RF Lenses, wich have a shorter flanch distance and proberbly can achive a more paralell light beam to hit the sensor. I dont think ELM or almost anyone else should really keep or buy the URSA 12k. It really sets prioritys in wierd places. Was anyone really asking for a 12k camera? I think a Full frame 6k Ursa with dual Base Gain and better noise perfomance would have been more apeeling for most customers. I only see purpose for high resolution video, in VFX heavy productions, or Controlled Studio Environments like Tabletop. But those guys all already use RED cameras for good reason. But then again what do i know, im just some guy commenting on a comment on a youtube Video...
Thanks for this Armando and @Epic Light Media! The differences in color are interesting. The Ursa looks rather more magenta than the Canon which matches my experience with the Ursa Mini Pro as well. And those specular highlights on the forehead - really useful to see the differences there. Really nice comparison!
Thanks for stopping by Curtis 👊🏽
Lol, I saw the opposite! I didn't think the Ursa looked magenta, I thought the Cannon looked greenish/blue?! However, we all have different monitors and our color settings are likely different!
@@danielmerkley4543 That is definitely the challenge on the web and everyone with a different monitor, most of which are not calibrated. I shot with an Ursa Mini Pro for about 2 years and found that the image from my copy of the UMP definitely tended magenta (both on scopes and Flanders Scientific DM240 grading monitor). Strangely, my brother also has one and shooting in the exact same lighting, same lens, his was far less magenta. But I haven't experienced the magenta tendencies on the Pocket 4K or 6K, at least not the copies I have here. Strange.
@@danielmerkley4543 The color does look more magenta. You can see the IR pollution clearly at around the 9:05 mark of the video. The face, shirt, dog's mane, etc are all impacted by it.
@@mmlewis1030 The same I noticed
I like that someone is being optimistic and reasonable about the R5. It is honestly truly amazing that both Canon and Sony are innovating and putting so much into these smaller cameras that have no business being as good as they are. I’m just excited for what is coming next, because now that the door has been opened, there will definitely only be more exciting innovations and features to follow.
Honestly, I like the overall look of the Ursa far more than the Canon cameras.
I think it depends on the shoot. for outdoors I know a lot of people get that brown looking footage with the blackmagic cameras (although that is mainly due to them not using "ir cut" filters)
@@legendp2011 This is absolutely due to lack of IR CUT filters. It's shocking that people use these cameras and don't realise an IR CUT filter is essential in natural light. And ideally some kind of OLPF filter also. Otherwise moire and IR pollution will ruin your footage.
Me too. Blackmagic fan
@@GarethStack after shooting features on this cameras and having 2nd unit shoot without one day, i can COMPLETELY attest that an IR filter is 100% needed. really they need to start including ir on the camera.
@@GarethStack Agreed. Blackmagic skin tones are 1 dimensional.
No joke Armando, I feel like you've REALLY stepped up your videos in the past year or so. What I mean by that is, there are TH-camrs who get a camera, review it and make a video. While technical deep dives are needed and appreciated, those TH-camrs are a dime a dozen.
Seeing videos of someone who's working with the gear in real-world settings, on actual productions and then bringing what you've learned to TH-cam is a breath of fresh air in a garbage dumpster of content creators.
Came back and watched again. Blown away at the C500 honestly. For me, it's very filmic and just looks like a good movie.
Thanks!
It's kinda hard to tell the difference of resolution if you add sharpening to the 12 k footage, also, when it comes to 12k, the sharpness of the lens is a big factor, I know the sharpest sony lenses are meant for up to 100megapixels, and 12k is 80megapixels so the lens you used might not be sharp enough to take full advantage of the 12k sensor.
Me watching this in a small cellphone 1080p display.
I can't tell the difference between anything
oof.
I really appreciate how much Hard work you do to help others to let them know what camera to go for
The other thing to take note of, the power of braw can't be understated. It completely transforms a workflow in post from something painful to something smooth and effortless. Both in playback speeds to color and even in raw adjustments like white balance and ISO.
Exactly. Too Many people are using final cut and premier to edit it instead of using resolved which really just bring dad a whole Other level in that post processing workflow
I like my details so...
The big thing for me is the framing options with 12k. The Ursa gives you so many choices for resolution and codec. Honestly all these new cameras have amazing image quality and nobody is going around pixel peeping and zooming into 400% except us creators. At the end of the day resolution is no substitute for GOOD STORY=) We are spoiled as creators in 2020 for sure.
R5 really would have been the ultimate camera if it werent for the overheating recording limit issues. It looks amazing.
R5 is a photography first camera. Wait for C70
New firmware fix should be out soon!
@@AnnexF any news on when it’s suppose to drop or what is in it?
@@Jakevx1k They already released the first fix but working on the latest one.
canon dont want that, they want to sell more not less
i'm here from epic light media. i don't know why i do not get notifications from you armando.
Because TH-cam sucks 🤣
@@mondobytes wanna hear your thoughts armando on these two things:
1. canon cinema line is rocking and practical too. can't wait for you to use the canon c70 with the speedbooster. imagine how insane is that. but still canon has better skin tone than ursa in your footage
2. man you need to have a really master level lens if you don't want those 12k pixel to destroy your lens.
I'm hyped up to see how the Canon C70 stacks up to some of the newer releases as well.
Your video are always DOPE Armando. Well done as always
Hey, this is great. Thx for publishing a real comparison. Recently cancelled an R5 order and am regretting it.
Watching a review for cameras I can't get.
But it's always good to know such useful informations in this video to help influence decisions for buying cameras in the future
C500mk2 is such a great color rendition... Wow. Such a pleasant look. Keeps surprising me
Fantastic collaboration Armando. Loved this.
when you try to match the grade that closely between multiple cameras, all you're doing is realizing the lowest common denominator in all cameras you're comparing. No offense. You're not the only one to do that. But, it achieves nothing other than making the best cameras stop short of what they are capable of. The value of a digital camera is essentially what you can do with its image in post. What are its horizons and limitations. The best way to compare cameras is to make available raw/log frames of each camera to the public and let everyone grade each camera footage to their very best and let's see what everyone out there can do with each camera footage. It would also be a lot of fun. :)
The real shit right here.
Most intelligent response in here. I hate these side by side d*ck sizing competitions, because they lead consumers to buy into the theory behind whoever is catering to one said camera brand. People should buy a camera because they can afford it, it is appropriate for the kind of work they do, or they need a technical ability of one camera in particular. EVERY camera has its limits, yes Arri and RED too. I own a RED Raptor, and there are days where I wish I had a little DSLR because its less work, and less storage is needed.
The r5 footage looks amazing
Best 12k review I've seen. Obviously BM has some development issues they have to work out, but from past experience it's kind of amazing how much improvement they can get from firmware. Only nitpick is correction should have happened through a color chart. I get the reason not to, but if your going to spend $10K-$16 on a camera body - you're likely not going to just slap a generic conversion LUT and go on your way. Lastly, worth mentioning how easy it is to fix that highlight roll off, but in the RAW panel there is a slider just for that - not sure if that was touched at all in this video, but it's there.
I love black magic. I’m definitely a fan boy for them 😂
However, that c500 mk2 looks stupid good!
Both look really good!
Also you always kill that color grade bro!
The company is called "Blackmagic", not black magic.
W. W. Haha damn auto correct
@@w.w.7148 like Voodoo and voo doo?
Kinda comes down to workflow, tbh. Blackmagic Cameras + BRAW + DaVinci Resolve = absurdly good results. Obviously you can shoot great stuff on Canon gear (heck, you can shoot great stuff on an iPhone), but there just doesn't seem to be a realistic justification for paying $16,000 for that camera given the alternatives (unless you are already HEAVILY invested in the Canon ecosystem or have an incredibly specific use case). Especially when you start looking at postproduction. That said, the 12k also clearly needs some firmware updates, as is to be expected with any new piece of gear like this. But you could get a G2 and two BMPCC 6ks for about the price of one 12k. When you consider how much that opens up your possibilities on a shoot, it's just hard to recommend spending that money on one capable camera over 3.
I am extremely impressed with the R5! Awesome camera!
Yeah it's hot.
BRAVO, what a great review. I'm so impressed with all of them but I think the Ursa 12k has an edge. I liked the image a fraction better than the others. Can't wait for future content!
That C500 color and dof though... gets me every time.
Another very interesting video! Thanks Armando and Epic light folks, keep up with the useful content that inspires and helps us all learn more and more. 🙏
C500 Colors are pleasing and looks great
The moiré on camera B was the dead giveaway for me. I am Canon guy but I am surprised that I liked the URSA's reds (and oranges) a bit more. Armando, as always, excellent video content and production. King of video! ❤
Great video Armando as always ! Thanks
Great video thanks Armando! That R5 footage looks dope...
The only difference between those two footages are literally the money from your pockets being spent👀😂
right the c500Mk2 is so damn expensive, and lets not forget the r5 fails after 29.59 minutes of recording if you need it continuous. glad there is a cameras for everyone's needs
Obviously, I wasn't there but there shouldn't be the sharpness difference. Perhaps it is from post?
They different ways that the camera processes the information from the sensor may be the reason for it. If they shot in RAW then it shouldn’t have mattered, but I can’t remember if they did or not
Canon default RAW sharpness setting is set to 10, which results in a highly sharpened image.
Awesome collab Armando! Great comparison. It’s cool seeing all three of those cameras side by side. By the way, really digging the diffusion in your A roll! New filter I’m assuming 🔥
Same filter just messing with grades haha still not happy with it.
Liked the fairness of a sidebar followup!
Watching in 144p .... Good quality 👍🏻
Great stuff again! Thank you for putting this out there!
Love the collab
Blackmagic color is rick. canon color is flat. blackmagic is reder and canon is greener. The compaint about "color WB is different" is true. even set same K degree WB cross brand is different, even with R5 vs R6 is different. Only way to know which one is right, use color checker like Undone. With Braw you can adjust easyly zero img damange. RAW in C500 MKII is the same too I think prores RAW is supported now
Undone, love him, great guy and I enjoy his technical reviews but I have not actually seen any of his video work. Does it exist?
That was really impressive. Great video.
Pixel peeping on a 4K monitor, the URSA 12K almost looks like someone jacked up the sharpness slider on some 6K footage. It has an over sharpened digital feel. I think the clear winner here is the C500 MarkII, the footage from that camera is just beautiful.
I agree with everything but the statement at 7:18 Just look at the left earring and the hair around it. The Ursa MIni 12k looks sharper. Do you think it is because of the depth of field or the contrast?
overalll the c500 looks better than ursa, much more pleasing to the eye
yes! I dunno why this happens but that's true
yes in post (premiere whit ursa ahahah) you can go where the advertise want !
the canon sensors are closer to the skin tone rendering of an alexa.
but, you probably didn't watch on a 8k monitor, probably 4k or 1440p.
Oh nonono Nono... epic light Medea is becoming famous...
Armando Great Video Again
R5 Footage is Amazing
Epic! Love those guys Armando and you of course! Lol ✌️
I respect the work that went into this!
As much as we can give blackmagic flack, I think they will actually improve the image and noise over time and morie can be fixed with 3rd party filters, intesting that 12k braw is smooth in premier thoXD
That 4kHq is amazing, it looks like the best 4K in the game hands down!
Canon is applying sharpening by default into the RAW footage settings. I've tested the C300 mk III and it was the first feature I was curious about - XF-AVC Intra was way softer compared to RAW images. In resolve the default sharpening was set to 10 in the raw tab, while setting it to 0 made the image look the same as XF-AVC Intra. It does seem like a small marketing trick to make the RAW footage stand-out.
I felt that the footage from the EROS looked better with natural colours and more details 🔥👌
I like the URSA better in almost all the shots. I work in a studio. It is important to consider what it looks like by the time it has been compressed by TH-cam and other streaming services.
Yeah, that moiré on the Ursa footage is rocking. Imagine seeing that at the cinema on the big screen.
@CYVstudio moiré - just HORRIBLE
Such a fantastic video from Armando Sama!
You made it easy to tell the difference when you pointed out the moiré from the Ursa. Holy wow, 12K brings a whole new world of moiré pain. Back in the SD days you'd have to try pretty hard to wear something stripey enough to moiré but now it's literally coming up from the knit on a shirt. Oof.
For me the EOS is the winner. The chromatic aberration on specular highlights was odd, but the gamut balance between channels is much better. My monitoring is only 4K. Great job guys.
Amazing 👏👏👏, how to solve moire problem in the BMU12K.
Nice review, but the moiré with the C500 is really weird too! You can't ignore it.
Ironically, when I was editing I couldn’t see it, but you’re right it’s noticeable on TH-cam and not sure why that is?
Compression & c500 bias
@@CoveringFish 😂
couldn't wait for this test! espacially the Ursa 12K!
I think for me the biggest difference is the fact that the Ursa 12k retails for $6,000 USD, while the C500 mk.ii costs $16,000 USD. I do think the image of the C500 mk.ii is nicer; but for 3x the price... it better be.
The denoising and sharping is noticeable on the 12k. For a comparison test I think it would have been fairer to leave those aspects off.
Oh Man, that was Epic! 😂😂😂
Great video Armando!
amazing job and thanx a lot for your work men
That's why I love CANON ❤️ great review sir Armando. Thanks for sharing!
8:19 - Golden nugget find. Must record in lower compression on the URSA12K for better quality!
That red cardigan from that 12k Ursa is so on point...
incredible how sharp the r5 is actually, with that new firmware probably the best deal
Both cameras are really amazing considering what we had only a few years ago.. That said I really prefer the color of skin on the URSA it just looks more filmic, but the C500 MKII may only need some color correction tweaks. The R5 definitely is sharp and low noise but it has a more videoish look, too bad you didn't also compare the Panasonic H1S in 6K. I would like to see that. My choice in a fast production turnaround, however, would probably be a C300MKiii / C500MKii or the Sony FX9 depending on the type of shots needed.
Everyone says "filmic" but I think people forgot what film looks like. Ursa doesnt look filmic at all.
I appreciate BM and what they are doing, they just need to do it better. If this was aimed at high end, the failures severely outweigh the features. Even if ghost recording is fixed, that doesn't address the horrible moire, limited 4K compression ratio, and noisy RAW. In my honest opinion, the Pocket 6K is BM's best camera to date. But man, this really has brought me back to canon. I love the C500 MK2!!! My GOD! Thank you Armando for uploading and for being an amazing content creator and filmmaker.
Beautiful.. good content as always. I owe you a cup of coffee ☕️
armando are u working for canon??????
Looks like it ;) LOL
I Appreciate for your tests 👍
Holy smokes. The R5 absolutely blows me away
I love people that admit their mistake.
wow 3:27 3x Zoom - the answer.
to me it was like looking at the difference btwn a Bluray and a DVD. Both nice, but really no comparing the visual superiority of the higher bits.
But, just a few mins before when looking at both zoomed out - i thought, one couldn't go wrong with either. Both beautiful. But once zoomed in, for me it was night and day with the clear winner being the 12K dowscaled by far.
But overall, by the end of video presentation, i was convinced simply that all 3 cameras would offer exceptional image, and if not compared side by side, the client would in most cases be 100% satisified.
I want the three musketeers next. Armando, Thomas and Gene
What interests me is that a lot of people in this comment section prefer the look of the c500, and a lot of people prefer the Blackmagic. That tells me that it's ultimately just subjective; and, hey, which look is "better" also depends on what your particular project is, and what you're aiming at.
I think it's objective to say, though, that, regardless of which look you like, the Canon does produce flatter colours. The light on the hair is more golden for the Ursa, for instance. Now, this difference might partly be down to grading. I don't know. But I've always had issues making Canon Log footage saturated.
In terms of most other features, apart from resolution and sheer preferred look, I think the c500 wins. Autofocus, stabilisation, weight (2.55kg for the Ursa vs 1.77kg for the Canon), recording options (not restricted to raw workflow), low light.
Slow motion -- Ursa basically wins, but then there's aspect ratio or sensor crop trade-offs.
In terms of cost, an Ursa body is 2/3 the price of a c500 ii body, but I don't know who ultimately wins if you factor in media cost, battery cost, and the cost of rigging them out equivalently. That said, one perhaps underappeciated point of comparison is that, at max data rate, the c500 produces 2.1Gbps, while the Ursa produces 578 MB/s. So, even though you're shooting 12K, you're producing about a quarter of the data. I suppose that's the real price of full frame.
Dude this was such a good comparison, I own the c300mkiii and i would love to see some comparisons between the Ursa mini pro 12k and the c300mkiii
C500 looked amazing. BM 12K needs some work for sure.Too many lesser cameras actually look much better with little work. Moire is bad.....several problems to be worked out. I expected 12k to look much better. Great work guys
We edit in Resolve but shoot on Canon. Loving the comparison video. Komodo comparison next? ;)
-Jason
The legendary three !
Oh I can't cope. Every camera is amazing these days.
RAWLITE ... hopefully, will make OLPF for the 12K that allows for the PL mount.
The Ursa colours for me, both excellent but Ursa wins this.
Lowest common denominator comparisons are being made here when matching grades, it lowers the ceiling on every camera that isn't the "worst". Plus coloring in Davinci is basically half the reason you'd get a BlackMagic camera and the only way you'd be able to take full advantage of it. It's like testing the "sport" version of a car without using any of the sport features considering how much post-production has to do with the value of cameras these days.
I am watching in an 8K TV. I can see the difference. I can see the difference even on my 1080p laptop. My phone is limited to 720p youtube playback, they all look similar.
There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to resolutions... At some point, clients can tell the difference. No need spending more money on resolutions that are all viewed on 4k and 5k monitors.
love these tests!
I remember when 1080p was being rolled out and all the video's were telling us how great it was. We even had Gareth Edwards (God Zilla & Star Wars Rougue One) telling us that was all would ever need as 1080p was cinema quality. Now we're being told we can't live without 4K, 6K, 8K and 12K. Do we get the message yet that it's all just a never ending sales pitch. 1080p is good enough and 4K is good enough to shoot and edit with. In truth 3K is probably good enough for reframing and post stabilization when required. I reckon I'd rather spend some of that processing power on other features like All-i and a standardized version of RAW-Light like the Black Magic BRAW codec. Something that offers more flexibility in post for grading and something easier to edit without having to transcode.
Fantastic sir
I just don't feel there's a lot of validity unless you shoot direct to the highest quality option for each camera. That might prove the same outcome, but it's difficult to surmise anything if you don't.
I absolutely love my R5 and C300 mk III. If it was your choice, would you get a second c300m3 or a c500 mk II? Getting a second c300 would leave more room for lenses or gear. So many videos have given me the idea that it is better than the c500 in some areas.
Check out my C500 MKII Review 😉 I’d get a C500 MKII with the C70 I feel the C300 MKIII is a tough sale.
@@mondobytes I run a non-profit right now that mentor's youth how to create their own documentary films. Right now I'm making a feature about black migrants in Mexico (Tijuana & Tapachula, so both of Mexico's borders). What are the chances of making a video comparing the c300m3? I love you videos and keep up with them all!
@@nathanieldennison4272 that’s great! Even more reasons to get the C70 as it’s more attainable. Not sure I’ll do a C300 MKIII video mainly because it’s a camera that doesn’t interest me. I just don’t think it’s worth the price, honestly Canon should have priced it at $7000 or less. It should have been the C200 MKII. I feel the older C300 MKII is a better buy.
Thank you Armando
The ursa looks so much better than either canon camera. Loved the colors, and the details on the ursa on most samples.
Also the 500MKII has color fringing everywhere and loses details on faces somehow, while also changing skin colors and losing color on reflections, yellow lights look white.
I disagree.
What is your opinion on low light handling on the 500 mkII? What ISO would *you* rate each camera?
The difference between these cameras is quite easy to see. C500 II defintely my preferred camera here.
Was distance to subject the same for all the cameras? to my eye the subject appears thinner on the c500II.....Much more flattering than the URSA.
From 3.15-3.45 the difference in skintones (Highlights RollOff on the face) , as well as in resolution is EXTREME , in favour of URSA 12K.
(In my 42inches 4K monitor was to be expected , yet being THAT obvious in my 6inches youtube cellphone screen , is quite remarkable !!!!)
Yet you seem to diminish the actual extend of such difference.
Thank you for ALL your information you provide , as well as your effort to test the cameras.