People need to understand that numbers on a spec sheet don’t actually matter. I DP’d a comedy special recently that we shot on a fleet of C300mk2’s in Clog2, our editor used the “Utopia” LUTS (Arri conversion LUTS) and we’ve had several people ask us if we shot the comedy special on Alexa 35’s. Keep in mind the C300mk2 is an 8 year old camera, and it is Netflix approved. Sure, newer cameras are sharper, and have 1 or 2 stops more dynamic range. At the end of the day it’s not the equipment, it’s how you use it.
@@this_time_imperfect To certain extent agree, through good starting point saves $ and time in post. If we didn't have Arri Classic's at the time for the Chicago Fire Show we would have gone with c300mk1 over Red or anything else because the image looked that much better, especially on people which is the most important :) Arri and Canon do make life so much easier in post and when I shot a show for Discovery on C70 and c500ii earlier this year and sent rec709's to my colorist friend he thought I shot on Arri lol. I haven't touched the grade, literally sent him the screen grabs from the iPad! Need more work for Red and Sony in post because the colors are just off. Also, still use c300ii for a good amount of commercial work and mix with vRaptor and have colorists push the colors towards Arri/Canon mix. Not ready to retire them yet even though r5c's, c70's and c400's are becoming more of daily driver and c300iii and c500ii + Alexa Mini and vRaptor for bigger projects. Sony only per request.
Unless you're making thousands of dollars with high-end clients, don't waste your money chasing gear. This is completely asinine. A few months later, they will be posting another piece of gear that everyone MUST HAVE.
Cameras aren’t about “retaining value” they are about delivering value. This camera does deliver value. Gear by itself doesn’t make the image better but gear and skill do.
@@keylanph right about cameras are just a gear, your work is delivering the value. speaking to that, this camera is delivering value exactly like a lot of 8 - 10 year old cameras you can buy used for 1000 - 3000€, depending on your needs. isnt that a great time we are livin in? just dont worry about the new gear, worry about your quality of work :) - yea, all the influencers will tell you another story, but their main income is to sell the hot shit from the manufacturer.
The C500 Mark II has the same "problem". Here's the "fix": Go to the Custom Picture Menu (CP), then Edit CP file, then Noise Reduction, then make sure that the Frame Correlation is set to 1 (not 0). At least for the C500 Mii this fixes the noise issue - pretty dramatically.
Ehm...the tests here were done in RAW. No noise reduction stuff should apply shooting in RAW. And btw noise reduction won't do much if there's no signal to begin with.
@@CrisBaggins why not? It's the tool and option to be used. Even Arri has options for in camera noise reduction. In my experience Canon's internal noise reduction is phenomenal and if in a pinch with quick turn around and need to save time in post I would totally recommend using it. Now if you have a high budget and pro editor, I would just give them "clean" raw to mess with.
As soon as you started talking about Dynamic Range, I suspected you were talking about Shagral’s video. I already loved your content, but seeing that you’re working on growing & perfecting your craft with top notch info just made me love and respect your channel even more. I subbed to your channel for the immaculate aesthetic that you bring, so glad to see you also run deep into the technical, even more than I had previously imagined. Hope I’m making sense, keep up the fantastic work!
I bought two FX30's to use in my home TH-cam studio, mostly because they were cheap. I was shocked at how good they look in 10 bit 4:2:2! I think those cameras are one of the best buys in video right now...
My C400 out of the box was alarmingly noisy. After I performed an auto black balance the noise seemed to be a fair bit better. Just curious if you ran a ABB by chance for these tests? Great video by the way!
Never really owned any canon cams, came close to the c70 but went with the Komodo. Have recently started to look at the C80 and 400 as really need an all in one doc cam and thought this might be Canon finally shaking things up… but everything I’m seeing is not great news and a lot of old c70 users don’t seem to be falling in love with the image on these newer cams. Thanks so much for running through these tests, incredibly eye opening.
I wouldn't necessarily relate the AF capabilities of C70/C300mk3 as bad. C300mk3 was released about the same time as R5/R6 were, and C300 had the best AF out of all C-line of cams at the time. I highly doubt that AF can't be improved on the DGO sensor, and if it's connected with rolling shutter capabilities - then every single Alexa is a good proof that DGO can have a faster readout. Besides, all recent sensors on the market seem to have a remarkably fast readout in 2024. I suppose they had to pay ARRI licensing fees to be able to use DGO, and it does seem that it didn't work out really well business-wise for them (C300mk3 didn't gain that much traction due to fierce competition on the market).
Thank you for the video. I downloaded the raw files from news shooter website where they compare venice raw with canon raw. I couldn't see that noise even 1000% zoomed in. Did you use the raw lt? I'm thinking there may have been a reason why raw lt was not available in C500 from the beggining. Anyway, I believe you underexposed the scene where you say it has the correct exposure. Otherwise I cannot explain how you managed to destroy the image in such a manner. I would like to have access to the raw files.
Ah, and I really look forward to the Ursa cine 12k review. I just watched the CVP review and I am totally shocked of how bad that 16 stops of dynamic range camera performs when underexposed 3 stops in the living room. While the review from ProAV clearly shows a shot from inside a barn through the open door that the camera retained ALL the details in all the barn corners without crushing a single pixel. Somehow I think that these living room tests where somebody just closes the iris and feeds the sensor with such little light are not the best methods to test the dynamic range of a camera. There is another guy on YT that did a low light test filming himself with nothing but a small candle for light source and the results are impressive. But I get your point, you used the worst raw that the camera can record in order to get the worst noise pattern performance. Look, I don't have any dog in this fight, I want to buy a C400 because I believe that for the things you get for the money it is probably the best choice. I genuinely think that your approach in judging this camera performance is incorrect. On another note, the sensor might have an issue with the OLPF. I have seen many images recorded with this camera where the moire is unacceptable. I used to have this issue with the hair in footage with a different camera and I had to purchase another OLPF to counter the moire. You footage seems to display the same issue in the hair pattern and this is indded unacceptable for a camera at this level. I believe Canon is not going to get away with it once the users report this issue. Cheers!
You can compensate for the C80's triple base ISO with controlled lighting. You can compensate for the full frame sensor with a wider lens (to some extent of course). But nothing in the C80 can replace the DGO sensor on the C70. An absolute dynamic range king in the Canon lineup!
I agree, and I’m still buying a c80 based on all the reviews I’ve seen. Mainly because the C80 is more run and gun based camera imo. Idk if there’s any other camera I can throw in a small backpack and get cinema like picture with 24 bit audio and exposure tools built in, decent screen, and internal nd. Literally pull it out, slap on a mic, hit record and record raw video.
@@SamA-kl6pi indeed the C80 is great for run and gun situations. The full frame sensor is really something when it comes to using Canon's RF lenses' full potential. Still for the image purists, C70's DGO sensor is the closest that 4 thousand bucks will get you to an Alexa :)
To my understanding, this is not shocking at all. RAW has no noise reduction to artificially inflate the DR tests on paper. This is why the A7IV and R5II have such good readings when using compressed formats. The R5II’s RAW reading is 3 stops lower on paper. Gerald Undone showed that through basic denoising you’re able to pull several stops out of the R5II’s 8K RAW. I own a C400 and haven’t had any issues at all thankfully!
I think the reason why people think that some cameras are better at highlights and some are at shadows is because of the distribution of the dynamic range, which isnt linear. So at some ISO's some cameras have more DR in the shadows and some have more at the highlights while its different on a different ISO. For example C300 has only 3.3 stops above 18% grey and 11.7 below on native 800 at 100 iso while BM6kpro has 3.9 and 9.5 respectively, so the ratio is different. Also using the same example the C300 holds the 6.3 and 8.7 stops until 102400 while on the BM its 5.9 and 7.5 at native and already at 1000 its 7.3 and 6.1 so I believe some people are quite confused because they're not all around comparable easily.
Hey man, this review is so helpful! Thank you so much for making it🙏 As a commercial filmmaker, I really appreciate the context you set it in. Not just random numbers.
A really kick-ass, detailed, video, Jake! Well done. Makes me wish Canon could magically turn my 300MKIII into full frame! I'll stick with my C300MKIII, C300MKII, and C70's, for my current needs and maybe rent a C400 for a full frame day to try it out.
Some Panasonic cameras also have DR boost sensors. The GH6 was the first one to have it but the G9II and GH7 sensors improved on it to beat most APSC cameras in DR.
I haven’t been able to test those newer Panny cameras that have DR boost, that’s interesting. Hopefully I can get one into the studio soon so I can test that
I got the C80. And as a documentary filmmaker, it’s perfect for me. I’ve been making youtube videos about it. I have no issues exposing or with dynamic range. However, the only thing I’m still unsure about is autofocus. I’m still finding the right combo of settings for that because it has so many options. Thanks for your perspective
I'm sure it's awesome for documentary stuff, and honestly I think in most circumstances the dynamic range won't be limiting out in the field. I'm glad you're happy with it! Are you using Canon RF lenses for autofocus? What's wrong with the autofocus? It's just unreliable or slow or what? I didn't have any RF glass to test autofocus while I had the C400 in, so I'm curious.
@@luis.hermosilloAutofocus in the C400 is a beast. (Compared to C70) huge upgrade! For events and fast action sequences it improved my usable shots in a big margin. For narrative work, I don’t use AF lenses.
I truly believe this sensor is the R3 sensor. Same exact specs and believe it or not, when you change the ISO settings on the R3, cleans up at 3200, and then shockingly cleans up again at 12,800. Try renting that camera and do your tests on it and I think you’ll be surprised it’s the same.
I guess I have a couple of thoughts. First, RAW LT is not for pixel peeping. It. Second, your under exposure tests are being effected by CMOS smear which is an entirely different issue for Canon. . Close your blinds to get a better test for DR. Third, test your NR settings.
Good eye, thanks for the observations- 1. I guess you could make the argument that Raw LT isn't for pixel peeping, but in this test it was going up against BRAW 12:1 (which has a lower data rate than the C400 did) and XAVC 10-bit 4.2.2 out of the FX30 (which obviously has an even lower data rate), and both the Sony and the BM absolutely blow the Canon out of the water. The point wasn't that this was the absolute maximum IQ out of the C400, but instead what a typical codec would look like (although Raw LT is still a beefy codec data-wise, there's no reason it should look this bad). The other Raw codecs in the C400 are just as noisy, and even if they weren't, it would be a whole other issue if on the C400 you had to shoot at over 1000 mbps to match a Sony shooting at 200 mbps when it comes to fineness in the noise pattern. 2. I guess there could be some CMOS smearing there, but that's a completely unrelated topic and doesn't affect the noise floor. Sure CMOS smearing can show up in underexposed areas, but the point of the test was the gauge where the noise floor was and how the noise pattern looked 3. All NR was turned off in the menus . That's why the XFAVC was so disappointing. There's a whole bunch of NR that Canon is baking into the footage that you can't turn off
Cine D measured the dynamic range of the C400 at 14.1 stops at Signal to Noise ratio at 1. that’s totally fine. Blue Ruin was shot on a C300 mk 1! Act of Valor and Like Crazy on 5d‘s and 7d‘s. I mean… I think negging about specs in today‘s world is kind of obsolete. You can make anything look great now with pretty much every camera.
I’ve been using my C400 for a couple months already, mostly in the event and wedding world and I can say this review is correct. That being said I believe this is based on those scenarios where you need to push the image to its limits and that’s not the first place to start with if you want to judge a camera BUT is something to take a look at most definitely, of course. My C70 has more dynamic range than my C400, I noticed that on day one, but I expected it since Canon itself stated that. At the end choosing your camera will depend of your line of work I believe, for documentary work, it’s a beast of a camera. For narrative, I’d go RED maybe or BM. For a mixture of both: I’d go Canon still because it works very well in almost every scenario you throw at it. I liked how transparent you were judging the very thing every Canon user were worried about: DR. Subscribing.
@@jakehayden998 You teach things in such a clear and concise way. I think it would be valueable. Thank you so much for giving your knowledge back to the filmmaking community!!
Thank you so much for this video! That explains a lot why I am not very satisfied with my C400 which I bought as an upgrade to my Pocket 6K. I should have waited I guess, its hard to get clean shadows in sunlight sometimes, in those high dynamic range scenes.
It’s never been a better time to grab a cheap C70 of someone who jumped ships. I was disappointed they didn’t include the DGO sensor in C80 and C400 and right from the first images that came out the supposed dynamic range just didn’t seem realistic. I’ve seen a lot of OMG’s “C80 destroys C70 with its third iso of 12800” when the 12800 looked so inferior to 6400 on C70. Not even accounting for the fact that with the super 35 sensor I have an extra stop of light bolted to the front of my camera. Great exposé, dude.
Hey Jake, great channel. One thing that I think a lot of people miss is that each stop is a DOUBLING. So in your "jar of marbles" metaphor, one stop would be a single marble. The second stop should be TWO marbles, the third stop FOUR marbles, and so on. So if camera A has 12 clean stops, and camera B has 14 clean stops, then camera B has FOUR TIMES as many marbles in total compared to camera A. It can record a light source FOUR TIMES BRIGHTER before clipping (assuming identical exposure on each camera). I think the "one stop equals one marble" metaphor tends to confuse people, who might see 12 vs 14 as being relatively close, when in fact they are worlds apart.
Why would a TH-camr who pretends to be a cinematographer know anything about exposure stops, inverse square law, etc? You can just say things without knowledge these days as long as it gets clicks.
Yeah you're 100% right, but I didn't want to go too deep into explaining stops of light or how they work in this video specifically. I was mainly just using the whole metaphor to try an provide a mental model for the noise floor. I was worried If I stopped to also explain the science of light it would a little too complicated for a video about a specific camera. I really appreciate the input (and love your content by the way)
Solid video and super practical takes. Been toying with adding a Canon to my kit next year but TBH wasnt super impressed with the footage from the C400 when I recently used one - but I didnt get a chance to go this deep. Great stuff.
Corrction: Most cameras use 10-12bit ADC. Its kinda new to see most cameras use 12bit ADC. ARRI does NOT use a 14bit ADC but two 12bit ADCs. There are only three shipping cameras i know of that actually utalize a 14bit ADC. Sony Venice 2, Fuji XH2s, Kinefinity Mavo Mkii. The reason why they arent used is sensor speed. In order to have a 14bit ADC, you need 1. A sensor that can push that much data, 2. An ADC thats fast enough for the framerate. In fact all sensors have a 14bit and 16bit readout mode just at much lower FPS. Thats why photo cameras can capture higher data sets, just at low FPS. While yes, you do need a faster CPU to process it, that hasnt been a limiting factor in a few years.
Check the CineD for the latest tests c400 kicks ass. Dynamic range, latitude and sensor read out is 🔥 C500ii had the highest dynamic range and latitude just behind the Alexa Mini and I own both as well as all the Canon Cinema Cameras outside c80. C400 is neck to neck with c500ii and they are just a smidge above C70 and c300iii. Splitting hairs against Venice2 and vRaptor. Alexa of course beats everyone :)
The C400 is no doubt an amazing camera, but that isn’t totally accurate. The readout speeds are really really impressive, that’s true, but the dynamic range isn’t. They actually haven’t tested latitude on CineD for the c400 yet, and the imatest scores are very lackluster. You seem to be referring to the XFAVC scores in DR, which again have a bunch of noise reduction and compression to inflate the scores. If you refer to the Raw scores, the C400 has one of the worst dynamic range scores on the market. The Venice has a full stop of DR on the C400 (plus a great noise pattern, which makes for a lot more latitude), the V Rapter has an extra 3 stops of DR. I definitely don’t want to burst any bubbles, and I think the C400 is amazing, but the dynamic range and latitude leave a lot to be desired. It definitely isn’t accurate to call it one of the top options in this respect, since in fact, it’s by far one of the worst.
@@jakehayden998 nothing wrong with noise reduction to get better results, all the manufactures do it to push the overall DR and Latitude. Canon Raw is great you just need to have the right Editor/Colorist to clean it up :) Venice 2 does have a better noise pattern and you can see it if you zoom in at 400% lol. Red notoriously always inflates their results. CineD so far has been on point with their test vs what I was able to experience in the real world scenarios. We'll be doing some tests soon and comparison against C70/c300iii/Mini/vRaptor and have the colorist put it through its passes. Feel free to send the samples as well if you need some work done to the footage. You'd be astonished how well the original c500 compares to Arri not to mention new gear from Canon.
This reminds me of my photo days back in 2009-10, with canon eos 5 mkII. Same type of noise at. ISO 3200. Drop it down to 1600 iso and it’s recoverable.
I use a 5D mkii with magic lantern raw. I always thought the bad digital looking noise might be a result of the custom firmware, but I'm shocked to see that the noise pattern on this camera is identical. As a reminder, the 5D mkii released in 2008.
@@jakehayden998 It's because of the DCT compression that the camera is using in RAW which is why none of these modern cameras including the RED Komodo qualify as RAW to me. DCT compression is the same "blocky" compression that h.264 and h.265 use. That's why it looks blocky to you The 5d mark ii in magic lantern mode uses no compression and the mark iii along with the digit 5 magic lantern cameras such as the eos m use the old JPEG lossless 1992 which is similar to .zip file compression. It's compressed and decompressed to its full size with no loss in data, usually about 2:1 compression ratio. Fun fact the old canon dslr cameras can shoot raw video in 14bit and even combine 2x 14bit signals into one massive 16bit file with a massive cost to resolution and usability
I’ve got a pair of FX30’s because they are cheap and soooooo good! I mostly shoot in well lit environments, but even in low light situations, there is still enough info in shadows to make it look decent. Can’t believe how bad the C400 performs in these standard situations that we often find ourselves in. Great comparison! And loved the genuine laughter too 😂
On the monitor brightness, take a moment to increase the backlight using the luminance setting. It can be very bright, even in direct sunlight. And this setting it missed by so many ops it's frustrating. (C70 has the same setting btw, but only at a +2)
It's the first thing I always do when I use a Canon camera. I feel so bad for anyone that doesn't know about that setting and tries to use the camera at default brightness
@@jakehayden998 Its painful to see, glad you are aware of it! Out of curiousity, did you test other iso for your noise performance? I find exposing to iso 400 for interiors and shifting the dynamic range lower tends to help a lot. But it's funny how much I love my c300 and c70 dgo sensor, it's hard to know if it would even be worth "upgrading". Heres hoping a dgo sensor is still on the horizon, but I think it's hard to know. Maybe a used C500 is a better investment lol/.
The blotchiness in the hair wasn’t something just in this latest sensor from Canon. I also saw the same thing in the c70’s DGO sensor that always bothered me. Great video and great breakdown of your thoughts.
Thank you! Yeah my C200 used to be pretty blotchy and weird, but I don't remember it being as bad as it is in the C400. It's probably the ugliest looking noise I've ever seen
@@jakehayden998 I’d say C200 was a quite a bit worse than this. Whenever I tried lifting anything out of the shadows I was finding that there was nothing left to recover. Just tons of red noise.
I think all canon sensors are the same post EOS R sadly - the dynamic range improvements in non-raw formats are just due to more extensive noise reduction. That being said, happily it's a very useable amount of DR.
Thanks for this. Such a well researched, even handed take on the new Canon. I had a similar take after renting the C80 and using it on three jobs alongside my C70s and R6M2s. The C80 image looked closer to the R6M2 than the C70. The C70's image, for me, is the best thing out there for under $10K. Yes, it isn't as sharp but that's what I prefer. I've shot hundreds of hours on C70s now and that DGO sensor is where it's at. I'll sit up and take notice when Canon puts out a 6K DGO sensor that shoots open gate and has comparable AF to the R6M2/R5 M2/R3. Meanwhile my mix of C70s and R6M2s is the best bang for the buck.
Well now I’m happy that I got Sony A7S3! I’ve been working on a set with C70, C80 cameras and really like them especially the ND and how the menu is. But I’m comparing my hybrid to cinema cameras and there’s the FX6 or Burano in Sony lineup
Don’t get me wrong dynamic range is not everything, and neither is low light performance. But for me it tops skin tone performance always, since I’m often in situations where I can’t take time to expose correctly or take 2 hours to set up lights or need to record in bad lighting where skin tones would never look right… And it’s just cheaper lenses and camera lol
Thank you! Yeah sometimes I crop to 4:3 because my set is really narrow in my basement (plus it makes it easier to hide lights and boom poles). I also think it feels a bit more approachable and nostalgic. I want the A-Roll to feel warm and relaxing instead of super fast paced and clean
Re: "apples and orangutans" Burano comparison. I've used the Burano on a number of projects since the Spring, from small 1-man doc style shoots, to medium sized crewed productions, and it's quickly become my favourite camera to work with. If you have a chance to rent one, I can't recommend it enough. I haven't touched any other Sony since other than an FX3 for gimbal work. Relative to this video, the latitude continues to surprise me. You almost have to try and clip the highlight. And when you do get noise in the shadows, it's so clean it's borderline acceptable, and extremely easy to clean up. I almost liken it to the digital equivalent of Arri's organic noise, and I think if Sony were to ever unlock XOCN-ST or XT the latitude would be nocking on the door of the Alexa 35. It's also quite a bit more expensive than the C80, which again brings up back to the "apples and orangutans".
@@jakehayden998 whenever I hear someone mention the slow RS or IR, I know they've never actually used the camera. The RS is a non-issue for 98% of projects and I haven't noticed IR in any shots. That's not to say some people haven't experienced it, but I've personally seen it in my footage. I think the biggest gripe is the cost because it's so unaffordable, especially for the TH-camrs reviewing it. Could the camera have been $5-8k less? 100%. But I think Sony's biggest mistake was sending it to a bunch of TH-camrs, who've never been on a proper set, during the launch. All the reviews were "I can buy X amount of FX3/6s for the same price". Meanwhile, the type of person that this camera was designed for mostly don't even have a TH-cam channel. I will say though, the inconsistent output between HDMI, SDI, format, resolution & codec is annoying as hell, but it looks like that's all being standardized in the next firmware, along with the addition of 240fps and a fast readout 4k full frame crop (95% of full frame). If you ever get the option, I highly recommend renting it. It's not hard to find it for FX9ish pricing.
@@jakehayden998 whenever I hear someone mention the slow RS or IR, I know they've never actually used the camera. The RS is a non-issue for 98% of projects and I haven't noticed IR in any shots. That's not to say some people haven't experienced it, but I've personally seen it in my footage. I think the biggest gripe is the cost because it's so unaffordable, especially for the TH-camrs reviewing it. Could the camera have been $5-8k less? 100%. But I think Sony's biggest mistake was sending it to a bunch of TH-camrs, who've never been on a proper set, during the launch. All the reviews were "I can buy X amount of FX3/6s for the same price". Meanwhile, the type of person that this camera was designed for mostly don't even have a TH-cam channel. I will say though, the inconsistent output between HDMI, SDI, format, resolution & codec is annoying as hell, but it looks like that's all being standardized in the next firmware, along with the addition of 240fps and a fast readout 4k full frame crop (95% of full frame). If you ever get the option, I highly recommend renting it. It's not hard to find it for FX9ish pricing.
The burano has a sensor that's very got very low read noise which is a godsend in itself but it's still a 12bit sensor unfortunately. While latitude tests do show the dynamic range capabilities of the sensor, they're more about the effect of read noise on the image and the leeway that gives you in exposing your image. The fact that multiple sensors with 12bit readout have such different results with the amount of noise being the biggest difference says a lot
@@vhauser416 the camera I use literally has 15-38ms of rolling shutter depending on the resolution I use and it's quite funny yes. I just drop the resolution to get a faster readout, sometimes by as much as 60% to get the result I need
It already exists and it's called C300MKIII - the C400's body is shorter but also wider. In all honesty, I didn't see a great deal of difference save for the LCD brace, which is better articulated although very plastic-y.
@@emilianoranzani6049 totally, it's purely a mount limitation. For doco I really love my fuji zoom, I don't like stills lenses, the fuji 18-55 can't adapt to ef.. other EF cine zooms are a lot bigger which is a bit intense for low footprint verite style filming
@@louie8488 The MKIII also has a PL mount which you can buy along with the EF one and you can swap them freely (or close - you cannot do it on-set). Unless you're dying to use M-Mount lenses or original RF glass, you have access to a very wide selection of lenses - especially cine lenses.
I have been saying for a long time that people give BM a hard time but they have delivered some of the best image quality we have seen in this industry. Are they as big of a market share holder? No. Do they have the best ergonomics on all their cameras? No. But they have have managed to give us cameras that give us great images, menu/OS and great shooting variations.
Additional questions: 1. did you use zebras in camera/monitor vs false colors to dial in middle gray at 32%? One thing I don't understand is if the color pipeline is mapped to 32% gray on the monitor, and have seen false colors have a more average middle gray range (green mostly) in that 40% range. 2. did each camera have the same lens?
Excellent breakdown on the C400 noise and limited latitude situation. In general buyers keep thinking next generation sensors will come to the DR rescue, and it just ain’t so. I will happily keep filming with my FX6 and FX3 for now and hope that the FX9 replacement supposedly coming early next year (not holding my breath) will provide the 6k bump I want to have for some productions. Fingers crossed it will be priced closer to the C400 than the Burano.
@@jakehayden998 We will see about the FX9. Hopefully by the time NAB rolls around. And I will tell you the other deal breaker for me with the C400. I’m probably more fastidious about cards and data than most, but all it takes is one bad card on the wrong shoot and life can get very expensive, or jobs can get scarce, or both. So having symmetrical dual slot recording is a must for me. And yes you can kinda fake it on the Canon for some codecs, but to me a commercial camera should be able to dual slot record at every frame rate and codec. That’s another key reason why I will stick with the Sonys.
you should test 6 stops underexposure of c400 in different native isos, like 800, 3200, and 12800, the shadow gets cleaner when you lift them if you shot in higher native isos
you’re the first person who actually did a proper image review of a camera. I love how you zoom in on the Noise so we can see exactly what it’s gonna look like. I wanna know how the camera operates at its worst. that’s what gives me a good idea of how it’s going to work. you can make any camera look good. given the time, proper lighting, proper set design and so on and so forth, but what does it take to break the image that’s important.
The major problem of these high Megapixel, fast readout-sensors is heat. Im not talking about overheating, Im talking about the average operating temperature. The higher the temperature the lower the dynamic range, because electrons have their best operating temeprature between 20 - 35 Celcius. The Venice 2 have "cooling rodes" to prevent the sensor getting too hot.
i didn’t quite get the bit about the BMD Ursa EVF? at 4:20 you started talking about testing it and then spoke about the monitor not working. Does the actual Ursa EVF connect and work fine on the cameras? Please kindly confirm
I’ve had a brief brush with the Canon ecosystem, but I’m Sony pretty much 100%. I like the entire cinema line that works together from FX30 to Venice. Canon I think is finally going to start rolling a consistent line up from beginning to end, but it’s too late for me. The C400 is the most exciting camera I’ve seen from them in 15 years. It looks really good!
Totally agreed. If Canon is able to bring both their prices and their noise floors down, I think they could be a force to be reckoned with in the next few years
As an R5C owner I would say in terms of DR it’s the same story if not worse. Canon stupidly doesn’t include clog 2 in compressed codecs so you are forced to use the massive RAW recording to get the sensors full DR and even then it’s prob still worse than the c80/c400 as it should be with the massive resolution of the R5C.
Are you just using the standard canon or resolve lut? I’ve found most standard luts within resolve and those by manufacturers to be quite bad and introduce noise too. canon tends to skew red/magenta and the canon cinema space can exacerbate this in noise patterns. I’ve got an r5c and a c80 and don’t experience noise like you’re showing here but I’ve found how your colour manage the footage to make quite the difference. Changing the raw clip settings to one of the full res decoding options makes a difference too.
Key takeaways: 1) Sony's sensor fabrication is better than Canon's hence better intrinsic SNR 2) Sony uses a better H.265 based XAVC-HS codec that holds up lot's of data in limited bitrate compared to Canon's AVC and internal Debayered/compressed RAW 3) Sony has much better noise Profiling that uses much more Temporal NR than Spatial NR hence even noise texture overall.
I also wonder if Canon has issues with sensor heat. It seems like all of their cameras have the tendency to overheat, or at least run super hot. The C400s fan was the loudest I have ever heard in my life, it sounded like my PS5
@@jakehayden998no issues on any of the Cinema lines with overheating, absolute work horses. If a fan noise is your concern just set it to "always on" especially on c400 and c500ii, they have a lot more data to process. Fans on all of my c400's run just fine. I got 3x100's 3x200's 3x300ii 5x70's 2xr5c's 4x400's 1x300iii 1x500ii and they get put to work! Now when it comes to their mirrorless cameras that are built for stills and have video capabilities I would not use them for long form video since they will overheat.
Loved the analagy and explanation of why lattitude is important for the scope within the scene, i think this more closesly compares to an FX6 wirh RAW cababilities internally and i feel the price point and features reflect that. I think this offers what most docu shooters would rather have and the utility that comes with it. Not just the 12600 base but the 3200 base iso is the key to this camera that middle range Where 800 isnt enough. but 128 seems over kill. This would be a great a cam for me if i could justify the price tag!
Good question. I personally would much rather go with an FX6 versus the C400- - Much cheaper - Comparable image quality (even versus C400 Raw) - Full size XLR - I like E mount much better (way more options) But I guess it comes down to ecosystem and taste. There are a lot of people out there that have Canon lenses and want to stay with Canon. Personally I'm still going Sony every time.
@@jakehayden998 Don't forget VND on the FX6. If I was shooting documentaries that would probably be the #1 thing on my wish list. Being able to walk into a building with smooth ND changes would be killer
it's all fine, there's no bad product, just bad pricing. And I think canon just has bad pricing. I'd love to pick up a canon camera if it wasn't for a sony FX6 or blackmagic option being much cheaper and better in some ways.
You obviously haven't kept up with the R5 C specs. You can now record 8k60 RAW LT (with working AF) from an internal battery, as long as that battery is the LP-E6P, and get 55 minutes recording from a single fully charged battery. That's nearly 1TB of data. And you get 1h26m 8k24 RAW LT from a single, fully charged, LP-E6P pack.
Assuming I haven't kept up with the R5C's specs seems like a bit of a leap, but since you're interested- I'm aware of the 8k60 Raw, but when the market is flocking to cameras that shoot reliable 4k video, I think it was a goofy choice for Canon to come out with an 8k camera with a bunch of related flaws. 4k is only possible in compressed XFAVC, which means you only get C-log 3 (because Canon arbitrarily kneecapped it) so you get even less dynamic range. Your choices with the R5C are- 1. Gigantic 8k Raw files with a super high noise floor 2. Compressed 4k files with significantly kneecapped dynamic range I'm also aware of the update to the batteries, and while I always am a huge fan of brands updated cameras after release, an hour of battery life is still not a long time. For an extended shoot day you would need half a dozen of those things at least to get by. I don't want to sound too critical of a camera, especially if you own said camera, but I think it's important to call out when a company is being stingy like Canon was with the R5C
Happy with my FX6 and FX3. Glad I didn’t do C70 when I purchased new 4K cameras in 2021. C70/C80 is such a weird body shape too. Canon’s C400 demo film looked goofy to me, like it was shot on 5DII and had been up-resed by Topaz. The Sony’s will do fine for me for many more years. Heck you may have just sold me on buying an FX30 to beat up. Hopeful we see an FX9II soon, I want a big shoulder camera, but have no interest in Burano. Also want a Z90V replacement. I’m a sucker for camcorders. I have an XF605 that does okay, but it is a little big for what I want to use it for, a fishing channel, so I even still use an old XF100 from time to time. The Z200 isn’t for me. I’ve seen some super weird and unexplainable artifacts coming out of that camera that I don’t even want to risk. Ideally they would put 4K in the VX2100 body!
I love the explanation of dynamic range and signal to noise ratio! Have you seen Shagrals video on it? It seems like you have he goes DEEP. Good stuff.
@@jakehayden998 I like your take on it! Simplified and understandable. Also made me question my life right in the middle of a wedding film color grade, so thanks for that 🤣
What I don’t understand is why professional grade cameras are like this (whichever applies). If I want some NR built in, give me a toggle for that. If I want just raw uncompressed media, let me capture that. If I want NR and color correction & grading built into the shot, let me do that. Limiting general cameras is fair, wouldn’t want something talking down your camera since the average person can’t use it properly. But cinema cameras should be with professionals in mind, not the mindset of the average person that thinks $800 is a lot for a camera
Well, everything is elementary here DR G2 is the same as C500 and C400 which uses the same sensor! In terms of DR they are equal! The problem with noise is more due to the focus sensors on the sensor, that is why Panasonic did not want to implement phase focusing, and you can see for yourself that the S5 image is cleaner than the S5II. Seriously, it's like you discovered America, Canon's autofocus is the best on the market, it's a worthy compromise!
Did you try adjusting base ISO? Some have reported that bumping base to 1600 or 3200 removed a lot of grain on this sensor. Not sure why, and have not tested it myself. Just curious if you have tested it. Thx. Great stuff
question on the SNR=1. Anecdotally, I remember writing down SNR=2 should be the basis for a closer DR - I think from the CineD Lab Tests or Gerald Undone. Why not SNR=2? Is it because what you said about shooting in RAW vs Log tests? Where did you learn how to understand those charts? Great content! THanks!
I swear people that are actual fulltime cinematographers and DP’s just get gear and use it and make a living doing it….while TH-cam “film makers” right off gear and whinge about its downfalls.
I don’t think critiquing gear and highlighting weaknesses counts as whining or makes me any less of a filmmaker, but I guess you’re more than entitled to your opinion
@ I’m not saying you’re any less. I just saying there’s a clear distinction between people that put all their time into the work, and those that put all their time into TH-cam videos about working.
Great review, liked and subscribed to your channe :) How do you think (if you had the chance to test it) it compares with the C70? Also would love to know please what's the point in which the FX30 starts to clip. Anyway overall blow away by the super 35 sensor on the BM. The Ursa G2 has been a very underrated camera, to me even more usable than the new "fullframe" varian with all its weird caveats (except finally having no ir pollution). Thanks and keep doing good informative contents!
If they could have a competitor to the FX30 using the R7ii platform and having it similar specs of the R5ii so 4K fine no crop up to 60fps and 120 4k with small crop CLOG2 along with 10bit normal picture profile and the same good photography specs as the original R7...No 6k or raw or open gate needed and a price point of just around $1600. it would sell like hot cakes
Nice video! Another quirk I noticed with my C400 is that the default sharpening for raw is cranked way up in the files. Weird default choice on Canon’s part. Did you notice this too?
I haven't seen such a good cam review in a while. Awesome job, mate! learned a lot. As an FX30 owner I would have loved to see more test shots from that cam but that quick noise comparison with the C400 really blew me away.
Lol comparing the FX3 xfavc at 3 stops under and the c400 in raw at 3 stops under is ridiculous - of course a raw image will have more noise. C400 noise reduction parameters can be finely adjusted or turned off unlike many sony cameras.
The comparison wasn’t to see which image had more noise, the comparison was to see which image had a better looking noise pattern. Somehow in a compressed format the fx30 is able to a beautiful and granular noise pattern and the c400 in Raw (which should be the least processed) has a noise pattern that looks processed and digital. The whole point is the c400 weirdly has a much worse looking noise pattern vs the fx30 (and typically Sony cameras are the ones that famously have internal noise reduction that you can’t turn off). I would much rather have the fx30s noise pattern vs the c400s. In addition the fx30 has a lower noise floor, but that wasn’t really the point
FX30 owner here, so happy my little camera compares favourably, but surely you can only compare the quality of the noise between it and the C400 when DR is turned on? God knows what RAW looks like from an FX30. Anyway, I’m glad the DR myths are finally being debunked on YT - most cameras are stuck around 12 stops. Even the famous 15 stops on an FX3 is BS, but the marketing obviously works.
Shot with the c70 for 3 years and loved that camera but really wanted the full frame, wanted to take full advantage of the RF glass. Just over time also the c70 was just too soft in certain scenarios when I needed it to be sharp. The c80 is a pretty amazing camera, pretty amazing in low light, the AF is the best I have shot with and the colors are great. But I also don’t pixel peep. I feel too many people get so caught up in that. Spend all their time running tests. Just get out in the field and shoot. No camera is perfect you will always get some pros and cons in every camera.
I haven't been able to test out the A1 yet, but from what I can tell a lot of the newer Sony cameras have really great noise patterns/latitude. The A9iii is supposed to be crazy good
@@AstralxProd the sensors are mostly likely the same, but the internal processors and colour science are much different. In XAVC they could potentially be similar in latitude, though you'd see different results in what was pulled/pushed. However XOCN- LT will give you significantly more information to push/pull from. 10 bits shades are in the hundreds while 16 bit is in the 10s of thousands. It also see many millions more colours. I've used the Burano on a few projects now and the image is incredible, and it's such an easy camera to operate.
Oh yeah, I watched both videos before making mine for research. On The Film Guy's video the C400 has less noise in the comparison, but that's because they were comparing compressed 10-bit. The FX6 has the ability to turn off noise reduction (which allows more visible noise but the noise looks better) and the C400 has a ton of noise reduction you can't turn off (which takes away some noise, but the noise looks much worse a very digital). In that case, I would much prefer to have more noise, and then apply the perfect amount of noise reduction in post, rather than my camera applying a ton of noise reduction by default. In the same video the FX6 also does better in the latitude test and holds on to colors longer than the C400 (which basically immediately loses all saturation and color detail)
@@jakehayden998 You are far more technical than I. But Northwest Camera Co just dropped a C80 video today saying the low light performance on the C80 is better than the FX6. Both shot in 10bit... I guess because the FX6 can't shoot RAW, internally. I dunno? I've watched the compares. I don't see a motive of the previously mentioned sites to favor Canon? They all rent both systems. It's not a bias. I own the C400. I have a bias. I'm not trying to poke holes. I just don't see what you do. The images are better from the Canon C400 & C80.
Yeah I don’t have an fx3/fx6 with me to compare so please take everything I say with a grain of salt, but if I had to guess- The c80/c400 is probably cleaner than the fx6 at 12800iso in 10-bit, but I suspect it’s because the c80/c400 has a whole bunch of internal noise reduction you can’t turn off. I would love to see a comparison side by side of both cameras shooting in raw
ok so considering the a6700 is the same sensor as the fx30... it cant shoot raw but as we saw with the XAVC codec, it looked like the fx30 had a more natural grain pattern in the noise than canon.... so..... is the a6700 giving you better image quality than the c400 even in a compressed codec? I mean obviously for professional onset work the a6700 doesn't have anywhere near the io or functionality or even redundant recording but.... still...
It is kind of crazy to say, but I would rather have the a6700's image quality over the C400 for sure. You're right, theres a lot of other cool things about the C400, but image-quality-wise I think the a6700 is superior
People need to understand that numbers on a spec sheet don’t actually matter. I DP’d a comedy special recently that we shot on a fleet of C300mk2’s in Clog2, our editor used the “Utopia” LUTS (Arri conversion LUTS) and we’ve had several people ask us if we shot the comedy special on Alexa 35’s. Keep in mind the C300mk2 is an 8 year old camera, and it is Netflix approved. Sure, newer cameras are sharper, and have 1 or 2 stops more dynamic range. At the end of the day it’s not the equipment, it’s how you use it.
That's awesome, I love it when old cameras win the day
where can I watch the special?
Yes, I work on shows and projects that regularly use cameras that are 10 years old. New cameras rarely get you clients. Quality work gets clients.
💯 Bro. I shot a feature film on the c300 mkII and the footage was phenomenal! Super cinematic!
@@this_time_imperfect To certain extent agree, through good starting point saves $ and time in post. If we didn't have Arri Classic's at the time for the Chicago Fire Show we would have gone with c300mk1 over Red or anything else because the image looked that much better, especially on people which is the most important :) Arri and Canon do make life so much easier in post and when I shot a show for Discovery on C70 and c500ii earlier this year and sent rec709's to my colorist friend he thought I shot on Arri lol. I haven't touched the grade, literally sent him the screen grabs from the iPad! Need more work for Red and Sony in post because the colors are just off. Also, still use c300ii for a good amount of commercial work and mix with vRaptor and have colorists push the colors towards Arri/Canon mix. Not ready to retire them yet even though r5c's, c70's and c400's are becoming more of daily driver and c300iii and c500ii + Alexa Mini and vRaptor for bigger projects. Sony only per request.
Unless you're making thousands of dollars with high-end clients, don't waste your money chasing gear. This is completely asinine. A few months later, they will be posting another piece of gear that everyone MUST HAVE.
Especially with a piece of gear this expensive. Cameras like this lose value on the used market super fast
Cameras aren’t about “retaining value” they are about delivering value. This camera does deliver value. Gear by itself doesn’t make the image better but gear and skill do.
Please don’t try to tamp down gear acquisition syndrome, we who buy used gear depend on these people.
@@keylanph right about cameras are just a gear, your work is delivering the value. speaking to that, this camera is delivering value exactly like a lot of 8 - 10 year old cameras you can buy used for 1000 - 3000€, depending on your needs. isnt that a great time we are livin in? just dont worry about the new gear, worry about your quality of work :) - yea, all the influencers will tell you another story, but their main income is to sell the hot shit from the manufacturer.
@noBfilm Camera is the brush for the painting. You can have a great painting with an old brush but you can also have a bad painting with a new brush
The C500 Mark II has the same "problem". Here's the "fix": Go to the Custom Picture Menu (CP), then Edit CP file, then Noise Reduction, then make sure that the Frame Correlation is set to 1 (not 0). At least for the C500 Mii this fixes the noise issue - pretty dramatically.
it also does for the c400
Ehm...the tests here were done in RAW. No noise reduction stuff should apply shooting in RAW. And btw noise reduction won't do much if there's no signal to begin with.
@@CrisBaggins Ah, Ok...my fault...
@@CrisBaggins why not? It's the tool and option to be used. Even Arri has options for in camera noise reduction. In my experience Canon's internal noise reduction is phenomenal and if in a pinch with quick turn around and need to save time in post I would totally recommend using it. Now if you have a high budget and pro editor, I would just give them "clean" raw to mess with.
it does not affect RAW, since it's in fact... RAW. @@aristotel45
Had me dying when you switched from the FX30 to the C400 hahahaha 😂
I had to cut about 20 extra seconds of laughing. The difference is so funny
@ hahaha that’s hilarious and yes it’s staggering
Crazy. Can you do the same test in comparison to the c70?
haha same
As soon as you started talking about Dynamic Range, I suspected you were talking about Shagral’s video. I already loved your content, but seeing that you’re working on growing & perfecting your craft with top notch info just made me love and respect your channel even more.
I subbed to your channel for the immaculate aesthetic that you bring, so glad to see you also run deep into the technical, even more than I had previously imagined. Hope I’m making sense, keep up the fantastic work!
Thank you so much for the kind words, I really really appreciate that. Totally made my day
I bought two FX30's to use in my home TH-cam studio, mostly because they were cheap. I was shocked at how good they look in 10 bit 4:2:2! I think those cameras are one of the best buys in video right now...
Yeah it's insane how good the image quality is for the price. I love my FX30 more and more the longer I have it
My C400 out of the box was alarmingly noisy. After I performed an auto black balance the noise seemed to be a fair bit better. Just curious if you ran a ABB by chance for these tests? Great video by the way!
Great point
Great point! Jake said in another comment he had freshly black balanced.
Never really owned any canon cams, came close to the c70 but went with the Komodo. Have recently started to look at the C80 and 400 as really need an all in one doc cam and thought this might be Canon finally shaking things up… but everything I’m seeing is not great news and a lot of old c70 users don’t seem to be falling in love with the image on these newer cams. Thanks so much for running through these tests, incredibly eye opening.
Shocking how people just forgot about the significance of a DGO sensor.
100%
They haven’t forgotten. They just know what comes with that. Notably rolling shutter and bad af.
@@SamA-kl6pi Rolling shutter and AF could be improved. Main factor is for sure costs of producing the DGO sensor.
I wouldn't necessarily relate the AF capabilities of C70/C300mk3 as bad. C300mk3 was released about the same time as R5/R6 were, and C300 had the best AF out of all C-line of cams at the time. I highly doubt that AF can't be improved on the DGO sensor, and if it's connected with rolling shutter capabilities - then every single Alexa is a good proof that DGO can have a faster readout. Besides, all recent sensors on the market seem to have a remarkably fast readout in 2024. I suppose they had to pay ARRI licensing fees to be able to use DGO, and it does seem that it didn't work out really well business-wise for them (C300mk3 didn't gain that much traction due to fierce competition on the market).
DGO sensors have high sensor readout speed and don't really help that much.
I think this is your best review yet, diving more into the nerdy stuff while remaining the easiest photo/video content to consume out there
And that’s coming from a canon user
You're my favorite Canon user
Thank you for the video. I downloaded the raw files from news shooter website where they compare venice raw with canon raw. I couldn't see that noise even 1000% zoomed in. Did you use the raw lt? I'm thinking there may have been a reason why raw lt was not available in C500 from the beggining. Anyway, I believe you underexposed the scene where you say it has the correct exposure. Otherwise I cannot explain how you managed to destroy the image in such a manner. I would like to have access to the raw files.
Curios about the answer to the Raw lt question?
Ah, and I really look forward to the Ursa cine 12k review. I just watched the CVP review and I am totally shocked of how bad that 16 stops of dynamic range camera performs when underexposed 3 stops in the living room. While the review from ProAV clearly shows a shot from inside a barn through the open door that the camera retained ALL the details in all the barn corners without crushing a single pixel. Somehow I think that these living room tests where somebody just closes the iris and feeds the sensor with such little light are not the best methods to test the dynamic range of a camera. There is another guy on YT that did a low light test filming himself with nothing but a small candle for light source and the results are impressive.
But I get your point, you used the worst raw that the camera can record in order to get the worst noise pattern performance. Look, I don't have any dog in this fight, I want to buy a C400 because I believe that for the things you get for the money it is probably the best choice. I genuinely think that your approach in judging this camera performance is incorrect.
On another note, the sensor might have an issue with the OLPF. I have seen many images recorded with this camera where the moire is unacceptable. I used to have this issue with the hair in footage with a different camera and I had to purchase another OLPF to counter the moire. You footage seems to display the same issue in the hair pattern and this is indded unacceptable for a camera at this level. I believe Canon is not going to get away with it once the users report this issue. Cheers!
You can compensate for the C80's triple base ISO with controlled lighting. You can compensate for the full frame sensor with a wider lens (to some extent of course). But nothing in the C80 can replace the DGO sensor on the C70. An absolute dynamic range king in the Canon lineup!
I agree, and I’m still buying a c80 based on all the reviews I’ve seen. Mainly because the C80 is more run and gun based camera imo. Idk if there’s any other camera I can throw in a small backpack and get cinema like picture with 24 bit audio and exposure tools built in, decent screen, and internal nd. Literally pull it out, slap on a mic, hit record and record raw video.
@@SamA-kl6pi indeed the C80 is great for run and gun situations. The full frame sensor is really something when it comes to using Canon's RF lenses' full potential. Still for the image purists, C70's DGO sensor is the closest that 4 thousand bucks will get you to an Alexa :)
To my understanding, this is not shocking at all. RAW has no noise reduction to artificially inflate the DR tests on paper. This is why the A7IV and R5II have such good readings when using compressed formats. The R5II’s RAW reading is 3 stops lower on paper. Gerald Undone showed that through basic denoising you’re able to pull several stops out of the R5II’s 8K RAW. I own a C400 and haven’t had any issues at all thankfully!
Completely agree with this.
agree 100%
I think the reason why people think that some cameras are better at highlights and some are at shadows is because of the distribution of the dynamic range, which isnt linear. So at some ISO's some cameras have more DR in the shadows and some have more at the highlights while its different on a different ISO. For example C300 has only 3.3 stops above 18% grey and 11.7 below on native 800 at 100 iso while BM6kpro has 3.9 and 9.5 respectively, so the ratio is different. Also using the same example the C300 holds the 6.3 and 8.7 stops until 102400 while on the BM its 5.9 and 7.5 at native and already at 1000 its 7.3 and 6.1 so I believe some people are quite confused because they're not all around comparable easily.
Man! Excellent noise test! Please continue with the great work.
Hey man, this review is so helpful! Thank you so much for making it🙏 As a commercial filmmaker, I really appreciate the context you set it in. Not just random numbers.
i would love to see such a deep dive on the dynamic range of the Sigma FP, as it also have a quite specific repartition, great breakdown as always !
The Canon C400 and C80 dont have a huge problem....
classic clickbait
A really kick-ass, detailed, video, Jake! Well done. Makes me wish Canon could magically turn my 300MKIII into full frame! I'll stick with my C300MKIII, C300MKII, and C70's, for my current needs and maybe rent a C400 for a full frame day to try it out.
Some Panasonic cameras also have DR boost sensors. The GH6 was the first one to have it but the G9II and GH7 sensors improved on it to beat most APSC cameras in DR.
I haven’t been able to test those newer Panny cameras that have DR boost, that’s interesting. Hopefully I can get one into the studio soon so I can test that
I got the C80. And as a documentary filmmaker, it’s perfect for me. I’ve been making youtube videos about it. I have no issues exposing or with dynamic range. However, the only thing I’m still unsure about is autofocus. I’m still finding the right combo of settings for that because it has so many options. Thanks for your perspective
I'm sure it's awesome for documentary stuff, and honestly I think in most circumstances the dynamic range won't be limiting out in the field. I'm glad you're happy with it!
Are you using Canon RF lenses for autofocus? What's wrong with the autofocus? It's just unreliable or slow or what? I didn't have any RF glass to test autofocus while I had the C400 in, so I'm curious.
@@jakehayden998 Ive also heard this on another videos, that autofocus is not reliable for both C80 and 400.
@@luis.hermosilloI’ve been pretty impressed with the auto focus so far. I’m using RF glass.
@ i loved the RF glass when I had it. I do think Canon does make great quality glass
@@luis.hermosilloAutofocus in the C400 is a beast. (Compared to C70) huge upgrade! For events and fast action sequences it improved my usable shots in a big margin. For narrative work, I don’t use AF lenses.
19:30 😂😂😂 it's just crazy man. Now I know that the Canon C400 is indeed overrated. Great video btw!!
I truly believe this sensor is the R3 sensor. Same exact specs and believe it or not, when you change the ISO settings on the R3, cleans up at 3200, and then shockingly cleans up again at 12,800. Try renting that camera and do your tests on it and I think you’ll be surprised it’s the same.
That's really interesting, I would love to test the R3 at some point and see how the results stack up
That would be really interesting to know. I have an R3 , and wondering if I should get a C80 as a second cam, or if I should just double up on R3s.
@ throw your lens cap on, peaking on, and test the native ISO’s yourself. You’ll see it clean up.
Holyyyyy moly. I was already shocked but then remembered it's a FF sensor! Thats wild
Yeah it's insane, I was really caught off guard by the noise results, especially from a FF sensor
I am not in the market for Canon Cameras but I loved your analysis and explanation of DR or lack of latitude in those Canon Sensors.
Thank you, I really appreciate that
I guess I have a couple of thoughts. First, RAW LT is not for pixel peeping. It. Second, your under exposure tests are being effected by CMOS smear which is an entirely different issue for Canon. . Close your blinds to get a better test for DR. Third, test your NR settings.
Hes playing a game
Good eye, thanks for the observations-
1. I guess you could make the argument that Raw LT isn't for pixel peeping, but in this test it was going up against BRAW 12:1 (which has a lower data rate than the C400 did) and XAVC 10-bit 4.2.2 out of the FX30 (which obviously has an even lower data rate), and both the Sony and the BM absolutely blow the Canon out of the water. The point wasn't that this was the absolute maximum IQ out of the C400, but instead what a typical codec would look like (although Raw LT is still a beefy codec data-wise, there's no reason it should look this bad). The other Raw codecs in the C400 are just as noisy, and even if they weren't, it would be a whole other issue if on the C400 you had to shoot at over 1000 mbps to match a Sony shooting at 200 mbps when it comes to fineness in the noise pattern.
2. I guess there could be some CMOS smearing there, but that's a completely unrelated topic and doesn't affect the noise floor. Sure CMOS smearing can show up in underexposed areas, but the point of the test was the gauge where the noise floor was and how the noise pattern looked
3. All NR was turned off in the menus . That's why the XFAVC was so disappointing. There's a whole bunch of NR that Canon is baking into the footage that you can't turn off
But raw "LT" is your only option for most of the C80's shooting modes. So... that's really the only relevant one to test.
Cine D measured the dynamic range of the C400 at 14.1 stops at Signal to Noise ratio at 1. that’s totally fine. Blue Ruin was shot on a C300 mk 1! Act of Valor and Like Crazy on 5d‘s and 7d‘s. I mean… I think negging about specs in today‘s world is kind of obsolete. You can make anything look great now with pretty much every camera.
I’ve been using my C400 for a couple months already, mostly in the event and wedding world and I can say this review is correct.
That being said I believe this is based on those scenarios where you need to push the image to its limits and that’s not the first place to start with if you want to judge a camera BUT is something to take a look at most definitely, of course.
My C70 has more dynamic range than my C400, I noticed that on day one, but I expected it since Canon itself stated that.
At the end choosing your camera will depend of your line of work I believe, for documentary work, it’s a beast of a camera. For narrative, I’d go RED maybe or BM. For a mixture of both: I’d go Canon still because it works very well in almost every scenario you throw at it.
I liked how transparent you were judging the very thing every Canon user were worried about: DR. Subscribing.
I'm glad you're happy with the C400. If you're doing event work and weddings it's probably one of the best choices on the market
I love the image on the FX30. I love my ZV-E1 too, but the FX30 has a look that is a home run IMO.
Especially for the price, the FX30 is absolutely insane
You should carve out the portion on dynamic range and post it as a stand-alone video. Lots of people would love to see such a great explanation!
Thats a fun idea, I considered doing that in the beginning but I got carried away when making this video
@@jakehayden998 You teach things in such a clear and concise way. I think it would be valueable. Thank you so much for giving your knowledge back to the filmmaking community!!
Thank you so much for this video! That explains a lot why I am not very satisfied with my C400 which I bought as an upgrade to my Pocket 6K. I should have waited I guess, its hard to get clean shadows in sunlight sometimes, in those high dynamic range scenes.
And how do you expose? Bet all my money you do it wrong
It’s never been a better time to grab a cheap C70 of someone who jumped ships. I was disappointed they didn’t include the DGO sensor in C80 and C400 and right from the first images that came out the supposed dynamic range just didn’t seem realistic. I’ve seen a lot of OMG’s “C80 destroys C70 with its third iso of 12800” when the 12800 looked so inferior to 6400 on C70. Not even accounting for the fact that with the super 35 sensor I have an extra stop of light bolted to the front of my camera. Great exposé, dude.
Hey Jake, great channel. One thing that I think a lot of people miss is that each stop is a DOUBLING. So in your "jar of marbles" metaphor, one stop would be a single marble. The second stop should be TWO marbles, the third stop FOUR marbles, and so on. So if camera A has 12 clean stops, and camera B has 14 clean stops, then camera B has FOUR TIMES as many marbles in total compared to camera A. It can record a light source FOUR TIMES BRIGHTER before clipping (assuming identical exposure on each camera). I think the "one stop equals one marble" metaphor tends to confuse people, who might see 12 vs 14 as being relatively close, when in fact they are worlds apart.
Why would a TH-camr who pretends to be a cinematographer know anything about exposure stops, inverse square law, etc? You can just say things without knowledge these days as long as it gets clicks.
Yeah you're 100% right, but I didn't want to go too deep into explaining stops of light or how they work in this video specifically. I was mainly just using the whole metaphor to try an provide a mental model for the noise floor. I was worried If I stopped to also explain the science of light it would a little too complicated for a video about a specific camera. I really appreciate the input (and love your content by the way)
2:09 i cant tell if its strobing or scanlines from a filter... what is that
Yeah it's just some weird scanlines because the lighting in that room is all LED
Solid video and super practical takes. Been toying with adding a Canon to my kit next year but TBH wasnt super impressed with the footage from the C400 when I recently used one - but I didnt get a chance to go this deep. Great stuff.
Corrction: Most cameras use 10-12bit ADC. Its kinda new to see most cameras use 12bit ADC. ARRI does NOT use a 14bit ADC but two 12bit ADCs. There are only three shipping cameras i know of that actually utalize a 14bit ADC. Sony Venice 2, Fuji XH2s, Kinefinity Mavo Mkii.
The reason why they arent used is sensor speed. In order to have a 14bit ADC, you need 1. A sensor that can push that much data, 2. An ADC thats fast enough for the framerate. In fact all sensors have a 14bit and 16bit readout mode just at much lower FPS. Thats why photo cameras can capture higher data sets, just at low FPS.
While yes, you do need a faster CPU to process it, that hasnt been a limiting factor in a few years.
canon try not to lie challenge: impossible
I think they don't. They even rate the dynamic range of the C80 lower than the C70 on their website.
@@tgm_previewsYou mean they try to be truthful with the lies!
Check the CineD for the latest tests c400 kicks ass. Dynamic range, latitude and sensor read out is 🔥
C500ii had the highest dynamic range and latitude just behind the Alexa Mini and I own both as well as all the Canon Cinema Cameras outside c80.
C400 is neck to neck with c500ii and they are just a smidge above C70 and c300iii. Splitting hairs against Venice2 and vRaptor. Alexa of course beats everyone :)
The C400 is no doubt an amazing camera, but that isn’t totally accurate. The readout speeds are really really impressive, that’s true, but the dynamic range isn’t. They actually haven’t tested latitude on CineD for the c400 yet, and the imatest scores are very lackluster. You seem to be referring to the XFAVC scores in DR, which again have a bunch of noise reduction and compression to inflate the scores. If you refer to the Raw scores, the C400 has one of the worst dynamic range scores on the market. The Venice has a full stop of DR on the C400 (plus a great noise pattern, which makes for a lot more latitude), the V Rapter has an extra 3 stops of DR.
I definitely don’t want to burst any bubbles, and I think the C400 is amazing, but the dynamic range and latitude leave a lot to be desired. It definitely isn’t accurate to call it one of the top options in this respect, since in fact, it’s by far one of the worst.
@@jakehayden998 nothing wrong with noise reduction to get better results, all the manufactures do it to push the overall DR and Latitude. Canon Raw is great you just need to have the right Editor/Colorist to clean it up :) Venice 2 does have a better noise pattern and you can see it if you zoom in at 400% lol. Red notoriously always inflates their results. CineD so far has been on point with their test vs what I was able to experience in the real world scenarios. We'll be doing some tests soon and comparison against C70/c300iii/Mini/vRaptor and have the colorist put it through its passes. Feel free to send the samples as well if you need some work done to the footage. You'd be astonished how well the original c500 compares to Arri not to mention new gear from Canon.
This reminds me of my photo days back in 2009-10, with canon eos 5 mkII. Same type of noise at. ISO 3200. Drop it down to 1600 iso and it’s recoverable.
I'd go with the FX6 if I need that high ISO performance.
I use a 5D mkii with magic lantern raw. I always thought the bad digital looking noise might be a result of the custom firmware, but I'm shocked to see that the noise pattern on this camera is identical. As a reminder, the 5D mkii released in 2008.
This is crazy big L for canon on this
Wow, that's interesting. It would be fun to compare the images side by side
@@jakehayden998 It's because of the DCT compression that the camera is using in RAW which is why none of these modern cameras including the RED Komodo qualify as RAW to me. DCT compression is the same "blocky" compression that h.264 and h.265 use. That's why it looks blocky to you
The 5d mark ii in magic lantern mode uses no compression and the mark iii along with the digit 5 magic lantern cameras such as the eos m use the old JPEG lossless 1992 which is similar to .zip file compression. It's compressed and decompressed to its full size with no loss in data, usually about 2:1 compression ratio. Fun fact the old canon dslr cameras can shoot raw video in 14bit and even combine 2x 14bit signals into one massive 16bit file with a massive cost to resolution and usability
I’ve got a pair of FX30’s because they are cheap and soooooo good! I mostly shoot in well lit environments, but even in low light situations, there is still enough info in shadows to make it look decent. Can’t believe how bad the C400 performs in these standard situations that we often find ourselves in. Great comparison! And loved the genuine laughter too 😂
FX30 is a better value than an FX3, you can get two for the price of one too.
Thank you! I'm glad you're happy with your FX30s. I've loved mine more and more as time has gone on
I was expecting this to be another clickbait video but I am pleasantly surprised. Good job.
On the monitor brightness, take a moment to increase the backlight using the luminance setting. It can be very bright, even in direct sunlight. And this setting it missed by so many ops it's frustrating. (C70 has the same setting btw, but only at a +2)
It's the first thing I always do when I use a Canon camera. I feel so bad for anyone that doesn't know about that setting and tries to use the camera at default brightness
@@jakehayden998 Its painful to see, glad you are aware of it! Out of curiousity, did you test other iso for your noise performance? I find exposing to iso 400 for interiors and shifting the dynamic range lower tends to help a lot. But it's funny how much I love my c300 and c70 dgo sensor, it's hard to know if it would even be worth "upgrading". Heres hoping a dgo sensor is still on the horizon, but I think it's hard to know. Maybe a used C500 is a better investment lol/.
The blotchiness in the hair wasn’t something just in this latest sensor from Canon. I also saw the same thing in the c70’s DGO sensor that always bothered me.
Great video and great breakdown of your thoughts.
Thank you!
Yeah my C200 used to be pretty blotchy and weird, but I don't remember it being as bad as it is in the C400. It's probably the ugliest looking noise I've ever seen
@@jakehayden998 I’d say C200 was a quite a bit worse than this. Whenever I tried lifting anything out of the shadows I was finding that there was nothing left to recover. Just tons of red noise.
I think all canon sensors are the same post EOS R sadly - the dynamic range improvements in non-raw formats are just due to more extensive noise reduction. That being said, happily it's a very useable amount of DR.
Thanks for this. Such a well researched, even handed take on the new Canon.
I had a similar take after renting the C80 and using it on three jobs alongside my C70s and R6M2s. The C80 image looked closer to the R6M2 than the C70. The C70's image, for me, is the best thing out there for under $10K. Yes, it isn't as sharp but that's what I prefer. I've shot hundreds of hours on C70s now and that DGO sensor is where it's at.
I'll sit up and take notice when Canon puts out a 6K DGO sensor that shoots open gate and has comparable AF to the R6M2/R5 M2/R3. Meanwhile my mix of C70s and R6M2s is the best bang for the buck.
Bmcc 6k FF !!!
Yeah the C80 feels pretty far off from the nice organic image coming out of the C70. I'd be really excited to see Canon do a full frame DGO too
Well now I’m happy that I got Sony A7S3!
I’ve been working on a set with C70, C80 cameras and really like them especially the ND and how the menu is.
But I’m comparing my hybrid to cinema cameras and there’s the FX6 or Burano in Sony lineup
I do like the out of camera skin tones though
Don’t get me wrong dynamic range is not everything, and neither is low light performance. But for me it tops skin tone performance always, since I’m often in situations where I can’t take time to expose correctly or take 2 hours to set up lights or need to record in bad lighting where skin tones would never look right…
And it’s just cheaper lenses and camera lol
The r5 C is incredible. Just what I needed. The best c70 companion.
Earned a subscription for me! Unbelievable video I don't like the crop CRT look but hey that your artistic choice lol
Thank you!
Yeah sometimes I crop to 4:3 because my set is really narrow in my basement (plus it makes it easier to hide lights and boom poles). I also think it feels a bit more approachable and nostalgic. I want the A-Roll to feel warm and relaxing instead of super fast paced and clean
Your grades always look so good dude, appreciate that you show your process its super helpful
Wow thank you, I really appreciate that
Such a banger of a video! Spot on!
Re: "apples and orangutans" Burano comparison. I've used the Burano on a number of projects since the Spring, from small 1-man doc style shoots, to medium sized crewed productions, and it's quickly become my favourite camera to work with. If you have a chance to rent one, I can't recommend it enough. I haven't touched any other Sony since other than an FX3 for gimbal work. Relative to this video, the latitude continues to surprise me. You almost have to try and clip the highlight. And when you do get noise in the shadows, it's so clean it's borderline acceptable, and extremely easy to clean up. I almost liken it to the digital equivalent of Arri's organic noise, and I think if Sony were to ever unlock XOCN-ST or XT the latitude would be nocking on the door of the Alexa 35. It's also quite a bit more expensive than the C80, which again brings up back to the "apples and orangutans".
That's nice info from someone who is actually using the Burano. I'm basing most of what I'm saying on stuff I've seen online so this is very useful
@@jakehayden998 whenever I hear someone mention the slow RS or IR, I know they've never actually used the camera. The RS is a non-issue for 98% of projects and I haven't noticed IR in any shots. That's not to say some people haven't experienced it, but I've personally seen it in my footage. I think the biggest gripe is the cost because it's so unaffordable, especially for the TH-camrs reviewing it. Could the camera have been $5-8k less? 100%. But I think Sony's biggest mistake was sending it to a bunch of TH-camrs, who've never been on a proper set, during the launch. All the reviews were "I can buy X amount of FX3/6s for the same price". Meanwhile, the type of person that this camera was designed for mostly don't even have a TH-cam channel. I will say though, the inconsistent output between HDMI, SDI, format, resolution & codec is annoying as hell, but it looks like that's all being standardized in the next firmware, along with the addition of 240fps and a fast readout 4k full frame crop (95% of full frame). If you ever get the option, I highly recommend renting it. It's not hard to find it for FX9ish pricing.
@@jakehayden998 whenever I hear someone mention the slow RS or IR, I know they've never actually used the camera. The RS is a non-issue for 98% of projects and I haven't noticed IR in any shots. That's not to say some people haven't experienced it, but I've personally seen it in my footage. I think the biggest gripe is the cost because it's so unaffordable, especially for the TH-camrs reviewing it. Could the camera have been $5-8k less? 100%. But I think Sony's biggest mistake was sending it to a bunch of TH-camrs, who've never been on a proper set, during the launch. All the reviews were "I can buy X amount of FX3/6s for the same price". Meanwhile, the type of person that this camera was designed for mostly don't even have a TH-cam channel. I will say though, the inconsistent output between HDMI, SDI, format, resolution & codec is annoying as hell, but it looks like that's all being standardized in the next firmware, along with the addition of 240fps and a fast readout 4k full frame crop (95% of full frame). If you ever get the option, I highly recommend renting it. It's not hard to find it for FX9ish pricing.
The burano has a sensor that's very got very low read noise which is a godsend in itself but it's still a 12bit sensor unfortunately. While latitude tests do show the dynamic range capabilities of the sensor, they're more about the effect of read noise on the image and the leeway that gives you in exposing your image. The fact that multiple sensors with 12bit readout have such different results with the amount of noise being the biggest difference says a lot
@@vhauser416 the camera I use literally has 15-38ms of rolling shutter depending on the resolution I use and it's quite funny yes. I just drop the resolution to get a faster readout, sometimes by as much as 60% to get the result I need
C70 in a C400 body, I'd buy it in a heartbeat
It already exists and it's called C300MKIII - the C400's body is shorter but also wider. In all honesty, I didn't see a great deal of difference save for the LCD brace, which is better articulated although very plastic-y.
@@emilianoranzani6049 totally, it's purely a mount limitation. For doco I really love my fuji zoom, I don't like stills lenses, the fuji 18-55 can't adapt to ef.. other EF cine zooms are a lot bigger which is a bit intense for low footprint verite style filming
@@emilianoranzani6049 the mount is the issue, RF can be adapted many ways, C300iii's EF mount is unfortunately limited
@@louie8488 The MKIII also has a PL mount which you can buy along with the EF one and you can swap them freely (or close - you cannot do it on-set). Unless you're dying to use M-Mount lenses or original RF glass, you have access to a very wide selection of lenses - especially cine lenses.
@@emilianoranzani6049 cheers man, more about being able to use a speedbooster
I have been saying for a long time that people give BM a hard time but they have delivered some of the best image quality we have seen in this industry. Are they as big of a market share holder? No. Do they have the best ergonomics on all their cameras? No. But they have have managed to give us cameras that give us great images, menu/OS and great shooting variations.
For sure. All of this testing has made me an even bigger fan of BM. The image quality is so just so hard to beat
This is one of the best camera channel on YT.
Thank you so much, that means a lot
100%
Additional questions:
1. did you use zebras in camera/monitor vs false colors to dial in middle gray at 32%? One thing I don't understand is if the color pipeline is mapped to 32% gray on the monitor, and have seen false colors have a more average middle gray range (green mostly) in that 40% range.
2. did each camera have the same lens?
I would like to know which old Black Magic cameras this sensor has.
That's a URSA Broadcast, it's a 6K Pro Sensor in a URSA body.
Excellent breakdown on the C400 noise and limited latitude situation. In general buyers keep thinking next generation sensors will come to the DR rescue, and it just ain’t so. I will happily keep filming with my FX6 and FX3 for now and hope that the FX9 replacement supposedly coming early next year (not holding my breath) will provide the 6k bump I want to have for some productions. Fingers crossed it will be priced closer to the C400 than the Burano.
I've heard rumors of an FX9 successor coming soon too. I have my fingers crossed for the same price as it is now
@@jakehayden998 We will see about the FX9. Hopefully by the time NAB rolls around. And I will tell you the other deal breaker for me with the C400. I’m probably more fastidious about cards and data than most, but all it takes is one bad card on the wrong shoot and life can get very expensive, or jobs can get scarce, or both. So having symmetrical dual slot recording is a must for me. And yes you can kinda fake it on the Canon for some codecs, but to me a commercial camera should be able to dual slot record at every frame rate and codec. That’s another key reason why I will stick with the Sonys.
you should test 6 stops underexposure of c400 in different native isos, like 800, 3200, and 12800, the shadow gets cleaner when you lift them if you shot in higher native isos
you’re the first person who actually did a proper image review of a camera. I love how you zoom in on the Noise so we can see exactly what it’s gonna look like. I wanna know how the camera operates at its worst. that’s what gives me a good idea of how it’s going to work. you can make any camera look good. given the time, proper lighting, proper set design and so on and so forth, but what does it take to break the image that’s important.
I love your reviews!
Thank you! I appreciate that
The major problem of these high Megapixel, fast readout-sensors is heat. Im not talking about overheating, Im talking about the average operating temperature. The higher the temperature the lower the dynamic range, because electrons have their best operating temeprature between 20 - 35 Celcius. The Venice 2 have "cooling rodes" to prevent the sensor getting too hot.
Yeah I suspect Canon is having heat issues too. The fan on the C400 was by far the loudest I have ever heard in my life
@ All CMOS sensors with such a fast read out have it. Sony, Nikon and Canon too.
thank you for you very well done comparison!!
Honestly one of the best reviews I’ve watched of the C400 thank you!
Thank you very much, I appreciate that
I almost bought a C400 right now instead of an FX6 lol thanks for the video man
i didn’t quite get the bit about the BMD Ursa EVF? at 4:20 you started talking about testing it and then spoke about the monitor not working. Does the actual Ursa EVF connect and work fine on the cameras? Please kindly confirm
Yeah sorry if that was confusing. The EVF doesn't work, and I'm assuming that means the PYXIS monitor will also not work
I’ve had a brief brush with the Canon ecosystem, but I’m Sony pretty much 100%. I like the entire cinema line that works together from FX30 to Venice. Canon I think is finally going to start rolling a consistent line up from beginning to end, but it’s too late for me. The C400 is the most exciting camera I’ve seen from them in 15 years. It looks really good!
Totally agreed. If Canon is able to bring both their prices and their noise floors down, I think they could be a force to be reckoned with in the next few years
Nice b-roll using that old box
Do you think these problems are also there in the R5C? What is the problem of the gamma curve on the R5C? Thanks!
As an R5C owner I would say in terms of DR it’s the same story if not worse. Canon stupidly doesn’t include clog 2 in compressed codecs so you are forced to use the massive RAW recording to get the sensors full DR and even then it’s prob still worse than the c80/c400 as it should be with the massive resolution of the R5C.
Very interesting indeed! Thanks for the in-depth examples. Just found ya. Subbed buddy.
Thanks a bunch, I really appreciate that! Thanks for the sub
So what cinema camera in comparison, in your eyes, has a way better dynamic range than this?
arri. thats it
Are you just using the standard canon or resolve lut? I’ve found most standard luts within resolve and those by manufacturers to be quite bad and introduce noise too.
canon tends to skew red/magenta and the canon cinema space can exacerbate this in noise patterns.
I’ve got an r5c and a c80 and don’t experience noise like you’re showing here but I’ve found how your colour manage the footage to make quite the difference.
Changing the raw clip settings to one of the full res decoding options makes a difference too.
Key takeaways:
1) Sony's sensor fabrication is better than Canon's hence better intrinsic SNR
2) Sony uses a better H.265 based XAVC-HS codec that holds up lot's of data in limited bitrate compared to Canon's AVC and internal Debayered/compressed RAW
3) Sony has much better noise Profiling that uses much more Temporal NR than Spatial NR hence even noise texture overall.
I also wonder if Canon has issues with sensor heat. It seems like all of their cameras have the tendency to overheat, or at least run super hot. The C400s fan was the loudest I have ever heard in my life, it sounded like my PS5
Maybe better noise but worse DR, Latitude, and color. Skin Tones on Canon are Arri Like and the DR is very close to Alexa Mini.
@@jakehayden998no issues on any of the Cinema lines with overheating, absolute work horses. If a fan noise is your concern just set it to "always on" especially on c400 and c500ii, they have a lot more data to process. Fans on all of my c400's run just fine.
I got 3x100's 3x200's 3x300ii 5x70's 2xr5c's 4x400's 1x300iii 1x500ii and they get put to work! Now when it comes to their mirrorless cameras that are built for stills and have video capabilities I would not use them for long form video since they will overheat.
Loved the analagy and explanation of why lattitude is important for the scope within the scene, i think this more closesly compares to an FX6 wirh RAW cababilities internally and i feel the price point and features reflect that. I think this offers what most docu shooters would rather have and the utility that comes with it. Not just the 12600 base but the 3200 base iso is the key to this camera that middle range Where 800 isnt enough. but 128 seems over kill. This would be a great a cam for me if i could justify the price tag!
I'm glad the analogy was helpful!
I totally agree, it almost perfectly resembles a Canon FX6 with Raw
21:30 but in that case why not go with an FX3 or FX6, if even the FX30 gives better results?
Good question. I personally would much rather go with an FX6 versus the C400-
- Much cheaper
- Comparable image quality (even versus C400 Raw)
- Full size XLR
- I like E mount much better (way more options)
But I guess it comes down to ecosystem and taste. There are a lot of people out there that have Canon lenses and want to stay with Canon. Personally I'm still going Sony every time.
@@jakehayden998 C80 is a better comparison. And it’s cheaper than the FX6.
@@jakehayden998 I agree, seems like a better deal all around. Thank you!
@@jakehayden998 Don't forget VND on the FX6. If I was shooting documentaries that would probably be the #1 thing on my wish list. Being able to walk into a building with smooth ND changes would be killer
mostly excited this is gonna cut the cost of the c70
That is true, hopefully it does cause the C70 and C300 mkiii to drop in price
it's all fine, there's no bad product, just bad pricing. And I think canon just has bad pricing. I'd love to pick up a canon camera if it wasn't for a sony FX6 or blackmagic option being much cheaper and better in some ways.
You obviously haven't kept up with the R5 C specs. You can now record 8k60 RAW LT (with working AF) from an internal battery, as long as that battery is the LP-E6P, and get 55 minutes recording from a single fully charged battery. That's nearly 1TB of data. And you get 1h26m 8k24 RAW LT from a single, fully charged, LP-E6P pack.
Assuming I haven't kept up with the R5C's specs seems like a bit of a leap, but since you're interested-
I'm aware of the 8k60 Raw, but when the market is flocking to cameras that shoot reliable 4k video, I think it was a goofy choice for Canon to come out with an 8k camera with a bunch of related flaws. 4k is only possible in compressed XFAVC, which means you only get C-log 3 (because Canon arbitrarily kneecapped it) so you get even less dynamic range. Your choices with the R5C are-
1. Gigantic 8k Raw files with a super high noise floor
2. Compressed 4k files with significantly kneecapped dynamic range
I'm also aware of the update to the batteries, and while I always am a huge fan of brands updated cameras after release, an hour of battery life is still not a long time. For an extended shoot day you would need half a dozen of those things at least to get by.
I don't want to sound too critical of a camera, especially if you own said camera, but I think it's important to call out when a company is being stingy like Canon was with the R5C
Happy with my FX6 and FX3. Glad I didn’t do C70 when I purchased new 4K cameras in 2021. C70/C80 is such a weird body shape too. Canon’s C400 demo film looked goofy to me, like it was shot on 5DII and had been up-resed by Topaz. The Sony’s will do fine for me for many more years. Heck you may have just sold me on buying an FX30 to beat up. Hopeful we see an FX9II soon, I want a big shoulder camera, but have no interest in Burano. Also want a Z90V replacement. I’m a sucker for camcorders. I have an XF605 that does okay, but it is a little big for what I want to use it for, a fishing channel, so I even still use an old XF100 from time to time. The Z200 isn’t for me. I’ve seen some super weird and unexplainable artifacts coming out of that camera that I don’t even want to risk. Ideally they would put 4K in the VX2100 body!
I love the explanation of dynamic range and signal to noise ratio! Have you seen Shagrals video on it? It seems like you have he goes DEEP. Good stuff.
Yeah I have seen Shagral's video, pretty good stuff. Glad you liked all the DR stuff. I was worried people wouldn't connect with it
@@jakehayden998 I like your take on it! Simplified and understandable. Also made me question my life right in the middle of a wedding film color grade, so thanks for that 🤣
Dynamic is more important than resolution...I hope the next version of the FX30 has 2 more stops of dynamic range even at 4k....
Couldn't agree more. I wish most cameras were 4k instead of 6k/8k and we got slightly better DR or readout instead
What I don’t understand is why professional grade cameras are like this (whichever applies). If I want some NR built in, give me a toggle for that. If I want just raw uncompressed media, let me capture that. If I want NR and color correction & grading built into the shot, let me do that. Limiting general cameras is fair, wouldn’t want something talking down your camera since the average person can’t use it properly. But cinema cameras should be with professionals in mind, not the mindset of the average person that thinks $800 is a lot for a camera
Well, everything is elementary here DR G2 is the same as C500 and C400 which uses the same sensor! In terms of DR they are equal! The problem with noise is more due to the focus sensors on the sensor, that is why Panasonic did not want to implement phase focusing, and you can see for yourself that the S5 image is cleaner than the S5II. Seriously, it's like you discovered America, Canon's autofocus is the best on the market, it's a worthy compromise!
Did you try adjusting base ISO? Some have reported that bumping base to 1600 or 3200 removed a lot of grain on this sensor. Not sure why, and have not tested it myself. Just curious if you have tested it. Thx. Great stuff
question on the SNR=1. Anecdotally, I remember writing down SNR=2 should be the basis for a closer DR - I think from the CineD Lab Tests or Gerald Undone. Why not SNR=2? Is it because what you said about shooting in RAW vs Log tests?
Where did you learn how to understand those charts?
Great content! THanks!
I swear people that are actual fulltime cinematographers and DP’s just get gear and use it and make a living doing it….while TH-cam “film makers” right off gear and whinge about its downfalls.
I don’t think critiquing gear and highlighting weaknesses counts as whining or makes me any less of a filmmaker, but I guess you’re more than entitled to your opinion
@ I’m not saying you’re any less. I just saying there’s a clear distinction between people that put all their time into the work, and those that put all their time into TH-cam videos about working.
Perhaps, but you’ve never met me and have absolutely no idea which one of those categories I fall in
what is a kneecaped gamma curve ????
Great review, liked and subscribed to your channe :)
How do you think (if you had the chance to test it) it compares with the C70?
Also would love to know please what's the point in which the FX30 starts to clip.
Anyway overall blow away by the super 35 sensor on the BM. The Ursa G2 has been a very underrated camera, to me even more usable than the new "fullframe" varian with all its weird caveats (except finally having no ir pollution).
Thanks and keep doing good informative contents!
If they could have a competitor to the FX30 using the R7ii platform and having it similar specs of the R5ii so 4K fine no crop up to 60fps and 120 4k with small crop CLOG2 along with 10bit normal picture profile and the same good photography specs as the original R7...No 6k or raw or open gate needed and a price point of just around $1600.
it would sell like hot cakes
finally someone’s calling Canon out
You’re not wrong, that noise pattern on the Canon is just weird, Prores raw on the Sonys looked more natural, you should do one on Nraw
I would love to test out NRaw. I've never gotten to test a Nikon camera but I'm looking into getting a Z6iii into the studio soon
Nice video! Another quirk I noticed with my C400 is that the default sharpening for raw is cranked way up in the files. Weird default choice on Canon’s part. Did you notice this too?
Yeah it's always cranked up to 10 which is really odd and looks kind of funky. My old C200 was the same way
I haven't seen such a good cam review in a while. Awesome job, mate! learned a lot. As an FX30 owner I would have loved to see more test shots from that cam but that quick noise comparison with the C400 really blew me away.
Lol comparing the FX3 xfavc at 3 stops under and the c400 in raw at 3 stops under is ridiculous - of course a raw image will have more noise. C400 noise reduction parameters can be finely adjusted or turned off unlike many sony cameras.
The comparison wasn’t to see which image had more noise, the comparison was to see which image had a better looking noise pattern. Somehow in a compressed format the fx30 is able to a beautiful and granular noise pattern and the c400 in Raw (which should be the least processed) has a noise pattern that looks processed and digital.
The whole point is the c400 weirdly has a much worse looking noise pattern vs the fx30 (and typically Sony cameras are the ones that famously have internal noise reduction that you can’t turn off). I would much rather have the fx30s noise pattern vs the c400s. In addition the fx30 has a lower noise floor, but that wasn’t really the point
@@jakehayden998 C400 xfavc with noise reduction on would be a relevant comparison.
That was the point through. Putting noise reduction on would make the noise pattern look even worse and more processed
@@jakehayden998 You can fine tune the noise reduction on the C400 or turn it off.
FX30 owner here, so happy my little camera compares favourably, but surely you can only compare the quality of the noise between it and the C400 when DR is turned on? God knows what RAW looks like from an FX30. Anyway, I’m glad the DR myths are finally being debunked on YT - most cameras are stuck around 12 stops. Even the famous 15 stops on an FX3 is BS, but the marketing obviously works.
Shot with the c70 for 3 years and loved that camera but really wanted the full frame, wanted to take full advantage of the RF glass. Just over time also the c70 was just too soft in certain scenarios when I needed it to be sharp. The c80 is a pretty amazing camera, pretty amazing in low light, the AF is the best I have shot with and the colors are great. But I also don’t pixel peep. I feel too many people get so caught up in that. Spend all their time running tests. Just get out in the field and shoot. No camera is perfect you will always get some pros and cons in every camera.
Solid video but what happened to the C80?!
Nice video, and music😉 Thanks! just something that I didn’t get: does the ursa evf work with the c400 through the usb-c?
Nah it didn't work, which is really disappointing. That would have been cool
Check out the Sony A1 latitude. It's insanely clean in the shadows.
I haven't been able to test out the A1 yet, but from what I can tell a lot of the newer Sony cameras have really great noise patterns/latitude. The A9iii is supposed to be crazy good
@@jakehayden998 It's the same sensor as the Burano, so besides not having RAW it should have similar latitude.
@@AstralxProd the sensors are mostly likely the same, but the internal processors and colour science are much different. In XAVC they could potentially be similar in latitude, though you'd see different results in what was pulled/pushed. However XOCN- LT will give you significantly more information to push/pull from. 10 bits shades are in the hundreds while 16 bit is in the 10s of thousands. It also see many millions more colours. I've used the Burano on a few projects now and the image is incredible, and it's such an easy camera to operate.
ProAV and The Film Guy both do tests comparing the FX6 to the C400 @ 12,800 and the Canon looks way better and way less color cast.
Oh yeah, I watched both videos before making mine for research. On The Film Guy's video the C400 has less noise in the comparison, but that's because they were comparing compressed 10-bit. The FX6 has the ability to turn off noise reduction (which allows more visible noise but the noise looks better) and the C400 has a ton of noise reduction you can't turn off (which takes away some noise, but the noise looks much worse a very digital).
In that case, I would much prefer to have more noise, and then apply the perfect amount of noise reduction in post, rather than my camera applying a ton of noise reduction by default. In the same video the FX6 also does better in the latitude test and holds on to colors longer than the C400 (which basically immediately loses all saturation and color detail)
@@jakehayden998 You are far more technical than I.
But Northwest Camera Co just dropped a C80 video today saying the low light performance on the C80 is better than the FX6. Both shot in 10bit... I guess because the FX6 can't shoot RAW, internally. I dunno? I've watched the compares. I don't see a motive of the previously mentioned sites to favor Canon? They all rent both systems. It's not a bias. I own the C400. I have a bias. I'm not trying to poke holes. I just don't see what you do. The images are better from the Canon C400 & C80.
Yeah I don’t have an fx3/fx6 with me to compare so please take everything I say with a grain of salt, but if I had to guess-
The c80/c400 is probably cleaner than the fx6 at 12800iso in 10-bit, but I suspect it’s because the c80/c400 has a whole bunch of internal noise reduction you can’t turn off. I would love to see a comparison side by side of both cameras shooting in raw
@@jakehayden998 That's completely wrong. Noise reduction on the C400 can be turned off and it also has 2 parameters for fine adjustments of NR.
ok so considering the a6700 is the same sensor as the fx30... it cant shoot raw but as we saw with the XAVC codec, it looked like the fx30 had a more natural grain pattern in the noise than canon.... so..... is the a6700 giving you better image quality than the c400 even in a compressed codec? I mean obviously for professional onset work the a6700 doesn't have anywhere near the io or functionality or even redundant recording but.... still...
It is kind of crazy to say, but I would rather have the a6700's image quality over the C400 for sure. You're right, theres a lot of other cool things about the C400, but image-quality-wise I think the a6700 is superior