Looking at stepping up from XF100 to XF300

[Nigel Barker]

Before you go mad & blow $20K I suggest that you just hire a Canon 5D Mk III with 50mm F/1.4 lens go to a dark club & shoot some video with it. I think that you will be amazed at the quality of the video for the money.

[Michael Holmes]

Definitely not wanting to blow $20k, Nigel. :)
I am having to sell other gear to make the $ available, whatever the total amount finally equals.

I will definitely look at the 5D Mk III. But I still need a 2nd camera, one mounted for group video and one handheld for different angle close-ups. Unless I'm missing what you are saying, the Mk III could be one of the two.

BTW, I am not trying to force myself to spend this amount of money.
I was just trying to be realistic about what a good two camera setup might cost, including good lenses.
Nothing scientific in the estimate: 2 x $5k for two camera bodies (say FS100 and 5D Mk III), plus another $10k for two good lenses and all the other misc. The key will be what is needed for two good lenses, of course.
So, not worth getting hung up on my rough number.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Michael Holmes

I will definitely look at the 5D Mk III. But I still need a 2nd camera, one mounted for group video and one handheld for different angle close-ups. Unless I'm missing what you are saying, the Mk III could be one of the two.

You could use two 5D3s (or 3). It's much easier operating to use all the same cameras & easier for matching in post.

[Al Bergstein]

I would agree with Nigel, that sticking with same camera, or family of cameras is a good idea.

[Michael Holmes]

Yes, that may be the best option.

The reasons I was thinking an FS100 (or FS700) and a Mk III are:

(1) The FS provides a convenient way to mount the stereo mic and handle the audio XLR inputs, w/o a separate mic rig (which can be a headache with limited space).

(2) I still need a relatively long zoom lenses on the mounted camera, since I never know where I will be located. Sometimes the mounted camera will be right in front of the band, and other times in the back of the club. So I need to zoom to setup the full band shot. I could alternatively have lots of lenses, but sometimes I will need to adjust zoom quickly between songs.....so I think a zoom is preferable. These changes can be manual, not servo. I was hoping the stock zoom lens on the FS might be adequate and enable me avoid buying another lens.

(3) I would have the variety of two different types of cameras, for possible other uses.

But, I didn't think about the matching issue. :(

[Tim Polster]

One thing to consider...If you have a wide shot of a band on stage, you will not be able to get too close to them as you will be IN the wide shot. So if you go this route, you are going to need a decent amount of telephoto on your hand held/closeup camera to get the intimate shots. A nice, quick adjustable monopod would probably be the best approach as handheld, DSLR and telephoto to do not go very well together.

Since DSLRs are pretty affordable, you might want to go for more than just a wide shot. Maybe two stationary cameras (one wide and one tight on the leader) to give different looks and also give you some choices of where to stand.

But, more cameras means more things for people to trip over...

You have not solved the problem, just created a new set of choices!

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Al Bergstein

I would agree with Nigel, that sticking with same camera, or family of cameras is a good idea.

Al, I"m still waiting for your 7d settings to show the latest sony handicams can keep up in low light (for that church recording you did where you said the ex3 or xf300 would not be an option), since you asked me to show it to you I need to know how the camera was set up do a fair comparison.

[Michael Holmes]

Yes I will need several lens to choose from depending on where the stationary camera is located, but in almost every case the handheld camera will need a somewhat longer lens. For a 5D Mk III, I was thinking a kit of 50 f/1.2L, 85 f/1.2L, 135 f/2.0L. My son is going to loan me his 85 f/1.8, to test and see if a 50 is going to get much use.

Yes a monopod will be a must for "handheld" camera. I already have one that works pretty well.

Afraid one stationary is all I can deal with. :)
I will have to depend on the lens kit to keep me out of the wide shot. And BTW, I normally just frame the band and not shoot a wide angle of the band and crowd.

I'm still struggling with giving up an FS camera and going with two Mk II's. Two different types of cameras is mighty nice to have in the arsenal. These two will really be a big issue in matching, huh?

[Tim Polster]

In my view, the FS-100 is not that different from a DSLR. Just a different body but the operation will be quite similar.

By MKII are you meaning 5DMKIIs? I think there is no reason to go with MKIIs when the new MKIII solves a lot of issues for not that much more. Yes, color matching is a mess between brands if you want them to look really good.

If you want to go large sensor/no servo then the Canon 5D MKIII (three) is the best option by a long way at $3,500. I would get two with some prime lenses (don't need "Ls") as well as on the of the new 24-70 f2.8L lens. You will be set. Pay up for lenses as they are worth it!

[Michael Holmes]

Originally Posted by Al Bergstein

I would agree with Nigel, that sticking with same camera, or family of cameras is a good idea.

I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet, Al. :)
I looked back at your staged production video and yes, I can see the differences. And I also like the GH2 contrast and sharpness. But the video overall is beautifully done and I don't know how many viewers are going to notice the differences. They won't be looking for them like we are. I go through this all the time when I mix/master songs........I fret over all the imperfections, and then nobody ever notices.

Both cameras we are talking about should produce striking low light images. Do you believe the differences between, say an FS700 (still wrestling between 100 and 700) with AVCHD file format, and the 5D Mk III (compressed AVCHD: H.264/MPEG-4 AVC) will be a substantial issue?

If this is something that will always be a significant problem, then OK.
This is just a tough trade-off for me.
I really hate to give up the flexibility of having an FS camera in the tool box, along with the convenience of handling audio. The combination of FS and 5D Mk III cameras would give me the flexibility to shoot just about anything, any time. And yes, I do remember I started this thread saying I wanted the cameras only for club shoots. :)

BTW, each viewing I am taken by the very slow zoom with the XF305.........very effective. It makes me want to consider having a zoom lens in the 5D Mk III lens kit, if there is one that can handle the low light.

[Michael Holmes]

Originally Posted by Tim Polster

By MKII are you meaning 5DMKIIs? I think there is no reason to go with MKIIs when the new MKIII solves a lot of issues for not that much more.

Yes, 5D Mk III, not II......my mistake.

Originally Posted by Tim Polster

I would get two with some prime lenses (don't need "Ls") as well as on the of the new 24-70 f2.8L lens.

I definitely want a zoom in the kit. I'm not sure if this is long enough to keep me out of the stationary camera shot.
Will the 70-200mm f/2.8L handle the low light?

[Svein Rune Skilnand]

Michael.

I don`t mean to make matters worse for you. Having two cameras of the same type is preferable when doing multicam shoots. That is why I went with two EX1Rs.

Have you considered your workflow and archive as well? Shooting with the AVC- HD format is very computer intensive and ingesting via USB 2 can take a long time. Depending on what editing program you are using you may end up with large files in the end. Also editing two streams of AVC HD is really intensive on the computer.

On my FCP 7 system I have to transcode AVC HD to Pro Res resulting in much bigger files and also takes uo more space when archiving. The XDCam EX format has, in my opinion, the best balance between quality and file sizes when comparing Sony to Panasonic to Canon. Mind you, I don`t know anything about the Canon´s, but I have tried the P2 format and to me, in the long run, it wasn`t very economical. I have the FS 100, but if I were to choose again, I would go with something like the F3, based upon workflow. And the same batteries, SxS cards and so on.

[Michael Holmes]

Originally Posted by Svein Rune Skilnand

Have you considered your workflow and archive as well?

I have not worried about it, probably should. I just haven't wanted this to override the goal of best low light image quality.

the F3 is outside the budget for a two-camera setup, so not really an option.

I download from the camera overnight, just let it run.
I edit in FCP X, everything is converted to Pro Res. Yes, large files.
I am having a problem right now of full spare hard drives because I am waiting on the release of the LTO-6 generation of tape storage. Once I get that, I will be fine on storage. I will edit, generate the QT movies, then simply transfer the FCP X files to tape and clean them off the hard drives. I rarely return to the Projects, once I finish working with them.........I'm on to the next one. :)

I am concerned about having clips from the two cameras in one Project and whether my Mac will struggle with that. I now have only the one long clip from one camera. If this is a problem, then I may have to put the clips in two different Projects, cut up the handheld camera clip, and import short clips into the other Project. This is just off the top of my head..........I haven't really thought about it. I am assuming there is a way to handle it. Maybe I'm too optimistic.

[Nigel Barker]

There is no need to do any transcoding if you use Premier Pro.

The Canon XF format files at 50Mbps are broadcast quality & easy to edit. Just to get Michael thinking again the other Canon camera that uses XF file format is the C300.

[Michael Holmes]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

The Canon XF format files at 50Mbps are broadcast quality & easy to edit. Just to get Michael thinking again the other Canon camera that uses XF file format is the C300.

Yes, the XF files are easy to use, download directly into FCP X with the plug-in, are automatically converted to Pro Res. Very nice, I'm spoiled using the XF100.

I am familiar with the AVCHD format because earlier I used a Canon HF M40. I used Clip Wrap to convert the files from the camera to Pro Res before importing into FCP X. Not nearly as convenient, but it worked fine.

So I am assuming I can deal with 24Mbps AVCHD from an FS700 and compressed AVCHD (which I've not dealt with) from the 5D Mk III, and have focused on getting the cameras that will give me the best images (and I recognize "best" is highly debatable).

Am I right that I can deal with AVCHD, it will just be more of a hassle than some other formats?
Or is it a big of enough issue to make me reconsider my choice of cameras?
I sure hope that wouldn't dictate my camera choice, but if I'm missing something let me know.

BTW, I was very surprised when I first looked at the FS700 and saw that the bit rate would only be 24Mbps max at 1080/24p. I sure like the Canon specs of 50Mbps and 4:2:2 color, and I love Canons........note the title of the thread. But specs aside, the FS low light image is extremely good, and that is my primary consideration.