I've owned and used both cameras and find the Ursa Mini G2 to look a bit more filmic and the C200 a bit more "video-ish." I wish Canon would have done more for the raw file workflow. The Braw is SO much more flexible and easy to work with and change on the fly in post - That's a HUGE selling point if you're working in raw. The interchangeable lens mount option is what sold me on the Ursa. It has way more visual possibilities through lenses, codecs, frame rates, and raw workflow.
You’re dead on.. C200 is not so impressive. Have owned both. The C500ii on the other hand really holds its own against everything up to even the amira for Sooc
Everyone has a different taste, but one of the main reasons I personally chose to get a C200 over an ursa was actually the form factor, and I shoulder the camera quite a bit. With the C200 you can strip it down or build it out, and anything in between. You can rig it specifically for whatever the job requires. It can be small and light weight for gimbal use or run and gun type shoots. Or it can be fully rigged up to a healthy weight for balancing well on your shoulder and studio setups. With the ursa it just always felt very clunky to me, and no matter how you rig it it's essentially one form factor, where as with the C200 you have lots of options and versatility. Codecs and frame rates are the main advantage of the ursa I'd say. But both are great cameras.
I love my c200, I bought a CC Tech Cfast to msata adapter with 1TB little msata drive I can shoot Raw for 2 hr and edit in the same drive in the Cfast reader!
Three years running and still a great review. Canon really has the color figured out. The downside, as you've pointed out is the limited codecs... it's like they took the C100mk II (which already has 4K sensor) and added internal RAW + 4:2:2 10bit capability. If they included prores, they'd kill C300 sales. Of course, you can get a great deal on a C200 right now... they're almost giving them away...
I only shoot RAW on my C200. Just slap on a Solidpod, and you have a very cheap mSata drive solution 😀 Im not sure if you remembered to auto black balance the camera, when changing ISO. If not the RAW footage can get a bit noisy. In general, RAW footage can benefit from a slight noise reduction 😀
@@TheSlantedLens At the moment it is testimonial videos for a customer, 10 pcs. in total. One day of shooting, and one days editing, that's it. I'm also starting to put my nerdy mindset in play on LinkedIn, creating videos, where I will give my take on a solution, to technical difficult issues, regarding photo/video, giving something back to the creative community ;0)
Theres more light in the background when you filmed the URSA for the dynamic range test so are not comparing like-for-like. Should've filmed them simultaneously.
@@TonyDae that's true but if I can get the look in camera it will be much faster. Also I think it can be pretty hard to match since the greens are kinds brown which is in the same range as the skintones. So it will be hard to change it without affecting skintones
@@Aviciiz You can literally mathematically transform colorspaces to each other or make your own luts which can include colorspace transformations if you wish which will provide the same or close to the same colors without negatively affecting the skintones. You can apply a lut and bake that into your shot if you want with the blackmagic camera, so you can do exactly what you are talking about and get the look you want straight out of camera. Either way, you are either baking a look into the footage via LUT or using a LUT or grading in post, either can be equally as fast using either camera and ge thte exact same color results with little to no effort. If you shoot braw, even 12:1 has a huge amount of room to make the colors whatever you want them to be with little effort at all.
I got G2 and i never use LUT from BM becouse its crap and atenuate real latitude of G2, real power of this is when You grade from scratch and recover highlights than IT shine! C200 great cam, build like a tank great tool, but no 120fps at full res (4.6), no 300fps,(HD) no evf, depends on needs.cheers! Thanks for conparision
The skintones on URSA look better to me. Better color contrast with C200 as it pushes out the yellows and greens are a bit more towards the blue, that looks but not natural.
Thanks for the great video!. A few months ago you did a similar comparison with the Ursa Mini Blackmagic vs. the Arri Amira. After watching that video, I concluded that the Blackmagic Ursa Mini would be what I would use for a (not high budget) independent feature film (not documentary). In this video you state that the Canon C200 may be a better choice than the Ursa Mini. Am I right? This is the same camera, right? So if the Canon C200 beats out the Ursa Mini G2 (outside of the "personal preference") and the Ursa G2 beat out the Arri Amira does that mean that the C200 would beat out the Arri Amira also? Still in my camera purchase decision trying to determine which camera under $10,000 (not including rig/lenses) is the best option. Now I'm a bit more undecided as to whether there is something that is the best option for the film. Any final thoughts? My film school is complete and I'm still in the procrastination/research phase but will be making a purchase. Thanks again.
Hey man! Just to be clear, I would say in no world does the C200 OR the Ursa Mini beat out the Arri Amira. Neither one has the color accuracy, dynamic range, or usability of the Arri. Of course, neither one costs nearly as much either! Between the C200 and the Ursa Mini it's a really hard choice. I personally think the C200 raw codec is phenomenal, but having the option with ProRes on the Ursa Mini is also very very nice. They're both great cameras honestly. If I had to choose between the two myself, I would go with the C200, as Canon cameras are built like tanks and extremely reliable, while BlackMagic cameras have had QC issues in the past. My biggest piece of advice is to purchase used. You can often save a good chunk of money buying used over new.
@@kennethcmerrill I was also looking at the Canon C300 MKII. Would that be an upgrade, in your opinion, from these two cameras? It's priced at $10,000 new and probably a few thousand less on the used market. Thanks again for making all the informative videos and bonus interaction!
2:50 no way ursa looks better then c200 and 6:25 ursa clipping red channel on a dress while c200 maintain red color and highlights rolloff much better I think you could not go wrong with c200 for a price and size it’s the best out there
I prefer the c200 for the color science in motion. What I mean by that is that it's easy to compare images from different cameras when the point of interest isn't moving. But when there's movement, then you get to see the colors in action from regular 24fps to 120fps.
