Indie Guy, it's one thing to make a suggestion about methodology on these things. You do have a really good point, and I agree with you for the most part. On the other hand, your condescending tone and ad hominem jabs suggest you're not really interested in helping; just showing off your superior methodology. I can't help but think the issue is you're an asshole.
I rarely comment on here, but I wanted to address this.
First of all, don't go in debt for a camera unless you have a concrete plan for making it pay back. And that doesn't mean YOU paying it back; that means the CAMERA making you the money to pay it back. Otherwise the camera is a poor investment and will bring you down.
You're shooting a feature. If that's the only thing you need the camera for, then I recommend renting instead. Most houses charge for a three-day week, which means you could probably rent an UM Pro for a month for HALF the cost of buying one and invest the rest of your money in actors (because actors will be the number one factor in the success of your feature film).
On the other hand, if you have lots of client work you're shooting on your C100 right now, and you feel like stepping up to an UM Pro for that is a good idea, then it may make sense to use it on your feature as well. Just don't buy a camera only for the sake of the feature--your money could be better managed.
As for your question about image. When the Ursa Mini works, it produces some great results. Better than the C100, in my opinion, and I really love the C100. But that's WHEN the camera works--I know several people who have had problems with their Ursa Mini classic, and I've already heard of some problems with the Pro. We'll see how it shakes out.
That could have gone a different direction. Good man, Thomas!
I've never had a great experience with a Black Magic camera, and I've shot on them a few times. I've also heard a lot of horror stories.
You're going to hate this, but at the same price level, I would recommend a Canon Cinema camera, whether it's a C100 or a used C300. On paper they look like sh*t, but in real life they are some of the best, most reliable cameras I've used in that price range (and I've used everything from a Sony A7s to an Arri Alexa).
Hey Oliver, thanks for the compliment! Actually the material on there was all made with a slew of different cameras including Red Epic, C100, and A7s. The LOA Swim and EA$Y Apparel videos were both made with the C100.
The A7sII is a very flexible camera, but I've always had a hard time with the color on Sony cameras. Even with LUTs, it can be hard to work with, as some LUTs don't work as well under some circumstances. I think Sony stretched the codec a little thin with the A7 line; so I've always recommended the C100's.
And again, I cannot overstate the awesomeness of internal ND's and on-board XLR's.
I agree with Dennis.
The C100 is one of the best budget cameras I have ever used, and I've used a lot of Sony cameras as well. The C100 will actually stand up better to grading than the Sony A7sII, I think. While the spec sheet suggests the C100 has a weak codec, I've found it to be incredibly robust and it's much easier to get a pleasing image than from Sony cameras. I don't have much experience with the GH line, but I've never been impressed with their skin tone or low light capabilities.
The internal ND's, on-board XLR inputs, and battery life should be reason enough to sway you to the C100 for documentaries. I've used C100's for a few years now, and I've never been unhappy with the results.