Jaime Valles

full time freelance editor here. I bounce around at a couple different companies whose clients are the major studios. for example, I cut this piece for the mummy.
the pay is great, frankly. i have been doing this sort of work for about ten years. I have also directed two features. the most recent was distributed internationally by paramount three years ago and we're still seeing good money from it. I don't spend more than I can afford on cameras and lenses, but am fortunate to be in a pretty good financial situation. No debt at all. My wife and I do not have kids. She also happens to be a film editor so she has an appreciation for my gear lust. But yeah, short version is that I work professionally editing and directing, and some of that income supports my personal collection of camera bodies, lenses, and support gear that i use more for fun, personal side projects that keep me sane.

Spot on..... I've filmed entire paid music videos on a GoPro because that was the vibe, attaching a small camera to everything POV style. 
In a studio, I've used the FS7 only because it was a tripod and I need chromakey slow motion at an affordable rate. 
I filmed my biggest ever project... on an A7S II. There was no chance to do lighting, we had to run around all sorts of locations and grab shots on the spot. 
I used the old C300, even though I had three other Sony cameras. The interviewer was adamant about "natural, organic, really good looking skin" in the interview. 
The video above, I used the A6500 with one lens to stay very discreet on the streets and still get a high IQ with a minimum fuss. 
Yesterday I used the FS5 and Inferno in ProRes as we set up 4 scenes in a very controlled space and needed very high resolution, high bit rate compositions as the colour management was very difficult with all the multi-colour neon signs knocking around. 
That said, the EOSHD vibe is certainly favoured to small mirrorless, and most of the work we show here is very "street", minimal kit and run n gun. I find it a much more enjoyable experience shooting like this, because it's very liberating. 
Creativity is the quality of the idea. Choose the best way to get the best out of the idea. In Hollywood, it's a huge crew behind 3 Arri Alexas. For a lot of us, it's a GH5 with a Zhiyun Crane and a GoPro with no permits. Whatever works best given the material. 

How do you define creativity though?
Yes, if you film street photography style footage, a GH5 will offer more creative freedom than a fully rigged Arri.
If you are filming from a camera mount on a snowboard, then the GoPro will offer more creative freedom than a GH5
If you are filming fast moving skaters, then a DJI Osmo will offer more creative freedom than a GoPro
If you are filming the aurora, then a Sony a7s ii will offer more creative freedom than an DJI Osmo
If you are filming music video, a C200 will offer more creative freedom than an A7s ii
and on and on..... There is no one camera that offers more creativity for every type of filming.

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

Point taken, but it's not really an issue with the C200 is it?

Shouldn't this thread really be called "the other issue with my budget"?

I hear you. However, the Sony FS5 costs $4750. The Sony A7sII costs $2600. Total for both: $7350. Those cameras are simply not in the same price bracket as the $7500 C200 (and that price doesn't include CFast cards for shooting raw). There's presumably a big quality difference between shooting on the FS5 at 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 and shooting on the C200 at 4K 12-bit raw. And if you're not going to shoot raw on the C200 because CFast cards are expensive, then why get it in the first place?
Then there's the A7sII, which will require lots of rigging and peripherals (and different batteries than the FS5) to turn it into a usable video camera, and even then you can only shoot with it for a while before it overheats. That may be fine for some types of shoots, but when I'm on a job I need the camera to run 100% for the entire event non-stop.
I'm all for people getting whatever cameras help them achieve their goals. If an FS5 and an A7SII works for your type of shooting, then great! I just think that picking a C200 as the A-cam means you've jumped into a much higher price bracket, and the B-cam is also going to have to be more expensive (unless you don't care about the difference in image quality and usability).  A C200 + a C200B (with monitor) = approx. $14,000. That seems entirely reasonable for that level of camera. If you really want to go low, get a 5Dmk4 for $3300 as the B-cam, but then you're once again dealing with all the hassles of a camera that wasn't designed primarily for shooting video. Again, if it works for you, then go for it. But the C200 + 5Dmk4 = almost $11,000. At that point, you're probably better off spending a bit more money and getting the C200B + monitor as a B-cam and then you have two full-fledged video cameras that use the same accessories, batteries and peripherals, and none of the compromises of shooting on DSLRs.
Exactly. Use whatever you can afford and deliver the content your client wants.
The B-camera has absolutely nothing to do with cost. It has everything to do with shooting an alternate angle or B-roll while the A-cam is shooting the principal action.
You can use whatever camera you want as a B-camera. It doesn't have to be less expensive than the A-cam. Right now, I shoot theatrical events with two C100 cameras. One is labeled A and the other one B. I get footage from both that match each other seamlessly and use all the same accessories. That's the ideal scenario. If you don't have the budget for two of the same camera, that doesn't mean the camera company did something wrong. It just means that camera is out of your budget. I'd love to shoot everything on two Panavision Millenium DXLs with Primo Artiste anamorphic lenses, but they're not in my budget, so I don't use them. Saying that Canon hasn't made a B-camera for the C200 makes no sense, especially because they did make it. It's called the C200B. If you can't afford it, that's perfectly fine. There are other cameras that are less expensive that would fit in your budget. Use those.

Yes, if you're going to do a lot of post-production pushing and stretching of the image, you certainly want at least 10-bit 4:2:2 footage. But that's not what the C100 camera is designed for. It shoots HD in 8-bit 4:2:0, and that's plenty for most uses of that camera, which require little or no color grading in post. Making a 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 C100mk3 would cater to exactly the same user base as the current C100mk2, most of whom are perfectly fine without 10-bit (myself included). Making it 10-bit 4:2:2 would mean turning it into a more expensive camera, and then you might as well get a C200.

I can see from this conversation that some here think the B-cam is about price or quality... And therefore must be inferior to the A-cam, but the fact is it's about getting shot from a different angle to support the story. That's it... Nothing more.

I think the 1DXMk2 is a great B-Cam. It is perfect for situation where I need something rugged or need to go low-key. The video quality looks great. Granted the 12bit raw from the C200 is much more robust, but I'm sure there will be little trouble matching the two. This solution offers the best of both worlds.

I hear you. However, the Sony FS5 costs $4750. The Sony A7sII costs $2600. Total for both: $7350. Those cameras are simply not in the same price bracket as the $7500 C200 (and that price doesn't include CFast cards for shooting raw). There's presumably a big quality difference between shooting on the FS5 at 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 and shooting on the C200 at 4K 12-bit raw. And if you're not going to shoot raw on the C200 because CFast cards are expensive, then why get it in the first place?
Then there's the A7sII, which will require lots of rigging and peripherals (and different batteries than the FS5) to turn it into a usable video camera, and even then you can only shoot with it for a while before it overheats. That may be fine for some types of shoots, but when I'm on a job I need the camera to run 100% for the entire event non-stop.
I'm all for people getting whatever cameras help them achieve their goals. If an FS5 and an A7SII works for your type of shooting, then great! I just think that picking a C200 as the A-cam means you've jumped into a much higher price bracket, and the B-cam is also going to have to be more expensive (unless you don't care about the difference in image quality and usability).  A C200 + a C200B (with monitor) = approx. $14,000. That seems entirely reasonable for that level of camera. If you really want to go low, get a 5Dmk4 for $3300 as the B-cam, but then you're once again dealing with all the hassles of a camera that wasn't designed primarily for shooting video. Again, if it works for you, then go for it. But the C200 + 5Dmk4 = almost $11,000. At that point, you're probably better off spending a bit more money and getting the C200B + monitor as a B-cam and then you have two full-fledged video cameras that use the same accessories, batteries and peripherals, and none of the compromises of shooting on DSLRs.
Exactly. Use whatever you can afford and deliver the content your client wants.
The B-camera has absolutely nothing to do with cost. It has everything to do with shooting an alternate angle or B-roll while the A-cam is shooting the principal action.
You can use whatever camera you want as a B-camera. It doesn't have to be less expensive than the A-cam. Right now, I shoot theatrical events with two C100 cameras. One is labeled A and the other one B. I get footage from both that match each other seamlessly and use all the same accessories. That's the ideal scenario. If you don't have the budget for two of the same camera, that doesn't mean the camera company did something wrong. It just means that camera is out of your budget. I'd love to shoot everything on two Panavision Millenium DXLs with Primo Artiste anamorphic lenses, but they're not in my budget, so I don't use them. Saying that Canon hasn't made a B-camera for the C200 makes no sense, especially because they did make it. It's called the C200B. If you can't afford it, that's perfectly fine. There are other cameras that are less expensive that would fit in your budget. Use those.

I hear you. However, the Sony FS5 costs $4750. The Sony A7sII costs $2600. Total for both: $7350. Those cameras are simply not in the same price bracket as the $7500 C200 (and that price doesn't include CFast cards for shooting raw). There's presumably a big quality difference between shooting on the FS5 at 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 and shooting on the C200 at 4K 12-bit raw. And if you're not going to shoot raw on the C200 because CFast cards are expensive, then why get it in the first place?
Then there's the A7sII, which will require lots of rigging and peripherals (and different batteries than the FS5) to turn it into a usable video camera, and even then you can only shoot with it for a while before it overheats. That may be fine for some types of shoots, but when I'm on a job I need the camera to run 100% for the entire event non-stop.
I'm all for people getting whatever cameras help them achieve their goals. If an FS5 and an A7SII works for your type of shooting, then great! I just think that picking a C200 as the A-cam means you've jumped into a much higher price bracket, and the B-cam is also going to have to be more expensive (unless you don't care about the difference in image quality and usability).  A C200 + a C200B (with monitor) = approx. $14,000. That seems entirely reasonable for that level of camera. If you really want to go low, get a 5Dmk4 for $3300 as the B-cam, but then you're once again dealing with all the hassles of a camera that wasn't designed primarily for shooting video. Again, if it works for you, then go for it. But the C200 + 5Dmk4 = almost $11,000. At that point, you're probably better off spending a bit more money and getting the C200B + monitor as a B-cam and then you have two full-fledged video cameras that use the same accessories, batteries and peripherals, and none of the compromises of shooting on DSLRs.
Exactly. Use whatever you can afford and deliver the content your client wants.
The B-camera has absolutely nothing to do with cost. It has everything to do with shooting an alternate angle or B-roll while the A-cam is shooting the principal action.
You can use whatever camera you want as a B-camera. It doesn't have to be less expensive than the A-cam. Right now, I shoot theatrical events with two C100 cameras. One is labeled A and the other one B. I get footage from both that match each other seamlessly and use all the same accessories. That's the ideal scenario. If you don't have the budget for two of the same camera, that doesn't mean the camera company did something wrong. It just means that camera is out of your budget. I'd love to shoot everything on two Panavision Millenium DXLs with Primo Artiste anamorphic lenses, but they're not in my budget, so I don't use them. Saying that Canon hasn't made a B-camera for the C200 makes no sense, especially because they did make it. It's called the C200B. If you can't afford it, that's perfectly fine. There are other cameras that are less expensive that would fit in your budget. Use those.

I think if your budget can only cover one C200 but not a second C200B as a B-cam then the C200 is too expensive for your budget in the first place. Why would you spend $7500 for the A-Cam but not be able to afford the $6000 B-cam? 
At that point, I'd instead recommend purchasing three GH5 cameras for $6000 and you're all set for a multi-camera shoot. The C200 is in a different league altogether, and a B-cam for that camera doesn't exist for less than $6000, nor should it. Look at the Alexa: I wouldn't tell someone to buy a $65,000 Alexa SXT as the A-cam and a $2000 GH5 as a B-cam because it doesn't make sense. The B-cam to the Alexa is an Alexa Mini or an Amira, both of which are around $40,000. The B-cam should be in the same ballpark as the A-cam in image quality, feature set, usability and price.
The C200 is great, but it's not a replacement for the C100. It's a new line of camera that shoots raw 4K, and it's definitely expensive compared to the C100 line. I think Canon should also make a C100mk3 that doesn't shoot raw, and only does 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 to dual SD cards and sells for $3999. That's what you replace a C100 with. Hopefully Canon is listening.

I don't understand the issue. The C200 is the A cam, and the C200B is the B cam. That's only $13,500 for two incredible 4K RAW cameras with DPAF. They'll all match in color and lens selection and features. And if you need a C camera, then the XC10 at $2000 is great.
How much cheaper do people want it to get? If the above is too expensive, you probably aren't in the market for a C200 anyway. Just get a couple of GH5 cameras and enjoy shooting 4K 10 bit 4:2:2.

I don't understand the issue. The C200 is the A cam, and the C200B is the B cam. That's only $13,500 for two incredible 4K RAW cameras with DPAF. They'll all match in color and lens selection and features. And if you need a C camera, then the XC10 at $2000 is great.
How much cheaper do people want it to get? If the above is too expensive, you probably aren't in the market for a C200 anyway. Just get a couple of GH5 cameras and enjoy shooting 4K 10 bit 4:2:2.

Everything else is $h!t? Really? So lowlight is shit? Lens selection, battery life, durability,  support, picture quality? You seem mighty convinced of the EVA1 for a camera that no one has seen a single frame from. I think I'll  hold judgement for when it's  released, as talking out of ones ass always stinks.

Without pixel peeping and YouTube/online-streaming compression, it's hard to tell the difference between 1DX II 4K and 1DX II 1080p (ALL-I ~100Mbps) post sharpened + fine grain noise (watch in 4K; even harder to tell when watched in 1080p): 
I find the stock 1DX II picture styles don't look as good as the 5D3 (different color science and sensors), however you can tweak the stock picture styles or create all new ones which work really well. When targeting 1080p/online-streaming and doing long takes/events, 1DX II 1080p works well and the ~100Mbps ALL-I files are easily manageable (can use IPB to get even smaller file sizes. I would normally use the A7S II for this kind of event, however the Sony was fired after it overheated in a 74F room + the 1DX II has working/usable autofocus): 
While the 1DX II can make a fine B cam for the C200 (and C300 II in our case), for the price if not also needing stills, the C200 is a superior B cam for video (and A cam if using RAW/external and if/when Canon allows 10-bit 422 internally).
 

So the 5D/1DxII DCI 4k 4:2:2 8bit MJPG at 500 Mbits that you can edit in real time without transcoding even on a notebook it is insane but at the same time everybody is crying because the C200 does not have a DCI 4k 4:2:2 10bit at 400 Mbits…. and also everybody is eagerly awaiting the GH5 firmware that will allow an edit ready 4k 10bit 4:2:2 at 400 Mbits. But hey 400 Mbits is perfect and 500 is insane...... If you want to edit ready 4k without transcoding in a good quality you will end up with at around 400 Mbits anyhow….
IMO the best B cam for the C200 is another C200 or C200B. It is a big advantage to have two cameras the same that you know the pro and cons, the menus, the customization, the button layout, the expect output, the sensor characteristic, same DOF, same lens and crop factor, NDs, the AF behavior etc… Additionally you have the same battery, same media, same LCD  etc… so if something breaks or is forgotten you mostly have a second one with you. Personally I already hate switching between 5D and 1Dx… So you will save time, have a perfect backup and probably at the save money.
In my case if I will buy the C200 the B cam would be my 1Dx II because I use it a lot for photography and in particular for action photography but if I would only do video probably I would buy a C200 and C200B.
If budget is an issue a C200 and a used 5D IV would be the best compromise IMO.

I'm for C200 A cam and C200B as B cam, assuming the 1DXMk2 is out of the pictures for some reason. Hell Canon even call it the C200B... Can you take the hint!

Here

Panasonic needs to leave dfd af and figure out how to compete with dpaf because amateurs and professionals without large crews know how much time and energy this saves on a shoot. Panny can come out with the best features but dpaf is joining the idea of canon colors on why most will go with them knowing that their overpriced cameras are being crippled.

Looks good to me. Have to see what Panasonic brings, but as of now I am definitely leaning towards the Canon. It seems to match really well with the C300. Feels organic, with nice motion cadence. I'm thinking of the C200B with a loop for the LCD, or possibly... if that proves difficult to deal with a separate EVF. Not sure if I'll spring for the Canon CN-E 18-80mm T4.4 also, or just use my L series lenses.  It's food for thought.

^ DPAF is a game changer, especially for gimbal work etc..
First short shot on C200 in Canon RAW:
 

that af does look good. Canon please put 4k 10 bit in the XF-AVC firmware update

Oh my! if it ain't one of the greatest selling points since sound put on celluloid, then this camera ain't selling s*#t!!
Seriously, why a "pro" wouldn't want something like this in his workflow, it's beyond me..
I am 98%, the people that do not care about Dual Pixel AF, have never worked with it, at times it is really liberating (it is just a tool, for the right moment it can be valuable though).
I am putting another 25euros on the Rage Against The Machine album.. but don't tell anyone!