mercer

Interesting test... I believe the last one is from the cheapest camera, but I am unsure between the first two. On one hand the first one seems to have more DR but the second one seems to handle the contrast curve better. So, I will say... the first one is... the mid priced and the second one is the highest priced. I have a feeling I am wrong on every one. Lol. Full disclosure: I am looking at these on my iPhone. Funny thing is that even though I think the 3 is from the cheapest camera (I think I'm wrong) I think I might like it the best. I tend to like more contrasty photos and I like how you can just see into the shadows of the background. Damn, now I'm really confused.

That was cool of Ewan McGregor to sit down for you. Lol. Awesome idea. This season is great. I think I liked the look of last season a little more, but anything different than the normal Hollywood TV look is much appreciated!!!

I hope the XF-AVC is 10bit. As of now that info is TBA. I assume it will be, or should be, but knowing Canon I wouldn't bet on it.

But your argument is akin to me saying I want to buy a Ford Fiesta but can't because it doesn't go 150mph. Basically, I would be saying I was never really going to buy a Ford Fiesta because it doesn't meet my needs, or it's impractical for what I am looking for in a car. It's not a fair criticism of the car, it's an unrealistic standard I am trying to hold the car to... hence it's a moot, straw man argument. Either way, I think we can both agree it is an interesting camera, especially for Canon to have produced. Btw, the XLRs on the C200 are on the body and not the handle like the C100 and it is my understanding, the DPAF will work via wi-fi using an iPhone or iPad... unsure how much of a lag there is, but I believe users have had good results using it with the 1DX2. And are we sure that Sandisk Extreme Pro cards will be usable with the 400mbps Dual ISO? Didn't Panasonic just release expensive, high data rate, SD cards? I assume for this purpose? Even with the GH5, there has been issues with cards and compatibility, and I must assume the EVA will as well. Sure it probably won't be as much an issue as a C200, but it is something to be curious about. On another note, have you used the Contax Zeiss 28-70mm f3.5-4.5? I am interested in this lens for my 5D3.

Again, my point was and still is that since no user of the C200 would ever purchase that many cards makes that argument a straw man argument and moot. They would either offload or not use CRL. But also, the SD cards needed for the 400mbps codec, in the GH5 and EVA won't be off the shelf SD cards you get at your local Walmart. Media has always been expensive unless you're shooting on a t2i or other consumer grade camera. I would buy the C200B first, use old Nikkor lenses, or my EF lenses with an iPad and then eventually build upon that... but even still it isn't for no budget filmmakers like myself. But for micro filmmakers that may hire a Red, it's a great option. Yes, those halogens were an old example from our Super 8/Hi-8 days, there are way too many small LED panels to mess with halogen work lights any more. Again, this camera isn't for me anyway, because I couldn't risk the attention such a set up would get... and I can't afford one... But if I can put together a small budget, I may rent one next summer and make a Dollar Baby short.

I'm sorry but providing anecdotal evidence doesn't negate the argument I am making. Nor did what I say really contradict any concerns you had. I have already agreed with you that in a lot of circumstances Cinema Raw Lite isn't practical, nor ideal. And my lack of "professional experience" doesn't negate the possibilities this camera can afford many a filmmakers. I assume Canon did their market research and decided there was a reason for them to include this format, even if it isn't ideal for all scenarios. I think for the right filmmakers this is a great camera and quite possibly the biggest release for the low budget indie filmmaker in the past couple of years. Sure there are pitfalls and compromises, but coming from a backyard filmmaking world you learn to work around those issues and come up with solutions. If that means recycling cards every hour, then that's what I do... hell it can't be worse than re-gelling halogen work lights after they melt every 10 minutes. Or finding the right branch to hang a china ball from and power it. Or being at the beach right at sunset only to find a couple with a selfie stick making kissie faces into their iPhones while they're stealing your light. So yeah, for corporate, paid jobs, the Cinema Raw Lite is not ideal, but in a lot of scenarios, it's not impossible. I am sure professionals would know the difference when to use it or not. It's just another tool in the box and the fact that Canon is even offering such a thing, at such a price point, is exciting... to me at least. So if my agreeing with you was reductive and misleading, then I apologize.

Obviously a documentary with this type of scenario would not be a good fit for the Cinema Raw Lite... shoot in XF-AVC. Never in a million years would I ever even consider shooting a micro budget comedy and allow the actors to improv for 5-10 minutes... that is a sure fire recipe for an unfunny movie. Again commercials and corporate work one should use the MP4 or XF-AVC. Again, with a few 256GB cards, at 30 minutes for each card, this is easily obtainable. I assume between takes you needed to reset? By the time you get to the third card, your first one will be fresh and ready. Again probably not a perfect scenario, but definitely not impossible. But yes, the Cinema Raw Lite is not perfect for lots of scenarios. I am excited about it and as a writer/director, I just look at it how people used to shoot indie films on 16mm... 3:1 shot ratio... at best. So, for low rent stuff... shoot on MP4. For indie films (short and long form), music videos, and some docs shoot Cinema Raw Lite, and for higher end clients, shoot XF-AVC. It's a really good three tiered camera... or it will be when the FW update is released.

I know you, specifically, were just joking, but this narrative has been seriously floating around other sites as an actual argument against the C200. Don't get me wrong as much as I love Raw, for media/storage purposes, I would have love to have seen Canon implement ProResHQ with a similar 10/12bit option. Or a 1080p Cinema Raw Lite. Honestly though, I think I'm more mesmerized by the fact that Canon, of all manufacturers, even made such a camera. If they'd only put some of this thinking into a 5DCinema camera, then I might actually put the money together for one. As of now, I'll be happy with my MLRaw.

Nice! What profile did you use?

This argument that a day's worth of footage would equate to the cards costing more than the camera is a complete straw man argument. Who on this site would ever purchase that many cards, or need to? A couple 256gb cards or a few 128gb cards would be more than enough to get you through the day if you offload while you cycle through cards. People with ML Raw have been doing this for years. It's hardly an issue.

The bit depth is TBA according to Canon.

Yeah unless you are specifically being asked for 4K, then I wouldn't switch. The D750 supplies a beautiful image.

You have to change it in the photo mode menu and then it will work in movie mode.

Don't you do more stills than video?

Canon batteries are smaller than V Mount batteries. The whole camera is smaller and lighter. There won't be any need for IR filtration. Unlikely to have any magenta issues. With all that being said, the UM is a great camera and I predict the C200 will be as well.

It just depends on how much control you want or need in post over the image. Of course you can edit and color natively to get the most benefit of Raw, but converting to ProRes 4444 will still give you 12bit color and will be a more traditional post workflow. Just look at the hundreds of BMPCC videos online. Shoot Raw and convert to ProResHQ and it still looks better than natively shooting ProResHQ. IMO.

Supposedly you can use an iPhone or iPad via wi-fi. I think some people on here have tried it with 1DX2 and it supposedly works well. But yes, some form of touch monitor would be needed. i think the monitor sells as a $600 accessory though... so that's still a near grand savings.

I said this a few days ago and I waivered a little bit yesterday but I think Canon really listened to the market here and once the FW update is released, early next year, this camera will be an all in one solution for many tasks. For your lower rent jobs, you have the 150mbps MP4, for the higher profile clients, you'll have the 302mbps XF-AVC (assuming they use the same as the XC10) and then for narrative, docs, and music videos you'll have Raw Lite. It seems like a great idea to me. Now even though I doubt I'll buy one, although I may rent it, I wouldn't need the full kit, so the 200B is even more appealing... 15 stops of DR at 12bit Raw with touch DPAF plus a plug in to edit natively in FCPX... all for $5999? I'm still surprised they even got this camera approved for production.

The FW update will be great for you then. I actually think a C100 mk iii may eventually come out as well. But it won't be for at least a year.

You know, this is totally off topic but I have heard that Canon considers them self a lens manufacturer more so than a camera manufacturer... I almost think they should make native lenses for the micro 4/3 mount. I assume that would be an odd business decision but man could they rake in the money.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say... your version was much more concise.

But I'm unsure you'll need to. I just had a look at a screenshot of Canon Raw Development 2.0 and it looks like there are controls to process the Raw footage before you transcode it... but this is just a guess because the screenshot just showed WB and Sharpness. Also, I assume, the TBA plug ins will work like Resolve's Raw Tab works with CDNGs... but again too early to know for sure.

Are you using a speedbooster?

Very nice. One of the more organic images I've seen from the GH5. What lens did you use?

I believe the pixels are compressed but the image isn't processed like it would be in .h264 or a jpeg. It's a container not a codec. But I'm probably wrong, this is where my knowledge starts to get fuzzy. ?