Jump to content

The Canon C200 is here and its a bomb!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 376
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Man, I suffer in silence when I read some stuff here (I guess I'm masochist to keep reading it). But this one is too much for me... On what ground do you think it should cost 2,500$ ? Please tell me.

The DSLR filmmaker community is funny. It's like "Gimme 8bit proxy, 10bit, RAW, Canon colour science, Log, 4K, IBIS, DPAF and HFR in one package, in A7S form factor, max 2500 bux. I need a silver bull

Hi Guys, Here are some screens from a short I recently wrote/directed. Originally planned to use the Varicam LT but availability was scarce at the time of our shooting days. All in all using the

Posted Images

This camera works on a lot of levels ... loved Ballistic ... hate hanging at the end of it.

Here are four short clips that convince me that the limitations of the C200 may not matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am convinced that it will work on many projects ... if you have time to work with the files.

Question is whether the C300 Mk II can match this without a huge amount of peripherals ... recorders etc.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to shy away from controversial opinions, and this isn't going to help. Apologies in advance–everyone's opinion is there own.

But what do people make of this test:

(Forgive me if it's already been posted.)

Am I the only one who prefers the C100's colors? (And thinks the +5 sharpening on the C200 looks terrible (like video)?)

C200 still looks great. Fwiw, I also prefer the C500's skin rendering to the Alexa's (see Shane Hurlbut's tests to get an idea what I mean). And the C200 looks like it's trying to be an Alexa-style camera in terms of look (just like the FS7), so no surprise. The C300 had darker skin tones, it exposed that color less brightly and more warm yellow less magenta.

Just wondering if I'm crazy. What do others think? I might have a bias. But the C100 color looks so much better to me at 3:30 and the sharpness is not night and day.

Deciding between these two for a shoot... well, maybe or maybe not. Just thinking about it now. I'm normally a 4k naysayer (I like soft, for me JFK and War of the Worlds–very soft looking images are my favorite, but I know that's passé, but I did think Black Panther was sharp enough despite the 2k DCP) but now I'm thinking why don't I try something new.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

C200 still looks great. Fwiw, I also prefer the C500's skin rendering to the Alexa's (see Shane Hurlbut's tests to get an idea what I mean). And the C200 looks like it's trying to be an Alexa-style camera in terms of look (just like the FS7), so no surprise. The C300 had darker skin tones, it exposed that color less brightly and more warm yellow less magenta.

Yeah the C200 is picking up a bit of traction, but I'm surprised the C500 doesn't get discussed more seeing as you can pick it up for roughly half the price of a C200

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I guess I only saw Raw and didn’t realize that 2K ProRes was possible externally while recording Raw... it seems like that is the logical Proxy recording.

For me, if I ever could afford a C200, this makes the B model even more attractive. I rarely use EVFs, so I may as well save some money and get an external recorder as a screen.

As far as that video @HockeyFan12 posted... idk... I enjoyed seeing some C100 footage and it definitely held up for most instances but when compared with the Raw files, the color tonality differences alone was a smack in the face.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Yeah the C200 is picking up a bit of traction, but I'm surprised the C500 doesn't get discussed more seeing as you can pick it up for roughly half the price of a C200

There was one for about $2500 near me that was on craigslist for about a month. I prefer the look of the C500 over the C200 (as I said above, I like the original color rendering Canon had more than their Alexa-like look) even if it's technically inferior... but the requirement for a Q7+ recorder to shoot RAW kills it for me. That brings the price up until it's much closer and the recorder itself is large and battery-heavy. With RAW I'm getting a headache in post; I don't want one on set, too. The lack of DPAF I think is also difficult for guerrilla shooters.

For a production company that has a slightly bigger crew, the C500 option might be amazing. I really love the images from that camera (except for the poor highlight dynamic range, which the C200/C300 Mk II addresses) but it feels less guerilla-friendly.

 

7 hours ago, mercer said:

I didn’t know you could get external 10bit 1080 while recording Raw? Can that be recorded as ProRes Raw in an Atomos recorder?

ProRes RAW doesn't carry over HDMI... yet. But I think the 10 bit signal does. Not sure how much it matters because the HDMI output doesn't look like it's Canon Log 2, and the other color profiles all look fine in 8 bit anyway and are designed to work fine there. (Not like SLOG2/SLOG3, where you can tell they're not really working.) 

I actually think the RAW clips in that comparison look bad, digital and over-sharpened. But I think I'm confusing a dislike for over sharpening with a criticism about color, which you can manipulate how you like anyway. I far prefer the C100's blues and slightly prefer its skin tones, but that's an easy fix if you shoot RAW. The sharpening I think is what bothers me. The other C200 clips on that channel look ugly and over-sharpened and like bad video; elsewhere there's some beautiful footage shot with it. Seems like the best thing going at the price point... just wish the price point would drop lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2018 at 8:35 AM, DBounce said:

Here is some new footage shot with the C200 by the folks at Film Riot. It a short, granted YouTube compression is evident all over the place, but still nice to see something other than slowmo, weddings and plant life. 

 

I liked it mostly but I thought the footage looked incredibly soft for 4k.  Almost like 5DMK3 h264 upscaled to 4k.  I know the c200 is soft so it's probably a combination of that and shooting anamorphic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I would have liked it as well if it had been much sharper. Looked Filmic to me. Now if that was a animal documentary I would have wanted it sharper.

6 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

There was one for about $2500 near me that was on craigslist for about a month. I

 

You should have bought it and flipped it on ebay!

Completed listing for ebay in the last couple of months.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Canon+C500&_in_kw=1&_ex_kw=&_sacat=0&LH_Complete=1&_udlo=&_udhi=&_samilow=&_samihi=&_sadis=15&_stpos=45056&_sargn=-1%26saslc%3D1&_salic=1&_sop=12&_dmd=1&_ipg=50

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

ProRes RAW doesn't carry over HDMI... yet. But I think the 10 bit signal does. Not sure how much it matters because the HDMI output doesn't look like it's Canon Log 2, and the other color profiles all look fine in 8 bit anyway and are designed to work fine there. (Not like SLOG2/SLOG3, where you can tell they're not really working.) 

I believe the C200 outputs the 2K Raw signal via SDI in 4:22 10bit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't think I would have liked it as well if it had been much sharper. Looked Filmic to me. Now if that was a animal documentary I would have wanted it sharper.

You should have bought it and flipped it on ebay!

Completed listing for ebay in the last couple of months.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=Canon+C500&_in_kw=1&_ex_kw=&_sacat=0&LH_Complete=1&_udlo=&_udhi=&_samilow=&_samihi=&_sadis=15&_stpos=45056&_sargn=-1%26saslc%3D1&_salic=1&_sop=12&_dmd=1&_ipg=50

It was a long drive. Also could have been a scam. But I didn't realize they were still that expensive.

11 minutes ago, mercer said:

I believe the C200 outputs the 2K Raw signal via SDI in 4:22 10bit?

Not sure how 4k can downscale to 2k, it might but I don't understand how. Uncompressed 2k perhaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

actually think the RAW clips in that comparison look bad, digital and over-sharpened. But I think I'm confusing a dislike for over sharpening with a criticism about color, which you can manipulate how you like anyway. I far prefer the C100's blues and slightly prefer its skin tones, but that's an easy fix if you shoot RAW. The sharpening I think is what bothers me. The other C200 clips on that channel look ugly and over-sharpened and like bad video; elsewhere there's some beautiful footage shot with it. Seems like the best thing going at the price point... just wish the price point would drop lol

I am hardly one to criticize someone else’s color work but I thought a lot of the graded clips looked a touch over processed.

With that being said, I love the C100. I have been tempted on a few occasions to buy the original... there is just something special in that camera that even the Mark II lacks.

I love most of what I’ve seen from the C200. If I was a different type of shooter, it would be the perfect camera for me. The C200B could work for me, but at that price, and my budget, it may as well be an Alexa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mercer said:

I am hardly one to criticize someone else’s color work but I thought a lot of the graded clips looked a touch over processed.

With that being said, I love the C100. I have been tempted on a few occasions to buy the original... there is just something special in that camera that even the Mark II lacks.

I love most of what I’ve seen from the C200. If I was a different type of shooter, it would be the perfect camera for me. The C200B could work for me, but at that price, and my budget, it may as well be an Alexa.

Glenn for the look you like output wise on most of your work I really think the original C100 with the DPAF upgrade in it would be a Perfect fit for you with one heck of a lot less work involved. And I agree I like the C100 over the C100 mk II output. Sort of why we both like the original Sony A7s better. More grit, grunge to them. And with the Canon Color science you like and the auto 4K to 1080p down sample in camera, man shoot it and put it in the can as they say. Shoot and Scoot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Not sure how 4k can downscale to 2k, it might but I don't understand how. Uncompressed 2k perhaps.

I just learned how to turn location services off on my phone... so...

Maybe this will give you more info...

https://www.4kshooters.net/2017/06/02/official-canon-eos-c200-promo-behind-the-scenes-and-is-it-the-right-camera-for-you/canon-c200-output-chart/

@webrunner5 shoot and scoot... haha... love it. 

Yeah the C100 and the Canon 17-55mm seems like a killer combo... add the 35mm f/2 for a perfect little kit...

I’m still waiting to find one on eBay for $1200 or less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, mercer said:

I’m still waiting to find one on eBay for $1200 or less.

Get your credit card out. You can buy them that cheap quite often on ebay anymore. Past closed auctions last few months. Now with the DPAF in them they go for 1500 bucks or more. Not sure if Canon is still changing out the sensor for 500 bucks yet, but I was going to buy one cheap without it and save up the money and send it in later. Not as big as a hit money wise at one time.

They do have a Push AF button on the front of the body so it is not like you have no AF in one. Pretty much what I used on my Panny AF100A a lot of times.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=Canon+C100&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_udlo=&_sop=15&_sadis=15&_udhi=&_ex_kw=&_samihi=&_samilow=&_stpos=45056&_sargn=-1%26saslc%3D1&_salic=1&_in_kw=1&_dmd=1&_odkw=Canon+C100&_osacat=0&LH_Complete=1&_ipg=200

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jpfilmz said:

I liked it mostly but I thought the footage looked incredibly soft for 4k.  Almost like 5DMK3 h264 upscaled to 4k.  I know the c200 is soft so it's probably a combination of that and shooting anamorphic. 

It's the 1080p youtube compression, they should've uploaded 4k. I don't know how soft SLRmagic anamorphics are, but I shoot 5D Mk3 raw 2.8k with Iscorama anamorphics and it looks as sharp as you could ever want it to be for 2k DCP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

There was one for about $2500 near me that was on craigslist for about a month. I prefer the look of the C500 over the C200 (as I said above, I like the original color rendering Canon had more than their Alexa-like look) even if it's technically inferior... but the requirement for a Q7+ recorder to shoot RAW kills it for me. That brings the price up until it's much closer and the recorder itself is large and battery-heavy. 

Secondhand 7Q are selling for near to a grand ish. 

 

And hopefully Atomos brings out soon a Samuari V, you'll lose some features vs a 7Q but it would be  very compact. 

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I’m still waiting to find one on eBay for $1200 or less.

You can almost find a FS700 for that price. That is what I'm waiting for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...