Jump to content
Mattias Burling

The Canon C200 is here and its a bomb!

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
1 minute ago, Papiskokuji said:

People always complain, at some point it's just ridiculous. They want new technology right away, but when Sony releases a new camera too soon, they think theirs just became obsolete and hate Sony for it. In the mean time they blame Canon for holding off. And now they unleash something very unexpected from them, still complaints. Same for bitrates. Canon files take too much space, now they want that kind of bitrates in their gh5, and they're suddenly ok with the file size. And all that to end up posting videos on Youtube (which is not a bad thing but just all those concerns are irrelevant for that type of delivery).

 

I need a 10-bit 8k 120fps ProRes HQ $2500 camera to film my litterbox cleaning technique vlogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

Great specs! Added almost everything I longed for in the C100.

 

EDIT: Wait apparently not. It doesn't record internal 10 bit 4:2:2?

In Raw it does. With 4K or 1080p cLog you don't need 10bit. It was designed for 8bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

Why no in between? I would disagree that CLog doesn't need 10 bit. That was my biggest complaint with the C100mkII is the weak codec.

Having used the XC10, the 4k version of that codec is much better. But yeah, a bit of a bummer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BenEricson said:

Having used the XC10, the 4k version of that codec is much better. But yeah, a bit of a bummer. 

Yeah, that's all I can base it on. This camera is such a surprise, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2018 FW update is 10bit instead of 8bit. It may depend on what Panny and Sony do between now and then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 bullet that covers all cinematography and videography scenarios but make it cheap because I'm not a pro and want to shoot flowers/cat in my garden with it. Also has to shoot on SD cards because Cfast is too expensive". 

There's no silver bullet for everything in cinematography. Every camera body and ecosystem has its compromises. You can hold out for the perfect dreamworld unicorn camera, or you can pick up one that fits your shooting style and then actually shoot something.

Also, the C200 looks awesome and exciting - and daaaymn, official 4K RAW on an affordable Canon frame, without the unreliability of hacking stuff. Had I not sprung for an UM4,6K recently I'd be throwing my money at the Canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I have yet to deliver any 4K content. Our TV stations just last year started to send HD signal, and not all of them, and people (and clients) still ask for DVDs. This is our market.

I just started recently to work with -very limited- 4K, and the only reason is re-framing. BUT, I wouldn't buy a no 4K camera in 2017.

 

I am not a pro and all the videos I have delivered to my stock agency are 1080p and there is plenty of demand for 4k videos.  I can't speak for every market in every country but there is healthy demand for 1080p and above in the US.  It doesn't matter that most consumption is sub 1080p.  That's like saying I won't record this song in a decked out studio with high end pro equipment and instruments because most music is consumed via subpar mp3s and compressed streaming.

The other thing is 1080p off of most CMOS sensors is not true 1080p after demosaicing... regardless of what is painted on the side of the camera.  Shooting 4k and downsampling to 1080p for deliver will get you a much better product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

I am not a pro and all the videos I have delivered to my stock agency are 1080p and there is plenty of demand for 4k videos.  I can't speak for every market in every country but there is healthy demand for 1080p and above in the US.  It doesn't matter that most consumption is sub 1080p.  That's like saying I won't record this song in a decked out studio with high end pro equipment and instruments because most music is consumed via subpar mp3s and compressed streaming.

The other thing is 1080p off of most CMOS sensors is not true 1080p after demosaicing... regardless of what is painted on the side of the camera.  Shooting 4k and downsampling to 1080p for deliver will get you a much better product.

As you said, it varies by client. I don't work on the high end. Because of that very few of my clients work in 4k. Only YouTube and Netflix, I think, want 4k. Everyone else is 1080p ProRes or 2k. The network tv shows and ads I work on are 1080p ProRes, same with made for TV movies (with the occasional 2K workflow instead). Most theatrical features I work on finish in 2k, too.

But I would say at least 5-10% of my work is 4k now and again I am working on the very low end stuff. So there clearly is a market for 4k, just above the Alexa (Alexa65 stuff) mostly and for a few online distributors who use the F55/Dragon/F65/Varicam etc. because they stipulate 4k acquisition. But most blockbusters have gone to 4k and/or RAW acquisition even if they're finishing in 2k, it's true.

That said, even Netflix allows for SOME 1080p content to be mixed in. And with the Revenant, for instance, the Alexa mini and 65 intercut seamlessly. Netflix's requirements are not as strict as are claimed. It's only for original content that they actually produce where they require 4k and even then you can sneak in some other cameras to "get the shot" for like slow motion or whatnot. Having the option to shoot both certainly doesn't hurt!

 

Share this post


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

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. Do you know a video camera costing that price and doing this ? And don't tell me blackmagic please (fan of the brand, but their cameras aren't in the same price range and they are way less reliable and easy to use, and no autofocus, no support) Do you know  a pro 1/3 sensor camcorder costs more than 2500$ (Sony, Canon) ?. It might not be the camera for you, that I totally understand but with all due respect, I think your comment is from a spoiled naive non pro shooter who doesn't know the requirements of pro work and on being on the field with reliable equipment.

People always complain, at some point it's just ridiculous. They want new technology right away, but when Sony releases a new camera too soon, they think theirs just became obsolete and hate Sony for it. In the mean time they blame Canon for holding off. And now they unleash something very unexpected from them, still complaints. Same goes for bitrates. Canon files take too much space, now they want that kind of bitrates in their gh5, and they're suddenly ok with the file size. And all that to end up posting videos on Youtube (which is not a bad thing but just all those concerns are irrelevant for that type of delivery).

Anyway, this camera seems to be freaking great. Canon used to deliver not on specs but on the field and with the image quality/mojo. Now this one also has the specs ! Granted an intermediate codec is more than necessary for a camera at this price point, but it will come down the line anyway.

Pffiou, sorry I had to get it out of my chest :) Now I can burn in hell !

Because it is a sensor and some processors in a body. Inherently there is nothing in there that is not in bodies costing $2.5-3k, so it should not be costing an extra 5K.

Manufacturers pile on the MRSP on products like this because the people who buy them are professionals. Manufacturers know that the people who make the buying decisions are not spending their own money, so they don't care about paying that premium. I am a scientist. When we buy equipment and consumables at scientific supply retailers, very often you can find something similar that is sold in consumer outlets, but at a fraction of the price. You get charged a huge premium because it is "scientific" equipment rather than consumer equipment (even though it is the same damned thing). It is a lot like how defense contractors charge the government $100 for a $10 hammer. 

As soon as you buy a "professional" product as a professional, you are going to be gouged for at least three times what a similar item in the consumer market will cost.

Why 8K rather than 15K or whatever? The reason is that Canon's marketing guys have studied the market and have calculated that is the maximum they can charge before even pros think twice about buying one. No other reason. You will probably find that around 8K is the purchasing authority that the sorts of pros who might buy this sort of equipment have. That extra 5K is buying you nothing. For them it is a case of maximizing the gouging without adversely affecting sales too much, and you guys are the ones who are going to be paying for that.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Yeah, that's all I can base it on. This camera is such a surprise, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2018 FW update is 10bit instead of 8bit. It may depend on what Panny and Sony do between now and then. 

The codec is baked into hardware, so there will be limitations on what can be done short of replacing the electronics in the camera. If the encoding logic is set up for 8 bit, no firmware is going to be able to change that to 10 bit.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Also, an XC25 with the 10bit Raw could be a great B Cam... at $2500 or $3000, I may be a buyer. Maybe do a 1.5" sensor instead of the 1" and an f/2 to f/4 lens... or f/2.8 to f/4.

An XC25 would be using the same processor, so it will have the same hardware encoding options as this camera. Most likely without the RAW option of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AaronChicago said:

Why no in between?

Because it needs more processing power. Raw is pure ~9 million data points. But a demosized image is 9 million x 3 data points plus gamma curve pluse color matrix plus white balance plus sharpening plus temporal noise reduction plus bit depth reduction plus color subsampling plus encoding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2017 at 7:54 AM, squig said:

Isn't it just awful. You couldn't shoot cats with it.

I bet there is not pet mode on this camera. I'll keep my Rebel, thanks.
Other than that it seems to be a very nice camera for the Pro without too much of the usual Canon jerk specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, joema said:

Thank you. BTW a lot of professional news organizations shoot video with DSLRs. They don't want or need something like a C200. Note this three-camera interview in front of the White House: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/ABC-News-Using-DSLRs/n-BsScJC/

 

They likely use those sorts of cameras because of the mobility and flexibility it allows. The ergonomics of something like the Cx00 cameras make them somewhat less convenient to use in that sort of scenario.

And of course with a DSLR/MILC you can fire off any stills you might need at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose to change the thread title to "The Canon C200 is here but we don't care about any camera that costs more than 2999", but be aware, then we have to exclude the next A7 mark III cameras too!

 

@tugela Canon C200 costs 8000$ (or whatever) but there are C100 I and II and PDAF under that, and the C300mkII, and the C700, and in between you have Sony cameras such as FS5, FS7 I and II and the high end Sonys, Ursa Mini Pro, Red, Alexas etc. Why do these cameras exist? Canon value this camera as such, if there is a market we will see really soon.

I commented on that ABC pic above, I do not like to repeat myself, it is pretty obvious that that crew isn't a professional one.

It is pretty obvious that you can NOT shoot video and stills in the same time, you shoot either video, or stills. So, you either do the interview, or taking stills, but be aware if you have a dSLR and I do the sound, because ain't worst than the shutter sound on an typical interview. You say you are a scientist, you should know that "a sensor in a box" can be more expensive than whatever your family owns right now, and in the next 2 generations, don't simplify so much extraordinary things such as modern digital video cameras. The amount of processing and digital data that come and go and become something else is just amazing. What camera you owned 10 years ago? Was it more than a sensor in a box?

@Damphousse

Do you think that I still use Hi-8 cameras?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:

Because it needs more processing power. Raw is pure ~9 million data points. But a demosized image is 9 million x 3 data points plus gamma curve pluse color matrix plus white balance plus sharpening plus temporal noise reduction plus bit depth reduction plus color subsampling plus encoding. 

So throw in more processing power. From a user standpoint it makes no sense to have to choose between 8 bit 4:2:0 and RAW with no reasonable in-between option included.

Share this post


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

That said, even Netflix allows for SOME 1080p content to be mixed in. And with the Revenant, for instance, the Alexa mini and 65 intercut seamlessly. Netflix's requirements are not as strict as are claimed. It's only for original content that they actually produce where they require 4k and even then you can sneak in some other cameras to "get the shot" for like slow motion or whatnot. Having the option to shoot both certainly doesn't hurt!

Netflix streams plenty of content that was delivered in 1080p...If they produce though under the Netflix label, they do not just require 4K content, they actually have a list of cameras that are approved for their productions...probably does not mean you can't use a 4K hybrid sneaked into a car interior etc.....virtually everyone uses smaller crash cams...I'm sure the brunt of a series they produce has to be shot on a camera they specced as suitable...and as Netflix want to be producing around  50 percent of their content over the next couple of years, this makes total sense....especially as they become or are the biggest studio in the world and 4K TV's have already been out for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Chrad said:

So throw in more processing power. From a user standpoint it makes no sense to have to choose between 8 bit 4:2:0 and RAW with no reasonable in-between option included.

Not that I am defending Canon's decisions, but the 8bit 420 4k will look better than 10bit/422 from the Sony FS5. 

Share this post


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...