Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Canon C200 vs Panasonic GH5, a preview

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

I do not agree with the article and I believe this camera will bring RAW much more mainstream.

95% that will buy the C200 will use the MP4 seems very unrealistic, I bet most people that will buy this camera would use the RAW format a lot and RAW will become the mainstream like it is for photos for most photographer. Storage in 2 or 3 years would be cheaper and cheaper and there will be 8-10 TB SSD for 500-600 USD... 

I think 95% using MP4 is very realistic, on average we bring in hundreds of GB footage per day in MP4 (sometimes much more if we have lots of shooting at once on difference location), can't image what RAW will gonna bring..  no one is gonna shoot raw on live event/interviews etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I don't see any real reason to look at GH5 at all, when there are SONY a6300/6500. Bigger sensor, less noise, S-LOGs included, autofocus, and much cheaper. just for 10bit 4:2:2 400Mbit/s? Not for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

I think 95% using MP4 is very realistic, on average we bring in 100GB per day of footage in MP4, can't image what RAW will gonna bring, we have delicated file server to put our files.

In your case then even the very agonized 400 Mbits will be too much..... you will have 100 Mbits LGOP MP4, 300 or 400 Mbits ALL-I (after the firmware) and 1 Gbits RAWLite not sure where the problem is, this camera would cover many scenarios...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ntblowz said:

I think 95% using MP4 is very realistic, on average we bring in 100GB per day of footage in MP4, can't image what RAW will gonna bring, we have delicated file server to put our files.

Most people who use this camera are going to be doing events of one form or another, or small infomercial type content. RAW is pretty much irrelevant for those folk I would think.

Archival storage is cheap. I personally have 52TB on my main computer, and another 32TB on a secondary server. And that is not including hard drives stored by themselves. I have heard of people who shoot professionally with much larger storage than that, although they have proper server banks to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

I think 95% using MP4 is very realistic, on average we bring in hundreds of GB footage per day in MP4 (sometimes much more if we have lots of shooting at once on difference location), can't image what RAW will gonna bring..  no one is gonna shoot raw on live event/interviews etc.

Why would you buy a c200 if that is your need though?

This cam seems more like a music video, short narrative setup... Raw will be used alot. 

Now... The c200 could have been an amazing run and gun... But in typical fashion, canon have ballsed it up a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Canon raw lite is not Cinema DNG though.

At the moment you have no choice but to turn it into some form of LOG before grading the compressed files instead of the RAW.

So it is not really RAW, just a fiddly way of getting 10bit ProRes out of the camera.

Isn't this also the case for the F55? Last time I worked with it we had to go straight to DPX from this weird .mxf-wrapped file because Sony's RAW converter did not support ProRes even on the Mac, let alone DNG. However the image was pretty good. :) I don't see how Canon's raw lite could be much worse than that or Red Raw though lol.

Definitely this is a horses for courses situation. However Canon Log never had a problem with the 8 bit wrapper (no banding on C300 except maybe when extremely over exposed on a flat surface, bigger issue was always the compression artifacts when you tried to grade a high contrast underexposed shot, that could be hideous but was due to the old low bitrate codec) and the reason they're including Canon Log 3 instead of 2 is because 2 would have banding in 8 bit and 3 wouldn't. 3's not a true log like Log C, SLOG3, Canon Log 2, etc. It's more a flattish mishmash. To this extent, the importance of bit depth I think is a bit overstated. Yes 8 vs 10 bits matters, but I see posts on Reduser from apparent experts bemoaning a lack of like 16 bit log and I'm like... I have never seen any issue with Alexa Mini prores, even shots with all 15 stops of DR captured (part of a DR test) the tonality is just flawless. Maybe it's on me but this is even judging on Flanders displays (which are 8 bit lol, maybe that's the issue). These cameras will have WAY less DR than the Alexa, and eventually it will be distributed into 8 bits for distribution. I would not worry prematurely about this spec, the bigger trade off is you get Canon Log 3 rather than 2, and it has less DR. Not that you're gonna get banding. Is my guess. 8 bit dSLR footage mostly looks like rubbish because it's dSLR footage lol.

When HDR video (which a few engineers who knew canon people told me Canon had in mind with the C300 Mk II, but I haven't talked with anyone about this camera) is taken into account and wide color space then 10 bit acquisition will absolutely be necessary, though, I agree.

The real proof of the pudding is in the tasting. The Varicam sensor does seem to have a particularly good look, really nice, I would be more interested in just the subjective difference than the specs. Never cared for Lumix cameras (GH4 is not bad however, GH2 was excellent for its time but the odd ones GH3 GH5 look odd) but the Varicam footage I've worked with so far has a less "video" feel than most and doesn't even seem to have any Lumix DNA not sure why though.  :)

Share this post


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

Why would you buy a c200 if that is your need though?

This cam seems more like a music video, short narrative setup... Raw will be used alot. 

Now... The c200 could have been an amazing run and gun... But in typical fashion, canon have ballsed it up a bit.

Since we have C100MKIIs its only nature to get C200 since they use same battery etc/color etc, RAW will have no use for our company most of the time. (Cover corporate event for whole day and highlight video by next day), 4K is what we need as more client demand 4K now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

Since we have C100MKIIs its only nature to get C200 since they use same battery etc/color etc, RAW will have no use for our company most of the time. (Cover corporate event for whole day and highlight video by next day), 4K is what we need as more client demand 4K now.

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.

Share this post


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

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.

Yeah, will be great for more demanding clients! C100MKIII with XF-AVC & 4K will be the ideal camera, but who knows when will it come out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


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

I don't see any real reason to look at GH5 at all, when there are SONY a6300/6500. Bigger sensor, less noise, S-LOGs included, autofocus, and much cheaper. just for 10bit 4:2:2 400Mbit/s? Not for me.

8bit Sony will show artefacts quicker than GH5. Slog especially in that carnation will show artefacts quiet easily. Slog of external 422 8bit recording with the Sony FS700

shows banding and blotches pretty quick. 8bit and slog is kinda tricky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW! The Canon Utility converts to OpenEXR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I LOVE CANON!

 

 

Share this post


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

15 stops of DR at 12bit Raw with touch DPAF plus a plug in to edit natively in FCPX... all for $5999?

You'll need to buy the monitor as well to get touch DPAF but yes seems a good deal...had a play with some of the mp4 c200 files

https://cloakroommedia.digitalpigeon.com/shr/-OA1sEmuEeeZtgbiYUDn_w/qLRcnaMmCLYfe_7L74Exeg

the UHD 25p file looks nice but clog3 falls apart fairly quickly with the 8 bit - think you're going to need RAW to get any more DR than my c100. The 100p is quite soft relative to the 25p, 50p maybe a tad soft too but definitely would cut ok with the 25p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gt3rs said:

I do not agree with the article and I believe this camera will bring RAW much more mainstream.

Dude, there are crews with an Alexa that shoot ProRes instead of raw.

Pros are terrified of a slow turnaround on an edit, large file sizes and un-editable codecs.

Why do you think internal raw is missing from the C300, FS7, FS5 and a bunch of other popular pro workhorses?

2 hours ago, gt3rs said:

95% that will buy the C200 will use the MP4 seems very unrealistic, I bet most people that will buy this camera would use the RAW format a lot and RAW will become the mainstream like it is for photos for most photographer.

At $8000, by mainstream you don't really mean mainstream, rather 'popular within a niche'.

2 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Storage in 2 or 3 years would be cheaper and cheaper and there will be 8-10 TB SSD for 500-600 USD...

This is pure speculation!

2 hours ago, gt3rs said:

1 Gbits it is a lot but I do a lot at 800 Mbits MJPG (that I edit in real-time without transcoding even from the CFast directly) and is perfectly manageable. Naturally if you are in long documentaries then maybe is not a camera for you but for the rest I bet it will be a super camera.

Just do the maths...

1 hour of footage = 512GB of CFast 2.0 media

It will be a top quality card as pros don't risk an entire day's shoot for the sake of saving a few quid.

And performance of the card will be a factor.

So you are talking £4900 of media to get you through just 7 hours of shooting, assuming you have one camera at the wedding / commercial / live event / interview. If it is two cameras double your costs to £10k.

The guy who said you would spend more on media than on the camera wasn't joking!!

Now tell me the pro shoots that involve 15 minutes of shooting before it's all over.... Not many of those sir.

Yes, you can offload 128GB every 15 minutes, stop the shoot every 15 minutes as a result, or employ a data wrangler armed with a very large hard drive...

It's a big expense and hassle either way you look at it and it won't catch on, thus raw will not be mainstream with pros via the C200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ade towell said:

You'll need to buy the monitor as well to get touch DPAF but yes seems a good deal...had a play with some of the mp4 c200 files

https://cloakroommedia.digitalpigeon.com/shr/-OA1sEmuEeeZtgbiYUDn_w/qLRcnaMmCLYfe_7L74Exeg

the UHD 25p file looks nice but clog3 falls apart fairly quickly with the 8 bit - think you're going to need RAW to get any more DR than my c100. The 100p is quite soft relative to the 25p, 50p maybe a tad soft too but definitely would cut ok with the 25p

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Dude, there are crews with an Alexa that shoot ProRes instead of raw.

Pros are terrified of a slow turnaround on an edit, large file sizes and un-editable codecs.

Why do you think internal raw is missing from the C300, FS7, FS5 and a bunch of other popular pro workhorses?

At $8000, by mainstream you don't really mean mainstream, rather 'popular within a niche'.

This is pure speculation!

Just do the maths...

1 hour of footage = 512GB of CFast 2.0 media

It will be a top quality card as pros don't risk an entire day's shoot for the sake of saving a few quid.

And performance of the card will be a factor.

So you are talking £4900 of media to get you through just 7 hours of shooting, assuming you have one camera at the wedding / commercial / live event / interview. If it is two cameras double your costs to £10k.

The guy who said you would spend more on media than on the camera wasn't joking!!

Now tell me the pro shoots that involve 15 minutes of shooting before it's all over.... Not many of those sir.

Yes, you can offload 128GB every 15 minutes, stop the shoot every 15 minutes as a result, or employ a data wrangler armed with a very large hard drive...

It's a big expense and hassle either way you look at it and it won't catch on, thus raw will not be mainstream with pros via the C200.

Yeah I agree with this almost entirely. But there will be niche communities for whom raw is popular. A lot of owner/ops who run production companies and own a Red or are already there. A lot of rich hobbyists. These kinds of cameras will grow that market, which is welcome.

But in the commercial and tv world you're still penny pinching and good luck explaining it to a producer who couldn't find the on switch on the camera. 

Share this post


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

How are you going to store a year's worth of the original footage? I am genuinely intrigued.

There's this new thing, they call it "tape".

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...