Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Canon C200 vs Panasonic GH5, a preview

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

Ahhh... the pink elephant in the room with digital cameras is and always will be secure storage...and the task is expensive and in the case of say a film, storage is vast...redundancy has to be built in...and if done right, a DIT on set...at least one RAID  on set and another at the editing suite, plus an additional different back up system to hold all the footage backed off the RAID every day at the end of the shoot...so for anyone scoffing at the cost of the media to shoot RAW on, check out the cost of a couple of 32TB RAIDS....the one below has 8 drives...you can RAID 6 storage off 4 drives, so with good security you land up with16 TB of RAW storage...at 17,000 ...now do the math of how much footage you will land up shooting to finally land up with an edited feature of around 100 min...this of course does not include a recorder for additional backing onto to tape...runs you multiple $10,000s for just the read write drives alone...not including the cost of the tape...so with any of these systems it can be a bit like buying a used yet very beautiful Mercedes with the last of your savings and having nothing budgeted for maintaining it through the years, so it turns into a chicken coop....of course one could wing it...risk the moments and the time and the expense of the crew...and the time the actors give you...paid or for free...but if they move on to other projects...locations change or are no longer available...the short of it is, you do it properly and professionally...with a less data heavy codec/capture system and back everything up, as it should be.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/773921-REG/JMR_ELECTRONICS_EXTN_8_G4_32T_32TB_16_Bay_PCIe.html

If you are backing up on RAID and are concerned about storage, use 8TB reds. They are relatively cheap and easy to find. You can get stand-alone NAS servers at reasonable prices (or just make your own), with swappable storage. So, beyond the cost of the NAS case, you just pay for the drives. It definitely will not cost you $17K for 16TB effective backup.

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
5 hours ago, johnnymossville said:

We just completed a 3hr/3part documentary here at work using Resolve.  It's definitely up to the job now.   There are still some issues, but overall it's there. 

Did you use their version of proxies?  What do they call it?  "Optimized" or something.  Last time I tried, it failed miserably which was too bad.  I was eager and hopeful it was going to be my next platform.

9 hours ago, Jimmy said:

It's not like this is the first ever raw camera.... Not really sure what the debate is here.

True.  I think I hijacked the thread a bit talking about post-production and it went a little sideways.  I believe my initial post was an agreement that most folks use 8-bit for faster working, so to compare this cam to other 8-bit cams is not unreasonable.  Looks like a fine camera in all respects.

Share this post


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

Can we not get the Canon C200 and the GH5 to have a love child which weighs the same as the GH5 and has 5 axis stab but has Canon look and ergonomics? Who's going to be first to leave the 2 cameras alone in a room together...

This kind of match making has already produced the unexpected outcome called the XC10/15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mat33 said:

This kind of match making has already produced the unexpected outcome called the XC10/15.

Haha, yeah I guess but maybe the second child will be the child we always really wanted...

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, MP4 at 150Mbps is not enough. I agree that that Canon raw lite is impractical. But the C200 announcement included another format that this article [conveniently] left out: a future firmware upgrade with XF-AVC. I can't help but read into this bias. Don't get me wrong, I left the Canon bandwagon a long time ago. But the C200 is truly the most exciting camera-announcement I've read about in a very long time. It checks off almost every box I can think of. I guess ProRes would've been nice. But it shoots internal-compressed H264 (for docs / quick stuff). It shoots internal RAW (for commercial work). And it's going to shoot efficient-HQ for everything in-between. Seriously, what else could you ask for!?

Share this post


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

I agree, MP4 at 150Mbps is not enough. I agree that that Canon raw lite is impractical. But the C200 announcement included another format that this article [conveniently] left out: a future firmware upgrade with XF-AVC. I can't help but read into this bias. Don't get me wrong, I left the Canon bandwagon a long time ago. But the C200 is truly the most exciting camera-announcement I've read about in a very long time. It checks off almost every box I can think of. I guess ProRes would've been nice. But it shoots internal-compressed H264 (for docs / quick stuff). It shoots internal RAW (for commercial work). And it's going to shoot efficient-HQ for everything in-between. Seriously, what else could you ask for!?

I would like to be paid by the camera (from the CF slot), and revive the NX line (you used to shoot NX don't you?!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ask for internal 10-bit 4:2:2. It's the minimum quality capture format I use for serious work, and most often what my clients request. All the C200's competitors in this price bracket include it--FS7, UM46, EVA. 

Comparing the C200 to the GH5 does seem somewhat antagonistic. Different camera styles in different market sectors at quite different price points. The EVA seems like a more natural comparison, and it's the camera I'd pick over the Canon. Super light weight (2lbs), great efficient 10-bit codec, high frame rates, Varicam color science (best in the biz imo), internal proxy recording, SD cards (more common, easier to source, and more likely to survive than CFast as a format), and the ability to (down the road) record nearly 6K raw with an external recorder to much more economical SSDs. 

The DR is still a question mark for me. Canon claims 15, but so did the C300 II, which didn't look nearly as good as the Alexa/Varicam. I have no doubt it'll be stronger than the C100 I, but by how much remains to be seen. I'm also curious whether the MP4 files can handle that kind of DR stretch without artifacts. Could be, but I'm guessing it'll be necessary to go RAW if you want access to the sensor's full latitude.

That brings me to the Canon Codec Conundrum™. I was shocked to hear they'd incorporated an internal RAW codec, and truly applaud them for pushing themselves on the image quality front. There will definitely be some growing pains with NLE support, and media/storage costs will of course be a problem, but who in their right mind expected this from CANON? Definitely not me!

However, here's the problem.

Now the C200, like the 5DIII, confronts its users with a choice every time they shoot: sacrifice quality and enjoy the nice file sizes in 8-bit, or step up massively in quality to RAW and deal with the bulky files and a more labor-intensive workflow. I can easily see people considering this the best of both worlds--MP4 for doc/events/corporate, RAW for narrative/music videos/commercial spots. I truly hope it turns out that way; however, I can see just as many wishing they had a reasonable middle ground that gave them a higher-end image without the as much overhead. 

For me personally, I fear the camera falls into a real no-man's-land. I'll withhold any definitive judgments until I see more footage and hear more first-hand reports (and hopefully get my own hands on it), but as of now my eye is squarely trained on the EVA and Sony's big announcement.

YMMV.

Share this post


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

I would ask for internal 10-bit 4:2:2. It's the minimum quality capture format I use for serious work, and most often what my clients request. All the C200's competitors in this price bracket include it--FS7, UM46, EVA. 

Comparing the C200 to the GH5 does seem somewhat antagonistic. Different camera styles in different market sectors at quite different price points. The EVA seems like a more natural comparison, and it's the camera I'd pick over the Canon. Super light weight (2lbs), great efficient 10-bit codec, high frame rates, Varicam color science (best in the biz imo), internal proxy recording, SD cards (more common, easier to source, and more likely to survive than CFast as a format), and the ability to (down the road) record nearly 6K raw with an external recorder to much more economical SSDs. 

The DR is still a question mark for me. Canon claims 15, but so did the C300 II, which didn't look nearly as good as the Alexa/Varicam. I have no doubt it'll be stronger than the C100 I, but by how much remains to be seen. I'm also curious whether the MP4 files can handle that kind of DR stretch without artifacts. Could be, but I'm guessing it'll be necessary to go RAW if you want access to the sensor's full latitude.

That brings me to the Canon Codec Conundrum™. I was shocked to hear they'd incorporated an internal RAW codec, and truly applaud them for pushing themselves on the image quality front. There will definitely be some growing pains with NLE support, and media/storage costs will of course be a problem, but who in their right mind expected this from CANON? Definitely not me!

However, here's the problem.

Now the C200, like the 5DIII, confronts its users with a choice every time they shoot: sacrifice quality and enjoy the nice file sizes in 8-bit, or step up massively in quality to RAW and deal with the bulky files and a more labor-intensive workflow. I can easily see people considering this the best of both worlds--MP4 for doc/events/corporate, RAW for narrative/music videos/commercial spots. I truly hope it turns out that way; however, I can see just as many wishing they had a reasonable middle ground that gave them a higher-end image without the as much overhead. 

For me personally, I fear the camera falls into a real no-man's-land. I'll withhold any definitive judgments until I see more footage and hear more first-hand reports (and hopefully get my own hands on it), but as of now my eye is squarely trained on the EVA and Sony's big announcement.

YMMV.

Canon already stated that they will be updating the firmware for free to include a XF-AVC codec. This codec will likely be 4k 10bit 422.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Canon already stated that they will be updating the firmware for free to include a XF-AVC codec. This codec will likely be 4k 10bit 422.

It isn't 10-bit on the XC10, so I'll wait until Canon clarifies the point to change my stance. Also, is that codec update going to be a firmware upDATE or a firmware upGRADE? Important distinction.

I may be in the minority, but I'm not very hot on Canon color, either. It's pretty, but not especially accurate and a little "Crayola" for my tastes. Those high ISO samples are crazy impressive though, as is the DPAF. For run and gun/doc, this thing is an absolute no-brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

I would ask for internal 10-bit 4:2:2. It's the minimum quality capture format I use for serious work, and most often what my clients request. All the C200's competitors in this price bracket include it--FS7, UM46, EVA. 

Comparing the C200 to the GH5 does seem somewhat antagonistic. Different camera styles in different market sectors at quite different price points. The EVA seems like a more natural comparison, and it's the camera I'd pick over the Canon. Super light weight (2lbs), great efficient 10-bit codec, high frame rates, Varicam color science (best in the biz imo), internal proxy recording, SD cards (more common, easier to source, and more likely to survive than CFast as a format), and the ability to (down the road) record nearly 6K raw with an external recorder to much more economical SSDs. 

The DR is still a question mark for me. Canon claims 15, but so did the C300 II, which didn't look nearly as good as the Alexa/Varicam. I have no doubt it'll be stronger than the C100 I, but by how much remains to be seen. I'm also curious whether the MP4 files can handle that kind of DR stretch without artifacts. Could be, but I'm guessing it'll be necessary to go RAW if you want access to the sensor's full latitude.

That brings me to the Canon Codec Conundrum™. I was shocked to hear they'd incorporated an internal RAW codec, and truly applaud them for pushing themselves on the image quality front. There will definitely be some growing pains with NLE support, and media/storage costs will of course be a problem, but who in their right mind expected this from CANON? Definitely not me!

However, here's the problem.

Now the C200, like the 5DIII, confronts its users with a choice every time they shoot: sacrifice quality and enjoy the nice file sizes in 8-bit, or step up massively in quality to RAW and deal with the bulky files and a more labor-intensive workflow. I can easily see people considering this the best of both worlds--MP4 for doc/events/corporate, RAW for narrative/music videos/commercial spots. I truly hope it turns out that way; however, I can see just as many wishing they had a reasonable middle ground that gave them a higher-end image without the as much overhead. 

For me personally, I fear the camera falls into a real no-man's-land. I'll withhold any definitive judgments until I see more footage and hear more first-hand reports (and hopefully get my own hands on it), but as of now my eye is squarely trained on the EVA and Sony's big announcement.

YMMV.

What Sony big announcement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

Oh, ok, I read this. I was expecting you knew something about the FS5markII.

This Cinealta will cost 8xEVA+4xC200 

Haha, quite possibly! The FS5 doesn't compete at all strongly with its Canon/Panny/BM competition though, and can't be bumped significantly in spec without rendering their new FS7 II completely redundant.

Share this post


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

Haha, quite possibly! The FS5 doesn't compete at all strongly with its Canon/Panny/BM competition though, and can't be bumped significantly in spec without rendering their new FS7 II completely redundant.

Sony is always full of surprises!

as it is, C200 is overkill for my line of work. A lot of thousands (in Europe, Marcotec price = 10.620euros+5710euros for the 18-80 CN-E) more than I was expected, and raw is not necessary at all.

A cheaper FS5markII with a more modern sensor than the current one, and a bit better codecs, with their spectacular e-ND, together with the 2 Fuji lenses (around 4200euros each, for 18-135mm) would be just perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more modern sensor would be nice, as all its competitors are rocking new (ish) designs. I'd just settle for something that looks nice; I haven't seen a pretty video out if the FS5 yet. 

Back on topic, I had a play with the MP4 files from the C200. When graded, it did break quickly. I also noted that 100fps was noticeably soft. 50fps looked a bit better, and would be my preferred limit.

Looks like you need to shoot Raw to get a high end image...shame, because the price for a full day's worth of CFast cards is almost as much as the camera itself. 

Share this post


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

A more modern sensor would be nice, as all its competitors are rocking new (ish) designs. I'd just settle for something that looks nice; I haven't seen a pretty video out if the FS5 yet. 

Back on topic, I had a play with the MP4 files from the C200. When graded, it did break quickly. I also noted that 100fps was noticeably soft. 50fps looked a bit better, and would be my preferred limit.

Looks like you need to shoot Raw to get a high end image...shame, because the price for a full day's worth of CFast cards is almost as much as the camera itself. 

I agree with the fs5. I don't think bit rates really matter when a baked mode on the 5d3 produces a better image. That sensor is also real noisy. 

You could shoot 1080/422 interviews to a recorder and shoot your b roll in raw. Raw seems like such a bonus to me, this camera is closer to the fs5 in price but way ahead in the quality of images it will produce. 

Share this post


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

I can easily see people considering this the best of both worlds--MP4 for doc/events/corporate, RAW for narrative/music videos/commercial spots. I truly hope it turns out that way; however, I can see just as many wishing they had a reasonable middle ground that gave them a higher-end image without the as much overhead. 

Isn't the pending XF-AVC update the "middle ground" you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jacoblewis said:

Isn't the pending XF-AVC update the "middle ground" you are talking about?

Not sure why that quoted DBounce instead of me...

It depends. If it's 8-bit, no. That'll just make it a suitable spec for broadcast. If it still only holds 13 stops of DR, then also no. I can get 13+ stops in 10-bit with many other cameras for less. If it only records to CFast and not SD, no again. It's less data that Raw Light, but still requires an expensive investment in a media format I can't use in many other cameras (almost never work with Alexa mini, use SSDs on the UM46) and don't think will ultimately survive.

It would definitely be a step in the right direction, but it's not a complete solution. Plus it's still a year off, isn't it? Has anyone confirmed whether it's a paid upgrade or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

It depends. If it's 8-bit, no. That'll just make it a suitable spec for broadcast. If it still only holds 13 stops of DR, then also no. I can get 13+ stops in 10-bit with many other cameras for less. If it only records to CFast and not SD, no again. It's less data that Raw Light, but still requires an expensive investment in a media format I can't use in many other cameras (almost never work with Alexa mini, use SSDs on the UM46) and don't think will ultimately survive.

CFast is today the best compromise in speed, size, power consumption and price. In fact at least 3 camera manufacturers use/supports them: Arri, Blackmagic and Canon. Canon has 6 cameras with CFast support: C200, C300 II, C700, XC10, XC15 and 1Dx II. There are at least 4 manufacturer of CFast: Sandisk, Lexar, Transcend, Delking. Too me it looks like an healthy ecosystem.

CFast is based on proven PC technology and are basically a mini SSD based on eSATA and use the same/similar NAND memory as most SSD. They are already available in 512 GB size and I'm sure we sill soon see 1TB ones view that they share the similar tech as SSDs. The cool thing that are very fast when connected to a PC so when I need a quick turnaround I can even edit directly from the CFast card.

I much prefer a standard with an ecosystem that custom proprietary solutions also based around SSD like RED that are even more expensive or even DJI with Inspire 2.
In theory every camera could have a eSATA connection/slot and use standard SSD but the power consumption and size would make difficult to use in camera like the 1Dx II, XC10/15 etc... even on a C200 would require it to be bigger in size, with M.2 would be a bit better but still require space.

I agree CFast will not survive, like floppy, VHS, CD, Microdrive etc.... even today HD will probably be extinct at some point but CFast in the next few years it seems like a safe bet. In 5-6 years from now 512 GB would be a small size.... people have 256 GB thumb stick today...

There are some new fast SD cards but they still are quite unreliable in maintaining sustained write speed and the camera needs to have an interface that really push that bitrate and they are still about 50% of the speed of CFast. At the end It all depends how good is the SD interface of the C200 and how much test Canon will/want to invest to be able to reliable save 300/400 Mbits XF-AVC directly on the SD slot. But I do agree it would be cool if they enable this.

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...