Jump to content
DBounce

Canon C200 Philip Bloom Review

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

this camera is just weird without the 10bit codec. I don't get it. Also, I never rented a c series but is the evf useless for any doc or cinema-verite shoulder rig shooting? It would be nice to have it detachable so you configure it on the top handle. Seems like it would be heavy handheld to use the evf on the back like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I keep stopping the video to compare the raw 4k to the 180 fps from the GH5... and to be honest, the C200 looks no sharper to my eyes than the Panasonic @ 1080p 180fps. Am I missing something here? Granted it's nice to have the extra latitude in grading that the Raw Lite "must" offer; but I wonder if that advantage will even remain after the GH5 gets the new firmware with the 400 Mbps codec?

Well, in any case, it will sell a bunch, and hopefully that will drive down the price of the EVA1. I'm starting to think it's time to consider Panasonic as the goto cameras for video. Canon and to a lesser extent Sony both have interest in leaving out features to protect their Cinema cameras. It might be better to relegate these brands to stills. And before anyone freaks out about Sony being mentioned, why did they not offer 10 bit on any of their mirrorless cameras? We all know they surely have the technical prowless to have implemented it. Looking at my 1DXMK2, while it can take some great video, it is hardly  as accomplished as the GH5 for this purpose. And while it's true that DPAF on the Canons is the best in the business, one can add a wireless follow focus for under $1k and that problem is solved. So it would seem Panasonic is correct... to get good 4k, you need to down sample from 5k. And on that bombshell I can only say,"thank you Canon... you just saved me $16k on a new kit". 

PS: one last thought: with the EVA1 using Canon EF mount I cannot use my Vedra Mini Primes on it. Which would kind of suck as they are all color matched. Oh well Panni.

Share this post


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

Ok, I keep stopping the video to compare the raw 4k to the 180 fps from the GH5... and to be honest, the C200 looks no sharper to my eyes than the Panasonic @ 1080p 180fps. Am I missing something here? Granted it's nice to have the extra latitude in grading that the Raw Lite "must" offer; but I wonder if that advantage will even remain after the GH5 gets the new firmware with the 400 Mbps codec?

Well, in any case, it will sell a bunch, and hopefully that will drive down the price of the EVA1. I'm starting to think it's time to consider Panasonic as the goto cameras for video. Canon and to a lesser extent Sony both have interest in leaving out features to protect their Cinema cameras. It might be better to relegate these brands to stills. And before anyone freaks out about Sony being mentioned, why did they not offer 10 bit on any of their mirrorless cameras? We all know they surely have the technical prowless to have implemented it. Looking at my 1DXMK2, while it can take some great video, it is hardly  as accomplished as the GH5 for this purpose. And while it's true that DPAF on the Canons is the best in the business, one can add a wireless follow focus for under $1k and that problem is solved. So it would seem Panasonic is correct... to get good 4k, you need to down sample from 5k. And on that bombshell I can only say,"thank you Canon... you just saved me $16k on a new kit". 

PS: one last thought: with the EVA1 using Canon EF mount I cannot use my Vedra Mini Primes on it. Which would kind of suck as they are all color matched. Oh well Panni.

Well Raw 4K doesn't have sharpening added in camera. But that's crazy the 180fps 1080p is sharper than the 4K Raw from the C200... Hmm. Interesting. 

Share this post


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

Well Raw 4K doesn't have sharpening added in camera. But that's crazy the 180fps 1080p is sharper than the 4K Raw from the C200... Hmm. Interesting. 

The C200 RAW shots show great detail, dynamic range and no processing artifacts. Just smooth and very much Varicam-like tbh.

The internal 8 bit on the C200 looks terrible to my eyes, lots of sharpening (slightly better than on the GH5) and almost no detail, looks like 1080p to me.

The 180fps 1080p on the GH5 just looks horrible, mushy with crazy sharpening halos, nothing I would ever use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, deezid said:

The C200 RAW shots show great detail, dynamic range and no processing artifacts. Just smooth and very much Varicam-like tbh.

The internal 8 bit on the C200 looks terrible to my eyes, lots of sharpening (slightly better than on the GH5) and almost no detail, looks like 1080p to me.

The 180fps 1080p on the GH5 just looks horrible, mushy with crazy sharpening halos, nothing I would ever use.

I can't say I'm seeing what you are in that video. The C200 and indeed the C300 Imo are not the sharpest of cameras. Dynamic range is certainly there but the image looks on the soft side to me. The 8 bit is worst than the GH5 to my eyes, and also lacks 10 bit, so there goes that advantage. Not sure which videos you have been watching of the GH5 slowmo, but I have seen some work that was easily usable. Whereas I would never use the 120p coming from the 1DXMK2. Here is some GH5 video (not mine) at 180 fps 1080p. I think it looks pretty good for 1080p. What am I missing that make this horrible?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The review just further frustrates me... The lack of a 10 bit 4:2:2 codec leaves the camera in such a strange place. So close to the perfect camera for many of my needs.

Hopefully canon go 10 bit when they launch the middle ground codec.

Share this post


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

I can't say I'm seeing what you are in that video. The C200 and indeed the C300 Imo are not the sharpest of cameras. Dynamic range is certainly there but the image looks on the soft side to me. The 8 bit is worst than the GH5 to my eyes, and also lacks 10 bit, so there goes that advantage. Not sure which videos you have been watching of the GH5 slowmo, but I have seen some work that was easily usable. Whereas I would never use the 120p coming from the 1DXMK2. Here is some GH5 video (not mine) at 180 fps 1080p. I think it looks pretty good for 1080p. What am I missing that make this horrible?

 

The mixture of strong aliasing + strong sharpening (which you can't deactivate in camera) is just a no-go for me. If it was at least possible to get rid of the sharpening halos... :(

Share this post


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

The C200 RAW shots show great detail, dynamic range and no processing artifacts. Just smooth and very much Varicam-like tbh.

The internal 8 bit on the C200 looks terrible to my eyes, lots of sharpening (slightly better than on the GH5) and almost no detail, looks like 1080p to me.

The 180fps 1080p on the GH5 just looks horrible, mushy with crazy sharpening halos, nothing I would ever use.

I just got the chance to watch the video. Loved the Raw. At $6000, the C200B is a very cool camera... if the Raw is sustainable for the shooter's needs. I didn't hate the MP4 4K, but I have only really used consumer 4K from the lower end Panny cameras and the NX500... it seems better than those but not quite as good as the 302mbps 4K from the XC10 in terms of detail. Interesting camera I can't afford, so no matter one way or the other to me. I think the implementation of the XF-AVC will prove if this is an all rounder and until then... shrug... we'll see. I am contemplating a rental next summer for a short film. It would be a blast to shoot 4K Raw with DPAF, on a planned, controlled shoot with a small shot ratio. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can people judge Raw from a Vimeo/YouTube video? Any link to real Raw files?

Judging processed Raw re-encoded for streaming by YouTube is not really revealing. The goal of Raw is to obtain the maximum quality but also to have the maximum "gradability" and without having had access yet to one is better not to draw any conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

How can people judge Raw from a Vimeo/YouTube video? Any link to real Raw files?

Judging processed Raw re-encoded for streaming by YouTube is not really revealing. The goal of Raw is to obtain the maximum quality but also to have the maximum "gradability" and without having had access yet to one is better not to draw any conclusion.

True but aren't all samples, from every camera ever released, judged that way? And since those platforms will be a major distribution platform for many of its users, I would think how the files fare on Vimeo and YouTube to be a pretty important preliminary indicator of a camera's IQ.

Share this post


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

I just got the chance to watch the video. Loved the Raw. At $6000, the C200B is a very cool camera... if the Raw is sustainable for the shooter's needs. I didn't hate the MP4 4K, but I have only really used consumer 4K from the lower end Panny cameras and the NX500... it seems better than those but not quite as good as the 302mbps 4K from the XC10 in terms of detail. Interesting camera I can't afford, so no matter one way or the other to me. I think the implementation of the XF-AVC will prove if this is an all rounder and until then... shrug... we'll see. I am contemplating a rental next summer for a short film. It would be a blast to shoot 4K Raw with DPAF, on a planned, controlled shoot with a small shot ratio. 

Actually the GH5 10 bit footage (V-Log with sharpening and nr at -5 -> important!) looks way better than the internal 8 bit of the C200. Way more detail and still good dynamic range and color.

But the RAW is not far away from a Varicam LT/35 in my opinion, great and smooth! detail, smooth rolloff, great DR, same color as the 8 bit which is great. 

The 8 bit footage on the other hand looks processed (smoothed and sharpened) and even worse than internal FS7 footage (FS7 RAW kicks ass though)

51 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

How can people judge Raw from a Vimeo/YouTube video? Any link to real Raw files?

Judging processed Raw re-encoded for streaming by YouTube is not really revealing. The goal of Raw is to obtain the maximum quality but also to have the maximum "gradability" and without having had access yet to one is better not to draw any conclusion.

If the difference is obvious watching YT in 4k I bet it will be even more apparent watching Footage straight of the camera. So yes, it makes perfect sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My eyes must be going because I can't tell the difference between what's shot with what settings. Dynamic range seems good and there's no chroma clipping, but that's all I got out of any of it. Autofocus looks good. I think this camera will be well-loved in other communities than this forum where people are less discerning of little details and don't need RAW.  

But am I the only one who thinks this guy's videos almost always look heinous? Everything looks flatly lit or just natural light. The compositions are okay, he's an okay cameraman, but so is everyone on this forum. Most here are better, I'm assuming, having not watched a lot of videos here but knowing the high standards people have. This guy is still very competent as an op but not in the same league as Kendy Ty. The grading is what's legitimately bad. Doesn't seem to be a lot in the way of power windows or shaping the image, just a lot of ruddy flat LUT pack looks. Skin looks terrible. This sickly golden straw hue and lifted blacks over everything. I dunno... 

Anyhow if I had the need for a 4k raw camera I think I'd pick this one! But I don't. I'm usually pretty attuned to what's shot on what, but I don't see any big difference between codecs, just an ugly grade on all of them. :/

Share this post


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

Anyhow if I had the need for a 4k raw camera I think I'd pick this one! But I don't. I'm usually pretty attuned to what's shot on what, but I don't see any big difference between codecs, just an ugly grade on all of them. :/

Very interested to see a C200 vs Red Raven vs Ursa Mini Pro comparison now. Want to know which camera has better dynamic range and low light performance. It's amazing how fast the entry level rpfice for cinema cameras has fallen.

Share this post


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

Very interested to see a C200 vs Red Raven vs Ursa Mini Pro comparison now. Want to know which camera has better dynamic range and low light performance. It's amazing how fast the entry level rpfice for cinema cameras has fallen.

The 4.6k Ursa is pretty darned good! Really impressive camera. I'd pick the Canon for ergonomics and AF and low light and color, not for technical image quality at low ISO, but it should be competitive even there. The Dragon isn't that big a step up from the MX IMO (at least it was over-hyped) but I think Red's new processing improves it. The Helium looks like another step up, too.

I think any of the three would be 99% of the way to an Alexa. I'm guessing all three would have similar DR but the Canon would pull way ahead with low light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mercer said:

True but aren't all samples, from every camera ever released, judged that way? And since those platforms will be a major distribution platform for many of its users, I would think how the files fare on Vimeo and YouTube to be a pretty important preliminary indicator of a camera's IQ.

I fully agree that a lot will be published to YT and Vimeo but in this case you bring it down to the minimum quality that is YT compression and already reduced color information and with compression . It seems that people compare it to GH5 with completely different scenes, light, grading and it gives you some basic idea but IMO not a real representation of the camera possibility. On a well exposed lightly graded footage you will not see that much the difference between Raw and processed format... even a iPhone looks good in the best condition. The power of Raw is in more heavy grading possibility and in more DR and in more recovering headroom for hl and sh, how can you judge these from a highly compressed h264 4:2:0 image? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the C200 footage looks absolutely beautiful. And imo looks less like Varicam and more like Alexa. Very rich and organic. I am a huge fan of Varicam though, I just don't think C200 looks like Panasonic stuff. The problem with the C200 is that its from Canon. The middle codec will most likely be 8 bit, and will DPAF be available on the C200B? Seems like a poor implementation of one of their greatest features. And that's Canon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Personally I think the C200 footage looks absolutely beautiful. And imo looks less like Varicam and more like Alexa. Very rich and organic. I am a huge fan of Varicam though, I just don't think C200 looks like Panasonic stuff. The problem with the C200 is that its from Canon. The middle codec will most likely be 8 bit, and will DPAF be available on the C200B? Seems like a poor implementation of one of their greatest features. And that's Canon. 

The C200B is just the C200 stripped of its accessories. So yes, it will have DPAF, but you'll need the touchscreen to utilize it, or supposedly an iPad will work through wi-fi. The screen costs around $600, so it's still a savings and a smaller unit, if you don't need the evf or the top handle.

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...