Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DBounce

Canon C300MkII vs C200

Recommended Posts

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

Reviving this topic as I'm currently hesitating in between both cams as much needed upgrade to my C100. There is a new C300mkII kit that replaces the cumbersome monitor+XLR clamshell design with the C200's touchscreen, separate XLR module + a shogun inferno (allowing ProRes Raw) for $10K.  :

 https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/01/07/canon-c300-mark-ii-now-available-with-the-c200-touch-screen/

This really makes the C300mkII design more appealing imo.

Doing a lot of green screen work with fast turnovers and the manageable 10-bit 422 internal 4K (and 12-bit 444 2K !) will be welcome over the limited C200 internal choices. 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2018 at 2:30 PM, DBounce said:

So I downloaded some C200 footage to play around with... and, it seems noisy. I can’t seem to get it clean. Is nose reduction always needed with raw footage? Is that part of the normal raw process? I don’t recall always needing NR with my Blackmagic cameras.

Got the CRM Files from here. Had a play with the indoor footage. I worked directly from FCPX by installing the Canon plugin. With this plugin you can import and play the files directly from FCPX. Import was not the fastest thing, taking about two minutes or so for a 30 second clip. The edit was done on a late model 15” well spec’d MBP. 

Have any of you worked with C200 footage? Is my experience the norm, or am I missing something? Is there a problem with this footage that explains why it is noisy?

Have a play with it and post what you find:grin:

A lot of people do not Black balance, that’s why it can get noisy. 

Share this post


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

A lot of people do not Black balance, that’s why it can get noisy. 

I since picked up a C200, the footage is fine. I do black balance. I set my ISO low and control the lighting. No issues. The C200 is a wonderful camera and very easy to work with.

 

5F72AC96-488A-4E41-83B5-4EC402A56E5A.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I owned a C300 Mark 2 for one year and the image quality is great with 4K 10 bits 422. Now that you can have the touch screen of C200 it is even better. The big difference for me is that C200 have 4K 60p. If you need that option you should go for C200 but il you don't need it go for C300 II.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with this rig you have pretty much everything you need in a camera recorder except 60p or better 4K. If you Need the good middle Codec on the C300, and I am sure you probably do, I see it as a not brainer unless you Need the 4K 60p for Slo Mo which the C200 offers. The Canon Raw it offers is a plus also if you are into ultimate quality. If only Canon would have done the middle Codec thing it would have been pretty cut and dry. But I can see why they didin't, the C300 would have been dead in the water. But they would have sold a hell of a lot more C200's if they did. I would rather sell a Ton of 7 grand cameras as a few 10 Grand cameras. And they just have lowered it to that. Goofy company as of late.

https://www.convergent-design.com/canon-eos-c300

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah was really hoping Canon would give the C200 the middle codec but no dice.. 4K60p is not at all mandatory to me, so I think I'd much rather have internal 10-bit 4K / 12-bit FHD. And if I need to go RAW record external to the shogun. 

I found these very thorough C200 /C300II comparison reviews and I'm even more inclined to go with C300II after reading them:

Canon C200 Review

Canon C300 Mark II with LM-V1 Touchscreen Monitor

canon-ma-400.jpg

C300 mk II with the LM-V1 Touchscreen & Canon MA-400 Microphone Adapter

vs. old skyscraper clamshell design:

canon-c300-mk-ii-lcd.jpg

 

C300II ProRes RAW recovery example:

 

Wonder how that compares to C200 Canon RAW Light?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one big advantage of ProRes Raw is that it can be used on a lot of cameras versus the Canon Raw Light is never going to be a industry standard like Apple ProRes Raw will. Plus the file sizes are smaller also. I mean if you have a Canon C200 sure you are probably going to use it's Raw but..

Good video on ProRes Raw.    https://www.proav.co.uk/videos/prores-raw-exciting/

Some good pictures of the C300 mk II with the new touchscreen. Wow it sure makes it a LOT more compact. You had to be 7 foot tall to shoot with one on a tripod lol.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/01/07/canon-c300-mark-ii-now-available-with-the-c200-touch-screen/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still a little sceptical about ProRes Raw as a standard.. Apple & Atomos have been hyping it but in reality it hasn't really caught on as far as NLE's which is what matters most. A year in and it is still only usable inside FCPX. Canon Raw on the other hand can be natively read by Resolve, Premiere & FCPX via a Plug-in.

It seems there a strong politics at play with the whole Raw "light" format, especially since BMD announced BM Raw and sort of declared war on RED/Atomos/Apple etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: ProRes RAW adoption, Jeromy at Atomos seemed to indicate that part of the slow adoption was that they hadn’t built the SDK needed for 3rd party implementations yet. Apparently that is being worked on now though so I’m hoping it gets wider adoption soon. 

Share this post


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

I'm still a little sceptical about ProRes Raw as a standard.. Apple & Atomos have been hyping it but in reality it hasn't really caught on as far as NLE's which is what matters most. A year in and it is still only usable inside FCPX. Canon Raw on the other hand can be natively read by Resolve, Premiere & FCPX via a Plug-in.

It seems there a strong politics at play with the whole Raw "light" format, especially since BMD announced BM Raw and sort of declared war on RED/Atomos/Apple etc..

Yeah but right now if you own multiable camera company cameras, and want a somewhat one stop solution with editing, and own Apple computers, you are going with Apple ProRes Raw. And that is the good thing about it over anyone else as of now. It's Only been out for a little over a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only supported by high-end Sony/Canon/Panasonic cine cams & Nikon Z mirrorless.. so not even a complete ecosystem.. and again only FCPX which is the biggest caveat. Not every Apple user edits in FCPX.. but yeah one can only hope other camera models & NLEs will support it in the near future (although I don't see Resolve/BMD rushing to the table after basically being compared to the axis of evil by aforementioned CEO douchebag #1 🙄 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be afraid of buying the C300 mk II now that Maybe a C100 mk III is due. But the 300 would be nice now with the 200 screen. Man big boy video is not cheap even now. But not many Cine cameras have AF so you pay the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a C100 mk3 will not cannibalise C300 mk2 or C200, we're talking about Canon here.. they are masters at product segmentation. 

anyways, thinking more of RAW.. i'm kinda leaning back towards C200. It's cheaper, smaller and does RAW internally, screw Atomos.

Besides i use Resolve and it has native support for Canon RAW light files. No way I'm dropping $10K hoping Resolve gets ProRes Raw support in the future.

as for big boy video not being cheap.. yes & no. you are getting very close to Arri IQ for under $10K.. much less if you buy used. and indeed you gain reliable AF!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the C200 is down to 6400 bucks now on ebay. Pretty good price for new and what you get. But if you Need the middle Codec then you are kind of screwed unless you buy a Atomos lol..

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-C200-Cinema-Camera-2215C002-Lens-Cleaning-Kit/323606537783?epid=14012373817&hash=item4b5873e637%3Ag%3Ao54AAOSwsRVcGNpr&LH_BIN=1

Dave did this comparison a couple of years ago. Kind of interesting. Although he may be Color Blind lol. 😜

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 9:24 PM, Django said:

Thoughts?

Why not the super popular FS7? They're very affordable on ebay too if you're ok with secondhand. 

Plus there are the less popular choices of Panasonic EVA1 and UMP G2 worth considering as well.

 

6 hours ago, Django said:

a C100 mk3 will not cannibalise C300 mk2 or C200, we're talking about Canon here.. they are masters at product segmentation. 

Bingo, if/when the C100mk3 happens then it probably will be 4K 30fps 8bit with no SDI or TC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah the C200 is down to 6400 bucks now on ebay. Pretty good price for new and what you get. But if you Need the middle Codec then you are kind of screwed unless you buy a Atomos lol..

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-C200-Cinema-Camera-2215C002-Lens-Cleaning-Kit/323606537783?epid=14012373817&hash=item4b5873e637%3Ag%3Ao54AAOSwsRVcGNpr&LH_BIN=1

Dave did this comparison a couple of years ago. Kind of interesting. Although he may be Color Blind lol. 😜

 

3

That shootout is pretty obsolete though as the C200 now bridges that gap in between the C100 & C300mk2..

As for the middle codec on C200, you're right an atomos will be required for direct 10-bit 2K recording but a workaround is obviously to shoot in raw and export to 10-bit/12-bit DCI 4K (at the cost of hefty CFast cards..)

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Why not the super popular FS7? They're very affordable on ebay too if you're ok with secondhand. 

Plus there are the less popular choices of Panasonic EVA1 and UMP G2 worth considering as well.

 

1

Maybe if I was starting out but the plan is to upgrade from my C100 within the Canon ecosystem. 

Besides I need DPAF for multicam shoots & internal RAW is only offered by C200 within the current Japanese cams (i place UMP in another category due to Size & V-Mount).

If Panasonic/Sony were to develop a reliable AF for their cine cams, have internal RAW and maybe add IBIS or another killer feature I could be tempted to switch in the long run but for now Canon got my $$$. It's as if the other companies were stuck in the classic cine "crew" paradigm with follow-focus / sticks / external recorders when the game is changing with more & more solo operators and small businesses mixing MILCs & Cine cams who try to avoid hefty/costly rig add-ons.

Again i'll say it loud & clear: F ATOMOS. Jeromy really lost me with his antics & bravado. Instead of declaring holy wars over codecs he's trying to push, his company should focus more on hardware people actually want i.e 4K Ninja Star..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Django said:

internal RAW is only offered by C200 within the current Japanese cams (i place UMP in another category due to Size & V-Mount).

I'd say raw is overrated, especially for one man band stuff (i.e. low budget shoots), you're not needing raw now after all! As the C100 is a long long way from that. 

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...