Jump to content

Canon gear advice for pro photographer getting into videography


ghostwind
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, kye said:

@ghostwind 

Your approach sounds sensible.  I appreciate the buy-once-buy-well approach, and it sounds like you probably have a good enough idea on what your requirements are and how you work to be able to determine what will work for you, both creatively and from a return-on-investment perspective, and considering that the image you deliver may even be secondary for some clients compared how how impressive your camera looks or the specs you can advertise (like shooting in 4K).

I don't know what platforms you're creating for, but 4K would give you the ability to deliver 4K 16:9 and also >1080p 9:16 vertical video from the same shot.  We've spoken on these forums about vertical video and I recall a lifestyle/branding/advertising film-maker suggesting that filming vertical video for social and also for portrait-mounted TVs was becoming more in-demand.  The framing may be different for different aspect ratios, but I would imagine not having to have a 90-degree adapter to flip the camera would be a plus on set, as for each shot you could just reframe and do another take, and then be able to produce a vertical and horizontal version of the same video without much extra time on set.

The only other piece of advice I have is to get your hands on a few options and see how you like them.  Even if you assume that Canon knows how to make a decent cinema camera (which is pretty well established) there may be little personal elements that would work or not work for you specifically.  Ergonomically, conceptually, and for your workflow too.

@kye

Platforms for now are web and social media, as I was saying in the post above. In the future hopefully more diverse / larger scale as I try to get into more commercial work. 

Very good point r.e. vertical video which I didn't really think about yet, as it hasn't come up. I do this with stills all the time (it's easy to flip the camera), but to your point, it's a lot easier to crop a vertical 9x16 1080p from a 16x9 4K capture and not lose resolution or have to scale, than to rig up a 90 degree video camera.

Yes, I plan to get the cameras into my hands to get a feel for them for sure before buying. I'm not there just yet, but soon hopefully. It has happened before that I loved something spec-wise, only to wind up not liking it ergonomically once I got my hands on it. Or it's happened that I thought some gear would be awful ergonomically, only to be surprised. So yeah, very, very important for it to feel right. We're on the same page here  - feel is very important!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So still researching and trying to decide. It's now come to the C200 vs C300MKII :) The C200's RAW I don't think I'll use that often, but nice to have for personal projects/work, when storage, time, processing, etc. is not an issue. I would also worry about just having a single card to write to for RAW (the CFast), so the C200 would be used with the MP4 internal 4K and HD codecs to dual SD cards. But they are 4:2:0 8bit and not just that, but low bitrates - 150Mpbs for 4K and 35Mbps for HD. Numbers don't always tell the story, though, and it looks like Canon has made them quite nice. But I wonder how much they can take in post - how malleable they are to work with seeing they are 8bit and low bitrates too...C300MKII has nicer codecs for internal - 10bit, and higher bitrates too - a lot higher! So not sure if the C200 is more for those that simple shoot in RAW and/or in a very controlled environment, where white balance and exposures are spot on. C300MKII more versatile in this manner. 

C200 pros are that it's a bit smaller and lighter (but not that much) and that it has 4K60fps and 120fps full sensor w/o crop. And it's $2500 cheaper. I also like that the audio controls are on the body, but that's not a huge deal for me. C300MKII has the older screen, but I saw you can get it with the "Touch Focus Kit", which gives you essentially the same LCD with touch as the C200 and a different mic adaptor with XLR inputs, so it's a lot better than that clamshell that's the default. 

So it really comes down to how good are the internal C200 files to work with in post? Again, on paper being 8bit and low bitrates, doesn't look too good. Thoughts? Maybe I'm missing something. I know in a lot of situations I will have to correct white balance and push the files somewhat in post, as I'm not in a studio, so that leans me to the C300MKII. Downsides are more money, and no 4K60fps or 120fps w/o 2x crop. Also writing to more expensive CFast cards (dual for redundancy).

I know you can get 10bit HD from the C200 (not 4K though) by recording external, but not sure if the bitrate will be higher to the external recorder or how much of a difference it will make. Hmm...


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First suggestion:

DO NOT BUY CANON!!!

But if you can't do the 1st suggestion, then my 2nd suggestion is:

Buy a cheap C100 mk1 with DPAF from eBay (which is even cheaper than the mk2!), as you don't need greater than 1080 or high FPS. Then just wait for Canon to get its thumb out of its ass, and release something decent and affordable. (unlikely!) Or swap over to Sony/Panasonic/BMD/Z Cam. 

 

If you need need NEED 4K then just rent a C200 / C300mk2
(or heck, buy a C500 mk1 and an external recorder, they're starting to become very cheap now!)

Or even rent a BMD UMP / FS7 / FS5 / EVA1 / etc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ghostwind said:

So still researching and trying to decide. It's now come to the C200 vs C300MKII :) The C200's RAW I don't think I'll use that often, but nice to have for personal projects/work, when storage, time, processing, etc. is not an issue. I would also worry about just having a single card to write to for RAW (the CFast), so the C200 would be used with the MP4 internal 4K and HD codecs to dual SD cards. But they are 4:2:0 8bit and not just that, but low bitrates - 150Mpbs for 4K and 35Mbps for HD. Numbers don't always tell the story, though, and it looks like Canon has made them quite nice. But I wonder how much they can take in post - how malleable they are to work with seeing they are 8bit and low bitrates too...C300MKII has nicer codecs for internal - 10bit, and higher bitrates too - a lot higher! So not sure if the C200 is more for those that simple shoot in RAW and/or in a very controlled environment, where white balance and exposures are spot on. C300MKII more versatile in this manner. 

C200 pros are that it's a bit smaller and lighter (but not that much) and that it has 4K60fps and 120fps full sensor w/o crop. And it's $2500 cheaper. I also like that the audio controls are on the body, but that's not a huge deal for me. C300MKII has the older screen, but I saw you can get it with the "Touch Focus Kit", which gives you essentially the same LCD with touch as the C200 and a different mic adaptor with XLR inputs, so it's a lot better than that clamshell that's the default. 

So it really comes down to how good are the internal C200 files to work with in post? Again, on paper being 8bit and low bitrates, doesn't look too good. Thoughts? Maybe I'm missing something. I know in a lot of situations I will have to correct white balance and push the files somewhat in post, as I'm not in a studio, so that leans me to the C300MKII. Downsides are more money, and no 4K60fps or 120fps w/o 2x crop. Also writing to more expensive CFast cards (dual for redundancy).

I know you can get 10bit HD from the C200 (not 4K though) by recording external, but not sure if the bitrate will be higher to the external recorder or how much of a difference it will make. Hmm...


 

I can give you a little bit of info on the C200 as I just bought one after using it last week.

  • The 8 bits footage looks very good. There is really something with Canon footage. The Wide Dynamic Range profile is very easy to grade if you don't want to go all the way to C-log 1 and 2. I probably prefer Canon 8bits footage than Sony 10bits. That being said, it might be a no go for broadcast situation.
  • The lack of middle ground codec is huge dick move from Canon. Usual with this company. And don't expect to record 4k raw/10 bits with an external recorder as the SDI/HDMI out is limited to 2k. The definitive proof that Canon crippled this camera intentionally to protect the C300/C500 line...
  • There is no 4k DCI in 8 bits. Only in raw
  • Raw is very heavy (15 min per 128GB) and the Cfast cards are ridiculously expensive. This is also a dead media.
  • The raw footage is nice but it needs a lot of work, it comes out very grainy and you'll need to denoise which adds more time to the already long workflow.
  • The 120fps footage is crap, DPAF is not available in this mode
  • Overall, the 4k footage is on the soft side. Not bad but don't expect to crop in that much.
  • The C300 will give you the middle ground 10bits codec but you'll loose the 60p


I went with the C200 because it's still a nice package for the price, the camera is relatively small with nice features such as strong ND10 and DPAF. I also have a lot of EF lenses. Low light is good. Perhaps you should rent one before buying it. The C100 is cheap but also cheaply made (eg. horrible EVF).
I'm not a fan of Sony so I discarded the FS5 and FS7. The Ursa mini is not run and gun camera which is what I need. ISO craps out at 800. Finally the EVA1 was very tempting but it's not perfect neither (bad screen, no EVF).

I'll try to upload a couple of 8bits video sample from my C200 when it gets there so you can see by yourself.

xxxc.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ghostwind said:

Maybe I'm missing something.

I suspect not.

Canon has deliberately crippled its product lineup in order to take people such as yourself (who are heavily invested in Canon glass and like DPAF) and make you tempted to buy the top of the line camera.  Kind of like making smokers buy Lamborghinis by not supplying ashtrays in all the cheaper cars.

Of course, the unfortunate thing about this is that there is no viable alternative that gives you what you want.

The way out of this is to understand what priorities you have and then work out what suits your priorities best.  I ended up with a GH5 because I don't care about sensor size and I realised I prefer the manual focus aesthetic.  Had I wanted AF I would have been screwed.  No perfect camera exists...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@IronFilm I have canon lenses, cameras (for stills), and I want AF. So it has to be Canon :) , for good or bad. They rightfully get bashed on the Internet for some things, but are great at others (AF and color being the main 2 for me). I can rent, but I've discussed my thoughts on that in a prior post. To rent indefinitely until a C300MK3 or whatever else may come along in 6mo-1yr could be costly. And from reading many posts from years past in this (and other) forum, people were always holding off, thinking not to buy because a new release would be around the corner, only to be proven wrong. So yeah, it's hard to predict.

@OliKMIA Thanks for all the details. Yeah, that's the million dollar question - how good to the 8bit files do in post, when shooting in less than ideal or controlled environments? I have to see this one, and for me, would mean renting and using it during an actual shoot, because I know from prior experience that I can never replicate all that goes into a shoot in my home or around it. On a real shoot I find out a TON more. But it's risky...I may end up renting one and just using it during an actual shoot when there's some downtime. I do also wonder if this C200 is really meant for people that want total control and the ability to shoot RAW. Everything else seems secondary, like a calculated afterthought. 

@kye My priorities are good/dependable AF, good IQ from the internal codecs, & form factor/ergonomics. I like to shoot handheld many times, and both felt very comfortable to use, either with the EVFs or the LCDs. Nice weight, balance, etc. C200 a tad nicer (a tad smaller/lighter, audio inputs on body,..), but either is fine. For AF, the C300MKII with the Touch Focus Kit is basically the same as the C200 in ability. So all that remains are the internal codecs. Which is no small thing...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OliKMIA said:

xxxc.jpg

One question I can't find the answer to anywhere - what is the bitrate when doing HD 4:2:2 10bit external (over SDI or HDMI)? I would assume higher than the 35Mbps that it records in the MP4 4:2:0 8bit internal, but curious if I could get broadcast level (50Mbps+) for HD recording external.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents...

I shoot verite docs, so for me the C200's raw feature will pretty much never get used.

Aside from raw, Canon's ability to pack a decent amount of info into a lightweight file is exceptional.

For sure 4k is great for cropping, but who sees that extra resolution 6-10 feet back from the screen? I can easily push 125% into a C100MkII file with no major quality loss. Someone recently posted on a C100 to 4k up res that seemed decent enough.

For fun, though it could be true, I often think that the C100 MkII is the last camera I need to own as it ticks so many boxes. I'd consider a C300MkII, but will wait for the prices to drop and then take a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ghostwind said:

 

@OliKMIA Thanks for all the details. Yeah, that's the million dollar question - how good to the 8bit files do in post, when shooting in less than ideal or controlled environments? I have to see this one, and for me, would mean renting and using it during an actual shoot, because I know from prior experience that I can never replicate all that goes into a shoot in my home or around it. On a real shoot I find out a TON more. But it's risky...I may end up renting one and just using it during an actual shoot when there's some downtime. I do also wonder if this C200 is really meant for people that want total control and the ability to shoot RAW. Everything else seems secondary, like a calculated afterthought.

I don't have enough experience with this Camera to answer at this point. I think there is no miracle. This is 8 bits footage, even with great Canon color "science", there is less latitude in post. I'm receiving my C200 tomorrow and I will shot a couple of video and put them on this forum with an upload link for the community, including low light and "complicated" lighting.

58 minutes ago, ghostwind said:

One question I can't find the answer to anywhere - what is the bitrate when doing HD 4:2:2 10bit external (over SDI or HDMI)? I would assume higher than the 35Mbps that it records in the MP4 4:2:0 8bit internal, but curious if I could get broadcast level (50Mbps+) for HD recording external.

No idea, I assume it's above 35mpbs. Would be surprising to get 422 10 bits footage with less than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, User said:

My two cents...

I shoot verite docs, so for me the C200's raw feature will pretty much never get used.

Aside from raw, Canon's ability to pack a decent amount of info into a lightweight file is exceptional.

For sure 4k is great for cropping, but who sees that extra resolution 6-10 feet back from the screen? I can easily push 125% into a C100MkII file with no major quality loss. Someone recently posted on a C100 to 4k up res that seemed decent enough.

For fun, though it could be true, I often think that the C100 MkII is the last camera I need to own as it ticks so many boxes. I'd consider a C300MkII, but will wait for the prices to drop and then take a look.

I'm assuming for 1080p, the C100MKII's 35Mbps MP4 is probably very similar in IQ to the C200's? They both do 4:2:0 8bit internal, and 4:2:2 10bit external, so probably yeah..In that case, you'd be looking at the C300MKII for the internal 4K or higher bitrate/10bit 1080p?

1 hour ago, OliKMIA said:

I don't have enough experience with this Camera to answer at this point. I think there is no miracle. This is 8 bits footage, even with great Canon color "science", there is less latitude in post. I'm receiving my C200 tomorrow and I will shot a couple of video and put them on this forum with an upload link for the community, including low light and "complicated" lighting.

No idea, I assume it's above 35mpbs. Would be surprising to get 422 10 bits footage with less than that.

True. Looking forward to the videos. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ghostwind said:

@IronFilm I have canon lenses, cameras (for stills), and I want AF. So it has to be Canon :) , for good or bad. They rightfully get bashed on the Internet for some things, but are great at others (AF and color being the main 2 for me). I can rent, but I've discussed my thoughts on that in a prior post. To rent indefinitely until a C300MK3 or whatever else may come along in 6mo-1yr could be costly. And from reading many posts from years past in this (and other) forum, people were always holding off, thinking not to buy because a new release would be around the corner, only to be proven wrong. So yeah, it's hard to predict.

@OliKMIA Thanks for all the details. Yeah, that's the million dollar question - how good to the 8bit files do in post, when shooting in less than ideal or controlled environments? I have to see this one, and for me, would mean renting and using it during an actual shoot, because I know from prior experience that I can never replicate all that goes into a shoot in my home or around it. On a real shoot I find out a TON more. But it's risky...I may end up renting one and just using it during an actual shoot when there's some downtime. I do also wonder if this C200 is really meant for people that want total control and the ability to shoot RAW. Everything else seems secondary, like a calculated afterthought. 

@kye My priorities are good/dependable AF, good IQ from the internal codecs, & form factor/ergonomics. I like to shoot handheld many times, and both felt very comfortable to use, either with the EVFs or the LCDs. Nice weight, balance, etc. C200 a tad nicer (a tad smaller/lighter, audio inputs on body,..), but either is fine. For AF, the C300MKII with the Touch Focus Kit is basically the same as the C200 in ability. So all that remains are the internal codecs. Which is no small thing...

An idea for consideration..  Rent a C200 for a real project but give yourself an extra day beforehand.  On the prep day get setup and familiar with it and shoot some side-by-side shots with the two codecs, partly to practice switching back and forth, and also to compare in post that evening.  Then on the day shoot a couple of takes of each shot with the 8-bit codec, then do the 'real' takes in RAW.  Use the 8-bit takes to practice your camera moves or whatever, which I'm sure you'd do anyway, in a sense you can just hit record on the 8-bit mode, do your setup and let the camera roll (they're low bitrate so storage wouldn't be an issue) then just hit stop when you're ready for a real take.

Then in post you can use the RAW ones to deliver for the client and not take any risk in delivering for your client, but you'll have gotten some real-world side-by-side comparison shots to play with in post, almost for free as you probably would have spent almost all the setup time doing stuff anyway.

The C100 was famous for having a low bitrate codec that looked a lot better than the bitrate would have suggested, so maybe the C200 is similar, but you'd have to test it in real life to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ghostwind said:

@IronFilm I have canon lenses, cameras (for stills), and I want AF. So it has to be Canon :) , for good or bad. They rightfully get bashed on the Internet for some things, but are great at others (AF and color being the main 2 for me).

Something to keep in mind is that you're coming from the pro stills world, and there isn't the same need/demand for AF in the pro film world.  Mannual focus or "lessor AF" might still be sufficient for your needs, especially if it means you're buying a camera which isn't crippled in every other area and/or waaaay overpriced. 

Additionally AF (even in "the best" AF systems, such as Canon, or recent Sony cameras. Or the Nikon Z series) is nowhere near like what you experience in top like DSLRs for stills. And there are lots of weird "gotchas" that Canon (which supposedly has "the best" AF) will throw at you even with their AF, such as perhaps only AF in the centre, or maybe now AF in 4K, or no good AF except with certain ones of the latest Canon lenses, etc etc (it various from Canon camera body to camera body, as to how Canon has chosen to cripple their AF system).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ghostwind said:

I'm assuming for 1080p, the C100MKII's 35Mbps MP4 is probably very similar in IQ to the C200's?

- Though I haven't compared them, I'd say so.

7 hours ago, ghostwind said:

They both do 4:2:0 8bit internal, and 4:2:2 10bit external, so probably yeah..In that case, you'd be looking at the C300MKII for the internal 4K or higher bitrate/10bit 1080p?

- Yep. 2K/HD 10/12-bit 4:4:4 up to 60fps is all I'd ever want for what I do. 4k for hire.

If you have the cash, just buy the C300MkII and you're good for the next 3 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ghostwind said:

I can rent, but I've discussed my thoughts on that in a prior post. To rent indefinitely until a C300MK3 or whatever else may come along in 6mo-1yr could be costly.


Renting vs buying doesn't have to be an all or nothing approach. 

You can do a mix of both buying and renting. (i.e. buying a cheaper camera, and sometimes renting the more expensive camera)

How often do you need need NEED a 4K camera? Once a week? Once a month? Once a season?

If you only need one once a season, then it is a no brainer to buy a C100 mk1 (or other similar / cheap 1080 /whatever camera) for your daily usage, and only rent something else when you need NEED it. 

If you need NEED a 4K camera every week, then it should be a no brainer to get a C200 / C300 mk2 / FS7 / FS5 / whatever which *is* 4K

In between, such as say if you need it just once a month, then it gets trickier which path to go down. And you need to crunch the specific numbers for yourself to see which way makes the most financial sense for you personally. 

 

1 hour ago, kye said:

An idea for consideration..  Rent a C200 for a real project but give yourself an extra day beforehand.  On the prep day get setup and familiar with it and shoot some side-by-side shots with the two codecs, partly to practice switching back and forth, and also to compare in post that evening.  Then on the day shoot a couple of takes of each shot with the 8-bit codec, then do the 'real' takes in RAW.  Use the 8-bit takes to practice your camera moves or whatever, which I'm sure you'd do anyway, in a sense you can just hit record on the 8-bit mode, do your setup and let the camera roll (they're low bitrate so storage wouldn't be an issue) then just hit stop when you're ready for a real take.

Then in post you can use the RAW ones to deliver for the client and not take any risk in delivering for your client, but you'll have gotten some real-world side-by-side comparison shots to play with in post, almost for free as you probably would have spent almost all the setup time doing stuff anyway.


That is a really good plan for him Kye!
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kye said:

An idea for consideration..  Rent a C200 for a real project but give yourself an extra day beforehand.  On the prep day get setup and familiar with it and shoot some side-by-side shots with the two codecs, partly to practice switching back and forth, and also to compare in post that evening.  Then on the day shoot a couple of takes of each shot with the 8-bit codec, then do the 'real' takes in RAW.  Use the 8-bit takes to practice your camera moves or whatever, which I'm sure you'd do anyway, in a sense you can just hit record on the 8-bit mode, do your setup and let the camera roll (they're low bitrate so storage wouldn't be an issue) then just hit stop when you're ready for a real take.

+1, I was able to test the C200 before buying one. It has a small learning curve and the exposure is different based on the profiles (WDR, Log, raw, etc.). Definitively need to do some test before shooting for real.

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Additionally AF (even in "the best" AF systems, such as Canon, or recent Sony cameras. Or the Nikon Z series) is nowhere near like what you experience in top like DSLRs for stills. And there are lots of weird "gotchas" that Canon (which supposedly has "the best" AF) will throw at you even with their AF, such as perhaps only AF in the centre, or maybe now AF in 4K, or no good AF except with certain ones of the latest Canon lenses, etc etc (it various from Canon camera body to camera body, as to how Canon has chosen to cripple their AF system).

 

Yes, the DPAF was important for me in my decision to go with Canon but it's not magical neither. Better than all the other Pro cam as this point but it still hunt and breathe in some situation or with older lenses and non canon lenses. But overall, that's a very useable, natural and fast AF system for that type of Camera. The C200 AF is more advanced than the one on the C100 and C300.

2 hours ago, User said:

If you have the cash, just buy the C300MkII and you're good for the next 3 years.

Unless you need 60p for slo-mo.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:


Renting vs buying doesn't have to be an all or nothing approach. 

You can do a mix of both buying and renting. (i.e. buying a cheaper camera, and sometimes renting the more expensive camera)

How often do you need need NEED a 4K camera? Once a week? Once a month? Once a season?

 

Depends of the use and if you can pay it back quickly. As for 4K, this is not really an issue anymore. I always shoot in 4k even to deliver 1080 footage unless the delivery requires it. 4k footage is not big on the C200 (150mbps like the GH5) and modern computer handle it well. So it's not going to fill up hard drive and create bottleneck on normal editing station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots to digest here and it's late. Thanks for all the feedback!I will think things over and reply tomorrow. Now I will go upstairs  and watch my new 4K UHD copy of Apocalypse Now, on my 65" OLED 4K LG TV, but running through an external 3D LUT box outputting at 1080p :) It looks better 1000x better, as Rec.709 is something all TVs can display and be calibrated for, while UHD Rec.2020/P3 is a mess on consumer displays :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, woke up in a fog - that 4K remaster from the OCN of Apocalypse Now is insanely clean and detailed. Highly recommended! Back on topic:

@kye Yes, I thought about that. But of course the RAW will trump the 8bit MP4. I just need to focus on the MP4 and how it stands up in grading.

@User Yes, the C300MKII's 2K RGB 4:4:4 12/10bit at around 225/210Mpbs should be spectacular and be plenty fine to upscale to 4K if needed, or as you say you can also shoot 4K for more pay! :) The fact that you can even output 4K RAW over SDI is a great option to have - the C300MKII has so many options. Damn Cfast cards pricey though...But yeah, how much better is the C300MKII's  2K RGB444 12/10bit over C200's 2K external YCC422 10bit?

@IronFilm Correct on the AF, but that face tracking, if as good as on the 1DXMKII, is a godsend for interviews and such at large apertures! Plus could work in other scenarios I can see, where zone focus may be also very hit or miss. But yeah, video AF is a tricky beast - how many racking speed algorithms/sensitivities can one have to replicate what an focus puller can do better? None.

@OliKMIA Is the C200 AF more advanced than the C300MKII? Any details how (other than it's newer)? I've been asking myself that. I know you can get the C200 touchscreen for the C300MKII now, but perhaps the internal AF is better in the C200, but curious how and if Canon has details.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have read the face tracking is not very good on the C200, especially in comparison with the 1dx. Object tracking is more reliable on the C200 but is a bit cumbersome as you have to program a button, press it and then select a target. You can't just touch the face on the screen and it tracks like on the 1dx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there, I've owned both C300 MKII and C200 so can give you my advice for what its worth. I know that the spec boys will have their opinions, but this is based mainly on real-world use.

I would almost certainly go for the C200.

The C300II's 12bit mode has no off-speed option (I think max 30fps?), so you may not really be able to use it that much if you record slo-mo regularly.

One workflow I use a bit is to treat the internal raw as an intermediate and transcode all of my rushes to 2k prores 4444.

I find that Resolve does an excellent job at this and is very quick. Leave it going overnight after your shoot and away you go. You could potentially delete your CRM files to free up hard drive space. I usually keep them so I can re-link for the grade.

Most of my work involves short takes so I use raw almost exclusively. However the 8 bit mp4 are very good and I would definitely use these if recording long interviews or events.

I'd say if you're jobs are half stills/half video then 2 or 3 256GB cfast cards should get you through. They're very quick to download if you have an external SSD hooked up to your laptop, so you should be able to cycle through them fairly easily.

I've also noticed less banding/artefacts in the C200 raw than in the C300II footage. The reason to go for the C300II would be features like genlock & timecode as well as the broadcast ready codec - which doesn't sound relevant for your work.

I wouldn't consider the C100 line unless you're strapped for cash. The newer generation of Cinema EOS are just a league above IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ghostwind said:

@OliKMIA Is the C200 AF more advanced than the C300MKII? Any details how (other than it's newer)? I've been asking myself that. I know you can get the C200 touchscreen for the C300MKII now, but perhaps the internal AF is better in the C200, but curious how and if Canon has details.

The C200 came out two years after the C300 mkII so I believe that the DPAF is more advanced on this one. Especially since it was designed with the touchscreen in mind unlike the C300 which came as an addition later on. But don't quote me on this, this is more a feeling than a checked fact.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...