Jaime Valles

I hear you. However, the Sony FS5 costs $4750. The Sony A7sII costs $2600. Total for both: $7350. Those cameras are simply not in the same price bracket as the $7500 C200 (and that price doesn't include CFast cards for shooting raw). There's presumably a big quality difference between shooting on the FS5 at 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 and shooting on the C200 at 4K 12-bit raw. And if you're not going to shoot raw on the C200 because CFast cards are expensive, then why get it in the first place? Then there's the A7sII, which will require lots of rigging and peripherals (and different batteries than the FS5) to turn it into a usable video camera, and even then you can only shoot with it for a while before it overheats. That may be fine for some types of shoots, but when I'm on a job I need the camera to run 100% for the entire event non-stop. I'm all for people getting whatever cameras help them achieve their goals. If an FS5 and an A7SII works for your type of shooting, then great! I just think that picking a C200 as the A-cam means you've jumped into a much higher price bracket, and the B-cam is also going to have to be more expensive (unless you don't care about the difference in image quality and usability). A C200 + a C200B (with monitor) = approx. $14,000. That seems entirely reasonable for that level of camera. If you really want to go low, get a 5Dmk4 for $3300 as the B-cam, but then you're once again dealing with all the hassles of a camera that wasn't designed primarily for shooting video. Again, if it works for you, then go for it. But the C200 + 5Dmk4 = almost $11,000. At that point, you're probably better off spending a bit more money and getting the C200B + monitor as a B-cam and then you have two full-fledged video cameras that use the same accessories, batteries and peripherals, and none of the compromises of shooting on DSLRs. Exactly. Use whatever you can afford and deliver the content your client wants. The B-camera has absolutely nothing to do with cost. It has everything to do with shooting an alternate angle or B-roll while the A-cam is shooting the principal action. You can use whatever camera you want as a B-camera. It doesn't have to be less expensive than the A-cam. Right now, I shoot theatrical events with two C100 cameras. One is labeled A and the other one B. I get footage from both that match each other seamlessly and use all the same accessories. That's the ideal scenario. If you don't have the budget for two of the same camera, that doesn't mean the camera company did something wrong. It just means that camera is out of your budget. I'd love to shoot everything on two Panavision Millenium DXLs with Primo Artiste anamorphic lenses, but they're not in my budget, so I don't use them. Saying that Canon hasn't made a B-camera for the C200 makes no sense, especially because they did make it. It's called the C200B. If you can't afford it, that's perfectly fine. There are other cameras that are less expensive that would fit in your budget. Use those.

Yes, if you're going to do a lot of post-production pushing and stretching of the image, you certainly want at least 10-bit 4:2:2 footage. But that's not what the C100 camera is designed for. It shoots HD in 8-bit 4:2:0, and that's plenty for most uses of that camera, which require little or no color grading in post. Making a 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 C100mk3 would cater to exactly the same user base as the current C100mk2, most of whom are perfectly fine without 10-bit (myself included). Making it 10-bit 4:2:2 would mean turning it into a more expensive camera, and then you might as well get a C200.

Well, sure, but I'm thinking about what Canon would do, not what they could do. If they give this theoretical C100mk3 4K 10-bit 4:2:2. then nobody would buy the C200. Plus, the C100 cameras are designed for event shooting and fast turnaround, usually with little to no grading. 8-bit 4:2:0 is a perfectly reasonable compromise for that scenario. You shoot, you cut, you deliver. If you need more than that, then the C200 is available.

I think if your budget can only cover one C200 but not a second C200B as a B-cam then the C200 is too expensive for your budget in the first place. Why would you spend $7500 for the A-Cam but not be able to afford the $6000 B-cam? At that point, I'd instead recommend purchasing three GH5 cameras for $6000 and you're all set for a multi-camera shoot. The C200 is in a different league altogether, and a B-cam for that camera doesn't exist for less than $6000, nor should it. Look at the Alexa: I wouldn't tell someone to buy a $65,000 Alexa SXT as the A-cam and a $2000 GH5 as a B-cam because it doesn't make sense. The B-cam to the Alexa is an Alexa Mini or an Amira, both of which are around $40,000. The B-cam should be in the same ballpark as the A-cam in image quality, feature set, usability and price. The C200 is great, but it's not a replacement for the C100. It's a new line of camera that shoots raw 4K, and it's definitely expensive compared to the C100 line. I think Canon should also make a C100mk3 that doesn't shoot raw, and only does 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 to dual SD cards and sells for $3999. That's what you replace a C100 with. Hopefully Canon is listening.

I don't understand the issue. The C200 is the A cam, and the C200B is the B cam. That's only $13,500 for two incredible 4K RAW cameras with DPAF. They'll all match in color and lens selection and features. And if you need a C camera, then the XC10 at $2000 is great. How much cheaper do people want it to get? If the above is too expensive, you probably aren't in the market for a C200 anyway. Just get a couple of GH5 cameras and enjoy shooting 4K 10 bit 4:2:2.

Looks great, but I need Dual Pixel Auto Focus with touchscreen like the C200. That's the only thing that keeps me from getting the EVA1.

Man, the C200 looks to be the perfect camera for my needs. Raw to CFast for shooting indie narrative films with short takes that require heavy grading. MP4 for clients that need fast turnaround, long takes with small file sizes and no grading. And the touchscreen Dual Pixel AF is amazing. No need for external recorders or big V-lock batteries. All that for just $7500. This is exactly what I wanted as an upgrade from my C100. I'm saving up for one starting today.

Wow. That's... pretty bad. Rolling shutter is something I always research before buying a camera, and after seeing that link I'm glad I haven't gotten the 5D4. My 1DX2 is certainly expensive, but it does just fine with fast motion.

Premiere has been very good to me over the years, and I need Adobe CC for my work because, in addition to Premiere, Audition, Media Encoder and Encore, I also use Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Muse and Lightroom for my photo and graphic design projects. It's too good a deal for me to pass up, and the monthly subscription is all a tax write-off anyway. That said, once Resolve 14 is out of beta, I'd love to give it a whirl.

The swivel mount is a brilliant addition. Can't believe nobody else thought of that before. This looks mighty interesting...

Since it didn't pan out today, can you tell us about what you didn't hear at the party you didn't attend?

Well then, I stand corrected! Here's looking forward to tomorrow!

Has anyone heard any rumors about a C100 III? I'd love it if something got announced at NAB, but I feel there would have been some leaks here and there these past few weeks, no?

I just spoke with a technician at Canon. I told her that the 1DX Mark II should also receive the Canon Log upgrade. She was very nice and said she'd pass that along. You all should call, too. The number is 1-800-OK-CANON (1-800-652-2666). Select "Technical Support" to speak with a representative. Maybe if enough of us call them, they'll add Log to the 1DX II.

I was a die-hard professional Mac user for about 13 years. In 2015 I couldn't take the lack of proper video-editing hardware and finally switched to Windows. Best thing my business ever did.