webrunner5

This is from Newshooter. Review of the C200. "The Cinema RAW Light files can only be recorded in 4KDCI and not in UHD, 2KDCI or HD resolutions. A 128GB CFast2.0 card which costs around $350 US will only allow you to record 15 minutes of material. If you want to do extended takes or record all of your material in RAW then you are going to need a lot of CFast2.0 cards– that’s going to cost you a significant amount of money. You also need to take into account the data storage you will need and how long it will take to process and deal with the RAW files." Two problems I see. First: There is Only one CFast slot. That means every 15 minutes, or if you can afford a 256gb one, every half hour you HAVE to stop and change a card. They needed 2 CFast slots on it. Second: The BBC has their minimum requirement of 50Mbps for content with them. The lower Codec is 35 Mbps (1920 x 1080). On paper you can't even shoot a Documentary with this camera and satisfy the BBC. So if you are a run and gun guy, Doc shooter, a Interview person you are either stopping every damn 15 minutes, or shooting in a Codec that you can't use at a broadcast standard. That is the Damn problem with no Middle Codec.

Yea I saw that awhile ago. Great comparison. Damn it if Canon would just get off their ass and put a 10 bit middle Codec in the C200 I think it is the no brainer camera to have.

Well you are telling that to a person that in reality thinks even 4k is Over the Top! Only 4k I really like is out of a 1DC. And that is because Canon's are sort of soft and have sort of muted colors. It works in 4k, not so hot in 1080p. Now the down sampled C100, 300's OOC look good in 1080p.

Oh Boy this could get interesting! https://***URL removed***/news/6922446402/canon-patents-innovative-lens-adapter-with-built-in-electronic-nd-filter

Then why have we hardly Ever heard of it, seen it on movie after movie, have people on here just raving about it, proving it video after video? I am mystified that it is sort of not mentioned really at all, when it is That cheap, possibly great, Why? It has been out, hmm. The video above is really nice until it gets to the end of the shot of the wall, and I just can't place what to say, it just looks lifeless to me, 2D looking, I just can't pin it down. The rest of it looks damn good, even sort of great.

Speaking of comparisons, I just happen to have one. Talk about baked in, well this sort of proves the point good or bad. Same color science in the bigger models as these consumer cameras. Canon is Canon no matter the price colors wise. etc.

I don't know what the answer is though. I have to admit the things I have seen on my Note 8 are pretty breath taking. But, but in reality it is over the top from hell. I am not too sure I want to be just bombarded with colors, detail, DR out the ass! I think it may get old and and get old damn fast. And hell I am old, with one good eye, that I am sure is a bit gimpy from age and to me, it is well too crazy good. What the heck is it to someone that is 16 years old! I am sure it is not a bad thing overall but will it be a relaxing, soothing, really enjoyable experience or you see it and your blood pressure is up 30 points, you need to pee, and maybe need to rest for 10 minutes! I just remember back in the day of Technicolor compared to a great B&W movie, both were great but I still remember the B&W as being more rewarding, a lasting memory, an almost spiritualistic experience than the in my Face Techno blast from hell. I am sure the Technicolor stuff was more more fast paced stuff maybe compared to B&W Drama, Scary movie stuff, hell I don't know. But I think I can see me tiring of HDR in a pretty short time. I doubt it will be some everlasting memory of something spiritual. Maybe we have come Too Far? It is sort of like IMAX for TV. Talk about over the top!! Clown, Cartoon colors with music set on 11, 120' wide screen, Christ gives me the F ing he be gee bees to even think about it.

Yeah I have a t5i and they got their moneys worth out of that sensor LoL. I think they just want to protect the 5D mk IV and the Pro C series stuff. But hell I think, like you think, it is a crazy way to run a railroad in this day and age.

Well Since I would Never be able to afford to buy a Canon C500 sort of moot points LoL.

I don't see what is wrong with the 80D you tested here at the end compared to the 1DC softness wise. And surely it would weight less. And to have DPAF, seems like a winner to me. Trouble is you have to have both. No 4k in the 80D is just stupid on Canon's part in this day and age. https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrC5pZ2ZWtaczUAzts0nIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBncGdyMzQ0BHNlYwNzZWFyY2gEdnRpZAM-;_ Interesting that you can do a 4k time lapse on a 80D though. A damn good looking one at that!

I really doubt all the people that have bought the later Sony A7 series cameras just don''t give a crap about color output. They Have gotten better. I have a Sony RX10 and it has the dreaded, "Gee everything is dull Green" look to it. And I'll be damned if you really can get rid of it. But Sony, Like Panasonic have both gotten better lately. Canon is still Canon, like them or not. If you like Orange Reds you are in business. But for people shots they are the way to go.

Well I will sleep peacefully tonight knowing it is total completeness. I ought to kick HockeyFan12 for ever bringing it up!

Hell I didn't write the article, I just used the quote in the piece. Take it up with No Film School LoL. It doesn't appear you believe the article anyways.I Really doubt the difference is night and day.

A RED epic dragon is probably Not the camera to be shooting with to get a" soft, washed out look" with LoL. I guess you could try one of those Tiffen Promist Filters on a lens.

"due to the fact that his testing revealed that the color depth and latitude were slightly higher in 2K." That is his quote. I guess I would take that when sort of Only the best you can do is what you are trying to do. Are you going to say ehh 4k looks worse so lets go that way? I would imagine up on a 50' screen Any difference is noticeable, especially to the person that shot it. You might not notice it, but that is why people like him are successful is they go for every last ounce, and someone else would just go the way everyone else does. I have seen some 1080p look better than some 4k on the web and out of certain cameras. I guess if I was into 4k I would be looking for a better 4k camera LoL. But maybe some people think just because it is in 4k hell it HAS to be great. I think that is the story above. And take nothing for granted is the take away. But that takes time and money, and the average person has neither.

I am not talking stills at all, I am talking Video! Hell I could give a rats ass about specs. I want to see beautiful Color Science. There is nothing much better looking than D750 colors wise. I like it better than the Canon 5D mk IV colors wise. That is why the BMPCC is in my list. It is a total turd to shoot. But it is about as good as it gets output wise. Calling all those Panasonic cameras you had listed Cine looking, beautiful outputs, ehh I don't think so. Maybe the GH5s, GH2 hacked. And the AF on a EVA1 is even worse than the GH5. Same AF that was on my AF100A, WTH. A Canon 5D mk III using ML not on a list? Wow, Glenn ain't liking that, me either. OK I will give you most of the Panny cameras have better video Specs on your list, doesn't mean I am going to use one. I have No Panny cameras left right now, no m4/3 at all, and other than Maybe a GH5s, none in my sights. I gave up on specs for what I need. I want to see stuff that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Canon 1DC 4k stuff. Canon C300 1080p, that kind of stuff. Now if I was going to try and make a living doing it, that can change. Probably would be a Canon C300 mk II in there someplace just because of the DPAF. Yeah I do like the EVA1 other than the AF stuff. Not that sold on the C200 enough without knowing the middle Codec yet. And knowing Canon probably will be disappointed. Can't afford one anyways, or a C300 mk II LoL.

Hmm have you ever thought about a JVC LS300? Not too sure about the durability of it but man it has a great output, and amazingly versatile lens mount.

I just don't think there is going to be to much improvement in the low end sector of Camcorders anymore. I would not be surprised many people buy them at all now. The Panasonic HC-X1 does look like a nice way to go also. I can see some good headway on them in that price range because that is what a Lot of TV stations are using for ENG work on interviews now. They are not using them at big events, they still are using Full sized ones with B4 lenses on them. Probably very few people on here really use smaller camcorders. Unless you need the reach lens wise, or are backpacking like I am sure you do, they are not much in favor now. But you sure do have some nice stuff on your You Tube link. Man I feel guilty wanting a Alexa LoL.

Ehh other people beside Panasonic make cameras LoL. You can buy a A7r mk II now for what a GH5s cost. Not a better camera specs wise but a pretty damn good camera. A6500 is about as good as it gets for 4k. 1080p well... I think I would take a Nikon D750 over the mid-low. Low has to include a BMPCC. Heck a BMCC has to be in there someplace. Used Ursa Mini 4k. We really have a lot of choices now. I would take a 1DC for the cost of a GH5 for 4k. I like the GH5 1080p better than the 1DC I think.

Yeah but is a Panasonic Varicam LT that much different than a EVA1 for the average person now?? I just don't see the advantage to go twice the price especially when the Raw comes out for the EVA1.

I would agree with the EVA1. Probably the camera I would go with right now, but man the Sony FS7 MK II is tempting also. Sony color science has gotten better as of late. No no Red for me, Nada. I find the Canon C200 just, well without the 10 bit mid thing I think it is not going to be in as much stuff as a EVA1 to be honest. Average person is not going to shoot Raw for a movie. They can't afford the media or storage. That is the 1DC's problem with me. Beautiful camera though. I still think we are short changing the Panny GH5s on here. I don't see why a person can't make a heck of a short with it. Hell why not a movie with 3 of them. I see nothing really missing in it other than AF. And who really uses AF in a big time movie. Not many people Yet.

Oh come on I spent years handling 22 to 25 pound ENG cameras, weight is not a big problem. But I am not a small person. I say it is a benefit for stability. You don't need a crew if you are using fast F stops. Not everything is snap focus. There ain't one damn more thing on a Arri Alexa than there was on ENG cameras I used years ago. I didn't have a Crew to help me. Hell there was damn near that much stuff on the AF100A I had. All Cine cameras a complicated as hell you know that .Any of these Cine cameras are big geared out. Hell look how big Jon's rig is for a damn GH5. You are not going to make many movies with a striped down LX100 bare.

I kind of like the Sony PXW-Z150 4K XDCAM Camcorder but it is not cheap. And it lacks S Lug, or it did . But I think the newer 1" sensosr is the way to go now on Camcorders.

https://nofilmschool.com/2014/01/dp-rodrigo-prieto-reveals-why-color-is-king-in-canon-c500-promo

But I can see why people are interested in a Kinefity. They are pretty cheap price wise. When I was looking at buying something big time years ago no way could I afford a Alexa, or even a C300 when it first came out. So Kinefity. AJA, BM are tempting. They are sort of affordable. And if you are dead set on 4k I guess you don't have much choice. None of the old stuff is 4k other than Red. And well enough said about affording a total Red kit. There always is the Canon 1DC. Media cost more than the camera but..