ghostwind

OK, so back to square one Really I want the best looking 2K/1080p that Canon has to offer today in its cinema line. And I want to shoot internally, so it will have to be with whatever codecs each camera can record internally. Is that C100MKII even though it's again a low bitrate codec, so not sure how it holds up in post in less than ideal run & gun situations? Is it the C200, shooting in 4K 4:2:0 8bit and down converting to 2K/1080p in Premiere? Or is it the C300MKII, shooting in 2K/1080P RGB444 12bit, or 4K and downsampling in Premiere? Which camera will offer the best 2K/1080p? The rest I can figure out (the clear benefits of all other features, value vs. cost, 4K itself, etc.). I guess answering this simple question is more complicated than I originally thought.

@IronFilm The AMIRA is very nice, but yes, way out of my price range, especially as you start adding even basic things to it. It's a bit on the heavier side too for handheld shooting. But yeah, for me the market is either $10K and under or $20K and up. And I'm in the $10K max. @mrtreve It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. It's happened to me on the 1DXMKII that I had a Cfast card fail, and I used the CF card backup. It's why I always shoot stills to dual cards. Not only that, but once I also damaged an SD in the 5DMKIV, as I was in a hurry to swap things out and they (SD cards) don't take a lot to get damaged. But again, I had a CF backup. And I read that with video it's even more temperamental, but yeah, to each his own. I just personally would never shoot to one card on a paid shoot, proxy files and all, unless I had the time to dump the data off the card to external storage on site. For sure the newer cameras have better overall image quality. I was purely talking about sharpness. All the Canons I've seen are very, very soft at 1080p. Surprisingly so. And it's not "organic" softness, it's something strange in how Canon is downsampling or whatever it is they are doing in camera. I did see C100MKII 1080p and in comparison it's way sharper, in a good, natural way. I meant future proof in terms of yes, being able to take nice images for years, but really in terms of it being more flexible, allowing me to try new things down the road that the C200 can't do. So for me it's more future proof in that way if you get what I mean. I also don't believe clients will be asking for more than 4K in the next 5 years. The C300MKII is more of a generalist that can excel in many areas (external RAW for example) while the C200 is more of a specialist. So the C200 seems more limiting to me, unless you know you will shoot RAW 75%+ of the time, or are OK with the internal codecs because they satisfy your post. CRL I'm sure is very nice and the future, but the required storage and workflow is not for everyone. The C500MKII is very nice with the modular design, FF sensor, CFexpress dual cards, etc. But 6K? 2g/s CRL? For onsite data dumping, I can see it of course. For a single person shooting, not so much. All this data and more resolution reminds me of the DSLR megapixel wars, that have pretty much plateaued now. At some point it will happen with cinema cameras too. Give more more DR, and all the other things instead.

Yes. I’ll get two I’m all anal now, but once I get the camera (whichever it will be), I’ll forget all this stuff and just shoot. Still leaning towards the C300MKII, just because it’s a lot more versatile. So for me, that means more future proof in terms of what I can and will shoot. I think it will give me more options and allow for more flexibility. That’s more important to me than if it’s slightly worse in one area than the C200 or another camera. Not that it really is overall.

Some interesting points. But around 30min/256GB card, is not exactly ideal. 3x256GB cards (with a single point of failure instead of writing to dual cards simultaneously) is also just 90min total time, which is not a lot of footage, but a lot of data. Again, I could see this on personal or unique projects, but I need more time than that. Interestingly enough, after some more research, it seems the cleanest and sharpest 1080p comes from the C100s and the original C300, where it was/is a clean downsample off the 4K sensor. With the C200/C300MKII, seems the 1080p is softer with some aliasing, so it’s better to shoot in 4K and downsample in post to get the best 1080p. Canon did something different apparently.

I’m not sure I understand. You’re saying that when externally recording is the C200’s SDI our, DPAF is disabled? Sounds very strange.

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.

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

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? True. Looking forward to the videos. Thanks!

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.

@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...

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...

@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!

Currently did a corporate promo video that will be on the company's website and social media (healthcare company). In the future, more of those (corporate videos) + sports/marketing videos for universities, branding, and even small events. My stills work is in branding, lifestyle, and sports photography, and I'm being asked more and more to do video alongside the stills. In addition, I want to expand to do some documentary work as well as some personal projects.

This is true, and I've thought about it as well - renting as needed / when the time comes. The problem is that I like to be very familiar with my gear and not think about it during a shoot, and this familiarity comes from using the same gear a lot. Buttons, menu layouts, etc., should become muscle memory, and I don't want to be fumbling around looking for this or that button, or this menu item, etc. during a paid shoot. Renting at the time of the shoot (even a few days before at an extra cost) puts me in a position to have to learn a new piece of equipment on the job pretty much, which is not good from my experience. Though the C100/200/300 are pretty similar, there are some key differences in form factors, button layouts, menus, and workflow. So that's the downside in looking at it. I'm not looking to get a ton of gear, I'm very minimalistic in fact. I'm looking to get the right piece of gear that I can use for quite some time - a few years, as I do with my photo cameras. Usually, in my experience, this does mean investing a bit more up front in more of the middle to high tier of gear. If I get a C100MK2, it's already paid for from my current shoot which I invested zero capital in as I used my 3yo DSLRs. One more shoot, and the C200 is paid for - heck, even a C300MK2 will be just about paid for. The math is not hard - one more shoot and I can get the C300MK2 pretty much. The question is do I *need* a C300MK2 (or a C200)? I like to keep it simple and not have stuff I'll never use. That's why I started out with the DSLRs and then by looking at the cheapest option (C100MKII). The question again is will I need a C200 (or even C300MK2)? This translates to - do I anticipate having to shoot in 4K 2-3 times in the next 3-4 years? That's all it takes, even less as I was saying to justify the more expensive camera. What's the probability of having to shoot in 4K? Probably pretty high in the next few years. If I get a C100MK2 now, then a C200/300 in 6 months, then I lose on the purchase of the C100MK2 any way you cut it. Or if I keep it, then I will have too much gear! I see one can go nuts with these cameras, rigging them up, adding this and that, etc. A bit overwhelming, and I would just get the basic package, regardless of camera I get, and only add accessories as / if the need arises. It is easy to watch some video or read a review and think you may need this or that, but the need will only arise from within if you know what I mean. So yeah, it's not easy, and you make good points which do make me think. And I'm taking my time. All feedback is good

After some more thinking, I'm now leaning more towards the C200. Not that I see a real need to deliver 4K, but because I worry some clients may ask for it, even if they don't need it. They may think they need it and want it, and if I can't offer it to them, then I'm stuck if I get the C100MKII. I would have to use my 1DXMKII/5DMKIV for 4K if they want it, but then yeah, back to huge MJPEG files, inconsistent crop factors, and using DSLR bodies instead of a dedicated video camera system. With the C200 I can just shoot UHD 150Mpbs/4:2:0 8bit internal to redundant SD cards (or UHD 4:2:2 8bit external / HD 4:2:2 10bit external if that gives me higher bitrates to work with in post - not sure how much higher they would be over HDMI than 150Mpbs and if worth it / visible difference). And yeah, I can use the RAW for personal projects, as that gets crazy expensive with the CFast cards. The added bonus is the better DPAF in the C200 (touch, face tracking, etc. - similar to my 1DX/5D), better screen, & better EVF. It's not cheap by any means, but the alternatives (Panasonic, Sony, BM, which do 4:2:2 4K 10bit+) I think would be harder to match with my DSLRs in terms of look/color/etc. It's hard - I'm not in love with the C200, but if I need 4K, it checks the box. C200 is about as large a body as I would want, because I want to handhold, move around, etc. C300, even if I could afford it is a bit on the heavy/larger size.

Any thoughts on using a Atomos Ninja V recorder with the C100MK2? The monitor should help outdoors, but will the HDMI out of the C100 produce a noticeably better file than the 4:2:0 8bit internal codecs? Will it do 4:2:2 and be noticeable?

Thanks for all the replies. I have a very good tripod with a nice video head, lights, etc. @Geoff CB And I'm OK with the S35 crop @thephoenix. I'm also OK with waiting a bit to see how things play out, but if I get more work, I need to get something that's easier to work with now, not in 6 months (or whenever Canon decides to release something worth buying). I did a small shoot for a client last week, and I shot in 4K MJPEG, spent forever in Premiere working with it, and then delivered in 1080p. Only because the internal 1080p is very soft for whatever reason. So that's why something like a C100MKII seems appealing, as it shoots in 4K and down converts to 1080p = fantastic 1080p straight out, without massive storage needs + extra processing time. Plus the body is more suited to filming. But yes, for sure there are some other options out there as @kye mentions. I would like the new camera to be the main one, and the DSLRs to be the backups/b-cams. It would be easier to match colors/C-Log this way. I do think the Canon colors are lovely, especially from the 5DMKIV which has C-Log, as the 1DXMKII doesn't. I prefer the smaller crop of the 1DX, but shot with the 5D because of C-Log. One thing I should get regardless, is the Atomos Ninja V, because it will save me time. I can shoot in 4K and output in 1080p over HDMI to it, and save myself all the conversion I would do manually in post . It would have saved me time last week had I had the foresight to get it...! I used a Small HD Focus 5" monitor instead, but recorded internal 4K as I described above. I'll get the Ninja V this week, as that should be future proof as well. And I'll look around and keep reading. I think Canon has announced all that they will for a while now, with the 90D, M6II, and the C500MKII. So it will be next spring or later when they may announce something else. And I feel they need to update the C200 first before they can do the C100. Who knows about the DSLRs, but I'll get the 1DXMKIII if it comes out, mirrorless or not for my stills work. I'd be surprised if they come out with a pro R body as good as that, but you never know. They may come out with something like a 5D-like R first. It's sort of strange the way they are pushing out the RF lenses (which look outstanding), but have consumer bodies. I would have thought it be done the other way around. Also strange how the C500MKII to be announced next week doesn't take RF lenses. Hmm...

Thanks for all the replies. I have a very good tripod with a nice video head, lights, etc. @Geoff CB And I'm OK with the S35 crop @thephoenix. I'm also OK with waiting a bit to see how things play out, but if I get more work, I need to get something that's easier to work with now, not in 6 months (or whenever Canon decides to release something worth buying). I did a small shoot for a client last week, and I shot in 4K MJPEG, spent forever in Premiere working with it, and then delivered in 1080p. Only because the internal 1080p is very soft for whatever reason. So that's why something like a C100MKII seems appealing, as it shoots in 4K and down converts to 1080p = fantastic 1080p straight out, without massive storage needs + extra processing time. Plus the body is more suited to filming. But yes, for sure there are some other options out there as @kye mentions. I would like the new camera to be the main one, and the DSLRs to be the backups/b-cams. It would be easier to match colors/C-Log this way. I do think the Canon colors are lovely, especially from the 5DMKIV which has C-Log, as the 1DXMKII doesn't. I prefer the smaller crop of the 1DX, but shot with the 5D because of C-Log. One thing I should get regardless, is the Atomos Ninja V, because it will save me time. I can shoot in 4K and output in 1080p over HDMI to it, and save myself all the conversion I would do manually in post . It would have saved me time last week had I had the foresight to get it...! I used a Small HD Focus 5" monitor instead, but recorded internal 4K as I described above. I'll get the Ninja V this week, as that should be future proof as well. And I'll look around and keep reading. I think Canon has announced all that they will for a while now, with the 90D, M6II, and the C500MKII. So it will be next spring or later when they may announce something else. And I feel they need to update the C200 first before they can do the C100. Who knows about the DSLRs, but I'll get the 1DXMKIII if it comes out, mirrorless or not for my stills work. I'd be surprised if they come out with a pro R body as good as that, but you never know. They may come out with something like a 5D-like R first. It's sort of strange the way they are pushing out the RF lenses (which look outstanding), but have consumer bodies. I would have thought it be done the other way around. Also strange how the C500MKII to be announced next week doesn't take RF lenses. Hmm...

Hello! I'm a professional sports, branding, & lifestyle photographer, and up until a month ago I hadn't given video much thought (none in fact). I was strictly stills for years, but more recently I've had requests from a few clients asking for some video work. So I started looking, reading, watching YouTube videos, etc. to learn what's being used, what is good, what is bad, codecs, gear, fps, 4K or not, etc. And I have a headache Let me list what gear I currently have and use for my stills work: - Canon 1DXMKII, Canon 5DMKIV, Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III, Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, Canon EF 85mm f/1.8, and Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II + 1.4x III Extender So as you can see, I'm heavily vested in Canon bodies and more so glass. Back when I got the 1DXMKII and 5DMKIV (3 years ago when they came out), I didn't even look at the video specs on either, as I didn't care. They were (and still are) the best cameras for what I did/still do. After reading about video, I started to look at what my current cameras could do, and that's how I ended up on this forum. I played around with them both in 4K and 1080p, figured out the details, etc. But now, going forward, I need some advice. Yes, they are still the best Canon video DSLRs, but I'm wondering if I should get something else for video work. Something that works with my EF lenses so I don't need new glass. What do I want? Very good 1080p. I can get FF 1080p with both the 1DXMKII and 5DMKIV now (full hd), but it looks somewhat soft. I can shoot in 4K on both, but then I have differing crop factors between my 2 DSLRs (1.3x and 1.74x) to deal with and the MJPEG codec is huge. For sure shooting in 4K and downconverting to 1080p in post gives a nicer 1080p, but I want something simpler/faster. I can't find out what they do if I shoot in 4K and record out over HDMI on both of them. Would they both produce better looking 1080p, similar to what the C100 does for example (e.g. shoots in 4K, but down converts to 1080p internally)? If so that would be good, but I would still have the crop factor to consider...So one option is the C100MKII for $3000. In theory this should have the best 1080p, though it's S35 not FF. C200 is another option, but not as much a "bargain" as the C100MKII. I would rarely user the raw light, so I would have to be content with the 4K codecs, which seem to be on the low end from reading things. And it's $6500. Non Canon options seem to be all over the place, and a bit confusing to me for now. I can build a BM rig, a Panasonic rig, etc., but not sure what's simplest for run/gun, tripod/gimbal/handheld, 1 person crew shooting. The EOS Cinema seem very appealing and simple to use in these ways. Also the DPAF is important. I know this is a lengthy post for a first post, but any thoughts are welcome.