Canon C200 and Panasonic rival camera to fight it out at CineGear Expo

[PannySVHS]

36 minutes ago, mercer said:

Why have plans to output 5.7K Raw when it isn't outputting any Raw at release? Give use some 2K Raw up to 72/96 FPS.

 

Bummer!

29 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Because 5.7K raw onto SD cards is pretty difficult.

And the external recorders need to catch up and support 5.7K raw from the EVA1, no point having it in the camera yet if you can't record it.

So I suspect they bumped it down the priorities list a bit to finish the rest of the spec, as camera development does run to a tight timeframe and they do need to ship at some point.

The main thing about the EVA1 is that the codec isn't crippled like the FS5 and C200. You are getting a much higher-end codec to rival the FS7 / C300 II in a camera which will be priced at the FS5 and C200 level with their sucky codecs.

The only thing the C200 has over the EVA1 is AF and CFast (for raw). The rest of the spec falls short. But we'll see what they are like in the real world and not just on paper.

 

Would 400mbit be enough for 2K raw at 24p? That would be about 2Megabyte per 2K frame. Should be enough regarding writing speed onto SD cards.

FS7 has only around 240mbps for internal 4K. On paper, with internal 2K Raw, the EVA1 aka Varicam Mini would be a lovely dream to dream about upgrading

from a Lumix G6. Without 2K Raw I will never be able to choose between this and the C200 and will have to stay a Lumix filmer

[mercer]

Well, it looks like the C200 is the better out of box deal.

[ade towell]

For you maybe...obviously depends what your needs are but for me spec wise the Panny is way ahead. I'd have to spend $1k to record 1 hour of 4k footage 10 bit footage with the Canon - that is prohibitive to me

Both great looking cameras though - exciting times

[mercer]

Yeah but you can just buy a GH5 and have your 10bit 400mbps for more than half the price of the Panny and get 5-axis. 

For 6 grand plus a $1000 in CFast cards, you're shooting 4K Raw up to 60p with 15 stops of DR. For $7500, you're getting the full C200 kit. Add a grand for media and you're still cheaper than the Panasonic once you add an evf and an external recorder to record the 5.7K Raw.

When all is said and done, the C200 is thousands cheaper and it has more DR.

But if you don't need or want the Raw and you need the 10bit in the cine form factor with Varicam colors... then yeah the Panny is the better choice. 

[ade towell]

Yes exactly I don't need RAW I need 4k10 bit.

For me the c200 wouldn't be thousands cheaper at all, and would probably have less dr as it's limited to 13 stops in 8 bit.

Don't yet know the Pannys full sensors capabilities but dual native iso and true vlog with v.gamut and Varicam colours are all hugely promising to me. Of course we need to see some footage before any of this is relevant

[spinkscapes]

I need DPAF and want raw, so my decision is made.

The Panasonic (on paper) looks good.

[mercer]

Makes sense. I've been shooting ML Raw for the past couple months, so with my small lens collection, the idea of 4K Raw with DPAF sounds pretty effing awesome. 

[jcs]

What's the RS on the EVA1 (or did I miss a global shutter announcement?  )? If the C200's RS is the same or better than the C300 II, that will be basically very little RS (C300 II is 8.33ms (Cinema5D reports 6ms)).

10 minutes ago, mercer said:

Makes sense. I've been shooting ML Raw for the past couple months, so with my small lens collection, the idea of 4K Raw with DPAF sounds pretty effing awesome. 

Wonder if ML RAW prompted Canon to put RAW in the C200...

[mercer]

2 minutes ago, jcs said:

What's the RS on the EVA1 (or did I miss a global shutter announcement?  )? If the C200's RS is the same or better than the C300 II, that will be basically very little RS (C300 II is 6ms).

Wonder if ML RAW prompted Canon to put RAW in the C200...

You know there may have been plans for a C100iii until a1ex broke the 4K Raw in the 5D3. Probably not, but I can't imagine they don't pay any attention to it. I think that was a brilliant decision on their part. 

[deezid]

7 minutes ago, jcs said:

What's the RS on the EVA1 (or did I miss a global shutter announcement?  )? If the C200's RS is the same or better than the C300 II, that will be basically very little RS (C300 II is 6ms).

Wonder if ML RAW prompted Canon to put RAW in the C200...

Maybe that's why I love the C300 MKII motion cadence so much. :D

[Kisaha]

I posted this elsewhere, but now I sense this is more appropriate for this thread.

Until the 2 cameras are out, and final specs and prices are set, Canon still can be a great option, this Panasonic isn't a C200 killer -if the rumored 8000$ stays.

The ND in Canon is 10 vs 6 here, it seems like Sony will be ahead of those for the next 3-5 years with their e-ND.

Internal Canon raw, even for 15minutes per 128GB is a thing, can't complain about it, better to have (ain't this right @mercer ). The Panasonic raw is rumored to be a paid upgrade in the feature (we certainly do not know, it seems possible for a company that sells log for 100$!), still I do not blame them, if it save the camera a 500$, but still..

Canon C cameras are no slouch in high ISO, maybe not native 5000, but certainly no problem to work with a similar number. We don't even know the base ISOs of this camera, it can be 800/3200, and 3200 is perfectly fine for C cameras.

The camera is still in development while people will have C200s in August or early September (and still in development, 5 months before its estimated release, is a bit worrying, it is not good to rush things).

Dual Pixel AF is something I want in my next camera. I have enjoyed using it occasionally with the Canon C100mkII, and I am hearing great things from C300mkII users. AF it is not a gimmick, and having a touch screen to choose AF on a less than 9999$ camera, it can be exactly what will make it more mainstream in video professionals.

240frames slow motion ain't even a thing for me, I have used 120(100)frames on my NX1 twice in the 2 years I own the camera, and a couple of times we have rented a FS700 for slow mo purposes in the last 3 years maybe. 60(50) frames is mandatory to have, 120(100) is perfect for most uses. I won't deny the Panasonic advantage, even for small bursts is a great feature, but I won't base my decision in this (while internal raw and Dual Pixel are huge!). That dramatic slow motion effect is over rated in my opinion and this is coming from someone that used to be a high speed camera operator for some time!

The price difference (8-7500$) is not that huge from the C200, while a JVC LS300 (that keeps mentioning here and for good reasons) is 2650$ (that is a competitive price! not even close in specs, but hold some aces into its sleeve as well, and for the price..). Panasonic should be closer to 5500$ to be competitive to Canon/Sony, not 7500$, and that shows something about how much a really competitive S35 professional video camera can cost. If Panasonic can't make it cheap (while selling a camcorder with a fixed lens at 4500$), and BlackMagic can't make it cheaper, then maybe it ain't possible (that goes to everyone complaining about C200 pricing).

Of course we have to address the elephant in the room, C200 has no middle codec. This Panasonic announcement will probably push Canon to announce in winter time a middling 10 bit codec I guess. While they still can sell cameras (Panasonic has no definite delivery time, while Canon has) and keep the C300mkII people silent for a few more months, but C200 (as the name indicates!) is the perfect "middling" tier camera, only that it isn't!

Fs5 mark II anyone?!

[HockeyFan12]

So far as I know, dual ISO just means that there are two ISO settings that use analogue gain. And the rest are arrived at with digital push/pull.

The Alexa, for instance, always has its analogue gain set the same. 400 ISO is cleaner but clips faster because it's the same footage just pulled digitally before being written as ProRes. 1600 ISO, likewise, is noisier but there's a stop more highlight detail. Etc.

The same is true of Red cameras. There is no option to boost the ISO except in post. But metadata is recorded and the image you view has the same digital push applied. However, apparently Red's sensors are the most advanced in the industry and are truly ISO invariant, so there would be no advantage to analogue gain if you're shooting raw. In theory. I find their sensors to be quite noisy but rather beautiful around 200-400 ISO.

Canon's cinema series has always used analogue gain from 850 ISO to 20,000 ISO. The +/- is the same excepting greater noise in the shadows. 320-800 is digitally pulled from 850 and above 20,000 I think is digitally pushed. I'm not sure about the third stop settings. Sony's F55 has a native ISO of 1250 I think? F5 is 2000 ISO. A7S 3200 ISO. Below that is a digital pull. I believe that above 3200 ISO is analogue gain, at least up to something absurd like 80,000 ISO. Despite Sony sensors being ISO invariant (no substantial read noise), they aren't recording RAW so I suppose this offers an advantage in terms of quickly getting the most tonality out of the camera. I'm not sure. 

dSLRs have analogue gain (Canon's sensors in particular have a ton of read noise and benefit from it; you all know you can't push a Canon still image too far in post) but I think the 1/3 stop in between whole-stop increments are achieved with digital push/pull, hence the fascination with 160 ISO back in the days... It was cleanest because it was a digital pull. And the issues with highlight tone priority (it was noisy, it's a digital push).

So while in practice, Panasonic's two gain settings should provide an advantage over digital push/pull... and from what I've heard they do (the only Varicam footage I've worked with was shot at low gain and it was as clean as you'd expect, very), in theory this is not an advantage over Sony or Canon's cinema cameras, or the Red. But for different reasons...

And theory and practice rarely align perfectly.   The low light setting is apparently REALLY good!

However I would not count on the Panasonic having an ISO advantage over Sony or Canon, only over Arri and Red. The A7S will still be champ, too. Its 5000 ISO setting is really really clean.

(And while I like the image from the F55 a lot better than I used to, at least now that they've advanced the SLOG3 matrix and gamma settings and now that I'm working with raw-squired footage, I still can't get into that camera or the F5. The system has improved a lot but I just can't get into the look of it or the gamma curve or ergonomics or workflow and chunky noise. It's capable but I never enjoyed working with it or any footage from it. Definitely doesn't feel like it's true 2000 ISO, either. Lots of shadow noise. Poor midtone tonality. Weird color. Weird menus. Just not a fan. The Kodak film emulation LUTs and the Alexa-like Sat v Lum settings improved the camera massively, but still not enough for it to be my preference. F65 footage is nice, though, same with F35, but I've never shot with them, only worked with them in post. Unless an FS5 Mk II is far far better than the F5 and F55 and FS7, I just couldn't get behind it when there are great looking options like these on the horizon. That's not to say Sony makes a bad product, just that... eh... IMO it's not a fun camera to use.)

[jcs]

23 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

So far as I know, dual ISO just means that there are two ISO settings that use analogue gain. And the rest are arrived at with digital push/pull.

The Alexa, for instance, always has its analogue gain set the same. 400 ISO is cleaner but clips faster because it's the same footage just pulled digitally before being written as ProRes. 1600 ISO, likewise, is noisier but there's a stop more highlight detail. Etc.

What makes the ALEV III sensor still competitive after all these years (and still the most actual, usable DR!) is simultaneous dual analog gain which gets merged into a single image. ARRI calls this simply a 'dual gain architecture' (vs. a fancy marketing name), http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/technology/arri_imaging_technology/alexas_sensor/. Along with hardware and software optimized for highlight roll off and overall film like look (from years of making film scanners), ARRI still has the best look. Sure, for some shots even a cell phone can 'match' an Alexa, however it's the tricky lighting situation where the Alexa will work and other cameras will have a tough time. Patents of course keep competitors at bay, and will continue until the patents expire or fundamentally new sensor technology is developed (so no need to replicate or work around a dual gain architecture).

Agree with your comments regarding Sony. We had an FS700- great camera for slomo, however when skintones are important, it was challenging to use (could look decent, but took a lot of post work). The A7S was also challenging for skin tones, however the A7S II is actually pretty good! And from what I've seen online, so is the A7R II and A9. It's pretty clear now that most (all?) Sony A series cameras can overheat, so that limits their usage. But for shorter takes we never had an overheating issue with the A7S II (only after 1.5hrs of continuous shooting did it shut down).

As one's experience with filmmaking grows, the less time we're willing to mess around with camera problems and weak color science. What's cool about RAW is as long as one sets exposure correctly, there's no need to worry about WB or picture styles/profiles. Any WB and any look can be achieved in post. Alexa's contain so much color information, that even 10- or 12-bit ProRes has a huge amount of latitude in post. We've found the C300 II in 'ARRI mode' shooting 10- or 12-bit XFAVC is also pretty flexible in post.

[squig]

The Varicam image is really nice, but the creative potential of DPAF and internal raw for $2k less makes the C200 a better option for film and doc work.

[HockeyFan12]

1 hour ago, jcs said:

What makes the ALEV III sensor still competitive after all these years (and still the most actual, usable DR!) is simultaneous dual analog gain which gets merged into a single image. ARRI calls this simply a 'dual gain architecture' (vs. a fancy marketing name), http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/technology/arri_imaging_technology/alexas_sensor/. Along with hardware and software optimized for highlight roll off and overall film like look (from years of making film scanners), ARRI still has the best look. Sure, for some shots even a cell phone can 'match' an Alexa, however it's the tricky lighting situation where the Alexa will work and other cameras will have a tough time. Patents of course keep competitors at bay, and will continue until the patents expire or fundamentally new sensor technology is developed (so no need to replicate or work around a dual gain architecture).

Agree with your comments regarding Sony. We had an FS700- great camera for slomo, however when skintones are important, it was challenging to use (could look decent, but took a lot of post work). The A7S was also challenging for skin tones, however the A7S II is actually pretty good! And from what I've seen online, so is the A7R II and A9. It's pretty clear now that most (all?) Sony A series cameras can overheat, so that limits their usage. But for shorter takes we never had an overheating issue with the A7S II (only after 1.5hrs of continuous shooting did it shut down).

As one's experience with filmmaking grows, the less time we're willing to mess around with camera problems and weak color science. What's cool about RAW is as long as one sets exposure correctly, there's no need to worry about WB or picture styles/profiles. Any WB and any look can be achieved in post. Alexa's contain so much color information, that even 10- or 12-bit ProRes has a huge amount of latitude in post. We've found the C300 II in 'ARRI mode' shooting 10- or 12-bit XFAVC is also pretty flexible in post.

Yep, the Alexa can't be beat. For many many many reasons. While its dual ISO mode and film-emulating code produces consistently the best tonality and by far the most dynamic range and flexibility (even in ProRes compared with other Camera's raw, and by far), its ISO is still effectively fixed and locked down, even if it's merged from two (fixed) signals.

I don't find it to be a good owner/op camera. Mini has ergonomic problems and is power-hungry. A lot like an Epic. Amira has awkward menus and is rather large. And if you can supervise the entire process yourself from shooting to grading you can get the most out of less capable cameras and get a close enough result. In Mad Max the 5D is constantly intercut with the Alexa, but the crew involved was crazy talented. The iPhone quote is very true but now consumer mirrorless or dSLR cameras can look amazing in the right hands even as an A camera. It's not worth upgrading unless you can afford the crew to support it or are making crazy money renting it out.

I'd argue that the C300 Mk II is arguably a better camera for owner/ops who can't afford a full crew (AF and battery life and built in NDs means no need for a minimum of of two ACs and good low light means less need for G&E in normally very costly night exteriors). But it is not quite in the same league in terms of highlight roll off. Nothing is. F35 is confusingly good though. :/

A7SII footage looks good to me but colorists tell me it's still pretty hard to work with. But it's a crazy impressive low light camera. Neither the Panny or Canon will match it in that respect and it simply trounces the high end there. 

[tugela]

5 hours ago, Kisaha said:

 

The price difference (8-7500$) is not that huge from the C200, while a JVC LS300 (that keeps mentioning here and for good reasons) is 2650$ (that is a competitive price! not even close in specs, but hold some aces into its sleeve as well, and for the price..). Panasonic should be closer to 5500$ to be competitive to Canon/Sony, not 7500$, and that shows something about how much a really competitive S35 professional video camera can cost. If Panasonic can't make it cheap (while selling a camcorder with a fixed lens at 4500$), and BlackMagic can't make it cheaper, then maybe it ain't possible (that goes to everyone complaining about C200 pricing).

 

For those cameras, pricing is not based on cost, it is based on what marketing has determined the target market would be willing to pay. That is why both companies come up with more or less the same number.

[Andrew Reid]

19 hours ago, mercer said:

Okay, that makes sense, but why announce future plans for 5.7K Raw and not export any Raw resolution at release? 2.5K Raw, up to 60 FPS, would make a lot of early adopters happy.

Assuming they put lower resolution RAW in there to SD card, that would also be a bad business decision as it would take away appetite for the full 5.7K to external recorder, making it less of a selling point, and the 2.5K spec would come up in reviews unfavourably vs the C200 which does the whole full 4K RAW to CFast thing.

I think Panasonic's only mistake is to not have a CFast slot on the EVA1, then they could have given us 4K RAW right from the start.

PS was that Mitch Gross doing the Panasonic presentation? I thought he worked for Convergent Design?

[jcs]

11 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

PS was that Mitch Gross doing the Panasonic presentation? I thought he worked for Convergent Design?

Mitch moved to Panasonic.