Canon C200 vs Panasonic GH5, a preview

[Kisaha]

@ntblowz my impression is that the batteries are the same as the C300markII, not the C100 series (and C300markI). But I am not 100% sure.

It is good to have raw, C200 could be exactly the same camera, without raw, and the same pricing, and still being absolutely fantastic for what it is. Panasonic actually revealed a few specs from a camera that doesn't exist (or any footage of it) with paid raw, and costs the same money. For some people, with 2 cards (shoot one, empty the other) can do a lot of stuff.

No one would ever record a live performance, with raw (except for music documentaries of U2 or crazy rich project). Actually I do not know anyone doing a wedding in 10 bit, and people with very high budgeted weddings. A music video, a short film, a corporate maybe, green screen/CGI/After effects stuff, and internal. I think it is a great idea, if you don't pay for it (unlike Panasonic, that is!).

[fuzzynormal]

4 hours ago, tugela said:

If you need to transcode it first before you can do anything with it, does that not defeat the purpose somewhat?

There seems to be lots of oddities about RAW workflow (for me) that are counterintuitive and/or (as you say) self-defeating. 

[mercer]

16 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

There seems to be lots of oddities about RAW workflow (for me) that are counterintuitive and/or (as you say) self-defeating. 

It just depends on how much control you want or need in post over the image. Of course you can edit and color natively to get the most benefit of Raw, but converting to ProRes 4444 will still give you 12bit color and will be a more traditional post workflow. Just look at the hundreds of BMPCC videos online. Shoot Raw and convert to ProResHQ and it still looks better than natively shooting ProResHQ. IMO. 

[Turboguard]

So in what way will this ever be better than my blackmagic pocket or UM? 

[HockeyFan12]

23 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

There seems to be lots of oddities about RAW workflow (for me) that are counterintuitive and/or (as you say) self-defeating. 

I agree. Raw isn't an image. It's data. The data has to be converted to an image at some point. So there's nothing inherently better about waiting to do this until after you've shot. Doing this conversion in camera saves a ton of time. It isn't guaranteed to improve the image. 

The only substantive difference between raw and raster is that raw requires (or allows, depending on how you look at it) you to convert the footage on a PC. With raster the camera does it for you. In the case of an Alexa, the camera does it 99.9% as well as a PC. But there are still instances where maybe you get more flexibility in the raw developer, like with extreme white balance errors and extreme underexposure. In the case of a 5D Mark III, the camera does it maybe 20% as well lol. The raw video looks great, h264 looks... not that good. Even the JPEG stills from that camera (which many pros, at least sports shooters and photojournalists use, fwiw) look worse than their raw counterparts.

For stills I'll take raw. Looks better. Pretty fast to work with. For video, I'd rather have ProRes. I do think this is an issue with this camera. No middle ground. We need to see how good the internal codec is before passing judgement. It would still be my choice at the price point I think. I don't think the raw option will be that popular in use.

[mat33]

The easiest post-workflow I have experienced was dealing with cDNGs from my Digital Bolex -simple transfer to an external SSD on my Mac, editing them natively in Resolve was smooth, they didn't require much mucking about to get a very pleasing image, had great latitude, and being able to adjust white balance in post was great. If the C200 raw can have similar workflow and latitude then it will be great for many uses.  

[DBounce]

23 minutes ago, Turboguard said:

So in what way will this ever be better than my blackmagic pocket or UM? 

Low light for one... AF for two... I could go on,  but I'm sure you can think of a couple more. 

2 minutes ago, mat33 said:

The easiest post-workflow I have experienced was dealing with cDNGs from my Digital Bolex -simple transfer to an external SSD on my Mac, editing them natively in Resolve was smooth, they didn't require much mucking about to get a very pleasing image, had great latitude, and being able to adjust white balance in post was great. If the C200 raw can have similar workflow and latitude then it will be great for many uses.  

 Canon said they will have a free plugin for fcpx. So workflow should not be a problem by the time the  camera is out. 

[mercer]

12 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Low light for one... AF for two... I could go on,  but I'm sure you can think of a couple more. 

 Canon said they will have a free plugin for fcpx. So workflow should not be a problem by the time the  camera is out. 

Canon batteries are smaller than V Mount batteries. The whole camera is smaller and lighter. There won't be any need for IR filtration. Unlikely to have any magenta issues. With all that being said, the UM is a great camera and I predict the C200 will be as well.

[Fritz Pierre]

Ahhh... the pink elephant in the room with digital cameras is and always will be secure storage...and the task is expensive and in the case of say a film, storage is vast...redundancy has to be built in...and if done right, a DIT on set...at least one RAID  on set and another at the editing suite, plus an additional different back up system to hold all the footage backed off the RAID every day at the end of the shoot...so for anyone scoffing at the cost of the media to shoot RAW on, check out the cost of a couple of 32TB RAIDS....the one below has 8 drives...you can RAID 6 storage off 4 drives, so with good security you land up with16 TB of RAW storage...at 17,000 ...now do the math of how much footage you will land up shooting to finally land up with an edited feature of around 100 min...this of course does not include a recorder for additional backing onto to tape...runs you multiple $10,000s for just the read write drives alone...not including the cost of the tape...so with any of these systems it can be a bit like buying a used yet very beautiful Mercedes with the last of your savings and having nothing budgeted for maintaining it through the years, so it turns into a chicken coop....of course one could wing it...risk the moments and the time and the expense of the crew...and the time the actors give you...paid or for free...but if they move on to other projects...locations change or are no longer available...the short of it is, you do it properly and professionally...with a less data heavy codec/capture system and back everything up, as it should be.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/773921-REG/JMR_ELECTRONICS_EXTN_8_G4_32T_32TB_16_Bay_PCIe.html

[fuzzynormal]

3 hours ago, mat33 said:

The easiest post-workflow I have experienced was dealing with cDNGs from my Digital Bolex -simple transfer to an external SSD on my Mac, editing them natively in Resolve was smooth, they didn't require much mucking about to get a very pleasing image, had great latitude, and being able to adjust white balance in post was great. If the C200 raw can have similar workflow and latitude then it will be great for many uses.  

Resolve just didn't seem robust enough to handle doc film editing though.  Hoping the newer versions get there, but it felt under baked the last time I was on it.

 

[Batou Bato]

google translate 

"he who can do more can do less"  Unfortunately this is not the case here, as usual …Since the time we understood the lesson…

(Panasonic, sony, canon are a Japanese company that shares the market with well-established strategy, there is no competition between them

And the two new camera of canon and panasonic demonstrates it very well)

 

From this imposed logic, for me the C200 is the competitor of the RED  and not the PANA EVA 

When you buy a red it is for the RAW, It should be the same for the c200 

Generally the must used compression in REd is the redcod 5.1 in 4k it gives 30 min of video in a card of 128G
It's very very manageable for a fiction This is one of the great big advantage of red, the compressed RAW Redcode
The c200 record in 4K RAW " light " 15 min of video on a 128 card, is double! Of an RED.

The advantage of the c200 on the RED is the price ! (camera body and Recording  card media) Autofocus and canon optics , low light performance ,built-in ND Filter, Weight Size, ergonomie.

Unfortunately the c200 does not record in Raw 2K otherwise it could record 30 min of video on a card of 128G " Of course, It's cool to have the optional 4k :p "

I worked on movies participate in festivals such cannes Berlinale venise, all the projection are always in 2K even in cinemas at the distribution .
And many are waiting to go directly to the 8k, and will not invest in 4k DCP projectors

And I can tell you that the most important in an image is the color dynamic range and (Organic noise, if there is)
And the C200 canon She has this, "in theory"

  

[Trek of Joy]

8 hours ago, mercer said:

I said this a few days ago and I waivered a little bit yesterday but I think Canon really listened to the market here and once the FW update is released, early next year, this camera will be an all in one solution for many tasks. For your lower rent jobs, you have the 150mbps MP4, for the higher profile clients, you'll have the 302mbps XF-AVC (assuming they use the same as the XC10) and then for narrative, docs, and music videos you'll have Raw Lite. It seems like a great idea to me. Now even though I doubt I'll buy one, although I may rent it, I wouldn't need the full kit, so the 200B is even more appealing... 15 stops of DR at 12bit Raw with touch DPAF plus a plug in to edit natively in FCPX... all for $5999? I'm still surprised they even got this camera approved for production. 

+1

I'm thinking the same thing, this camera covers all the bases nice. And as we know from the c100, not all 8-bit footage is created equal. 

Really wish Canon used the same codecs in the 5d4 so we'd have a viable stills/4k b-cam option in the Canon ecosystem. Maybe the 90d gets 4k? The 70d got DPAF first IIRC, so there's an ever so slim chance. I'm looking to shoot a couple docs in the next year, this one ticks more boxes than any other camera in the price range.

[gt3rs]

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Dude, there are crews with an Alexa that shoot ProRes instead of raw.

Many Alexa operators shoot in PoRes 4444 with a data rate of 1'100 Mbits per second in UHD or ca 600 Mbits in 3.2k. The other argument would be is it better ProRes 4444 or RAW Lite but your article is about GH5 vs. C200 and unfortunately both cannot do ProRes.

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Why do you think internal raw is missing from the C300, FS7, FS5 and a bunch of other popular pro workhorses?

Because they are a bit older cameras, wanna bet that the C300 III will have RAW Lite?

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Storage in 2 or 3 years would be cheaper and cheaper and there will be 8-10 TB SSD for 500-600 USD...  

This is pure speculation!

If you call it speculation.... https://www.extremetech.com/computing/236260-samsung-plants-to-slash-ssd-prices-to-hard-drive-levels-by-2020

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

1 hour of footage = 512GB of CFast 2.0 media

It will be a top quality card as pros don't risk an entire day's shoot for the sake of saving a few quid.

And performance of the card will be a factor.

So you are talking £4900 of media to get you through just 7 hours of shooting, assuming you have one camera at the wedding / commercial / live event / interview. If it is two cameras double your costs to £10k.

 

I have 3 256 GB Lexar CFast card so I'm aware of the cost and I wrote in my post that at the end is budget issue and not a technical one.

It takes ca. 11 minutes to offload from my 256 CFast card to an SSD or RAID storage so you could work with 3 x 256 or 2 x 512 CFast.....

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's a big expense and hassle either way you look at it and it won't catch on, thus raw will not be mainstream with pros via the C200.

Time will tell but just don't underestimate the storage and computational progress

Again with this camera you will have 150 Mbits MP4 (will it be better or worst than GH5 at this data rate? who knows), with the firmware update 300 or 400 Mbits ALL-I and 1 Gbits RAW Lite... I don't really see where the problem is.

But I'm sure if the quality in RAW is there and an optimized workflow similar to RED Raw or Cinema DNG will be in place and at the moment is all to be proven, many C200 will use RAW more and more in the years to come.

 

[spinkscapes]

19 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

How are you going to store a year's worth of the original footage? I am genuinely intrigued.

I am not proposing to keep the original footage for a year.
I shoot weddings so I only need to retain the raw footage for 3 months tops.
Currently I convert my Blackmagic raw footage via Da Vinci Resolve and archive the rendered compressed video from that.

Thus, a 1TB wedding shoot becomes a 50GB archived folder.
I think that's pretty manageable to retain for 12 months.

[Jimmy]

It's not like this is the first ever raw camera.... Not really sure what the debate is here. You either work with raw like you would film (as we have with blackmagic, Canon ML etc)... you choose the 8 bit codec which will be great for most things (firmware version) or you use something like Atomos/Odyssey to capture raw to Prores 10bit.

Can't help but think that if it were Panasonic that had launched a camera with raw, this article would have a different tone.

 

 

[Django]

Well the absence of mid/high range codecs does seem a little odd on the C200 even though better codecs seem planned for next year..

It is great news to me though that Canon have included internal RAW recording. That along 4K, Touch screen, DPAF and improved ergonomics make this camera almost a no brainer.

I do think that it's competitors aren't so much mirrorless/DSLRs but Ursa Mini Pro, EVA1 & FS5/7 etc

Now about the RAW debate, it's true it's not for everyone or every project. The size & workflow are definitely hard to manage. I'll admit I seldom use ML Raw on my 5D3 even though it's footage & resolving power beats by far any of my other cams.. but that also has to do with ML Raw workflow which has added perks..

Even a show like Netflix's 13 reasons Why which was shot on Varicam35 that supports RAW was recorded in AVC-Intra 444 (12-bit) to handle decent file sizes, fast workflow yet deep grading capabilities.. YMMV

 

[Thpriest]

Can we not get the Canon C200 and the GH5 to have a love child which weighs the same as the GH5 and has 5 axis stab but has Canon look and ergonomics? Who's going to be first to leave the 2 cameras alone in a room together...

[gt3rs]

1 hour ago, Django said:

Well the absence of mid/high range codecs does seem a little odd on the C200 even though better codecs seem planned for next year..

It is great news to me though that Canon have included internal RAW recording. That along 4K, Touch screen, DPAF and improved ergonomics make this camera almost a no brainer.

I do think that it's competitors aren't so much mirrorless/DSLRs but Ursa Mini Pro, EVA1 & FS5/7 etc

Now about the RAW debate, it's true it's not for everyone or every project. The size & workflow are definitely hard to manage. I'll admit I seldom use ML Raw on my 5D3 even though it's footage & resolving power beats by far any of my other cams.. but that also has to do with ML Raw workflow which has added perks..

Even a show like Netflix's 13 reasons Why which was shot on Varicam35 that supports RAW was recorded in AVC-Intra 444 (12-bit) to handle decent file sizes, fast workflow yet deep grading capabilities.. YMMV

 

I agree with you with you and as reference the Varicam35 AVC-Intra 444 in 4k is around 750 Mbits in 444 24p and 940 Mbits in 422 60p not that far away from the 1000 Mbits of the C200... the C200 uses a compressed raw of 1:3 to 1:5 so it is more manageable than uncompressed RAW. The workflow is all to be seen and probably at the beginning will not be on pair to ProRes but in bitrate is there where most high end cinema camera are in ProRes or AVC.... of course this doesn't mean you will get the same quality out of a C200 as from an Alexa or Varicam.

[johnnymossville]

8 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Resolve just didn't seem robust enough to handle doc film editing though.  Hoping the newer versions get there, but it felt under baked the last time I was on it.

 

We just completed a 3hr/3part documentary here at work using Resolve.  It's definitely up to the job now.   There are still some issues, but overall it's there. 

 

Panasonic's color is now extremely close to Canon if you like the Canon look.  It's much harder to get Sonys to look like Canon.    I wouldn't hesitate to use a C200 and GH5 on the same shoot. 

[Batou Bato]

9 hours ago, Batou Bato said: