The other issue with the C200

[Jaime Valles]

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.

[Thpriest]

For many people paying 8000€ is a lot of money and a B cam would need to be a lot cheaper. Many budgets can't justify 2 C200s although 1 of them would be great. I think that if the XC10 had a wider and faster lens it could well be a B/C cam but the lack of width and speed hold it back for some event and live work. I'd like a C100mk3 that was more like a XC10 in weight and size with light 4k files internally but I doubt it will happen!

I have a C100 and it's been a great camera but like many I'm not really sure where to turn to next.

[Jaime Valles]

1 hour ago, Thpriest said:

For many people paying 8000€ is a lot of money and a B cam would need to be a lot cheaper. Many budgets can't justify 2 C200s although 1 of them would be great.

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.

1 hour ago, Thpriest said:

I'd like a C100mk3 that was more like a XC10 in weight and size with light 4k files internally but I doubt it will happen!

I have a C100 and it's been a great camera but like many I'm not really sure where to turn to next.

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.

[DBounce]

19 minutes ago, Jaime Valles said:

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.

Should be 10 bit minimum in 2017.

[Jaime Valles]

3 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Should be 10 bit minimum in 2017.

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.

[mercer]

I just read that the human eye cannot perceive anything over 8bit... is that true? If so, I still see the benefit of it for professional colorists, but for the novice, a light grade in 8bit should be more than enough. I also understand why Panasonic gave 10bit because they needed that internal Log to compete with Sony. Since Panny's implementation of VLog with the GH4 was disastrous for anybody who only used it internally, 10bit was necessary. And cLog was designed with 8bit color in mind. I would think the 4:22 aspect is more important than the 10bit?

[Thpriest]

47 minutes ago, Jaime Valles said:

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.

A 4k 50p C100mk3 would be great with at least 120 slomo.

As far as budgets go markets in different parts of the world are very different. After experimenting a bit with the Lumix line I can see the attraction of a lightweight camera with IBIS but the images I can get out of my C100 are much nicer IMHO and I'm not sure they really can replace the C line from Canon as the Canons are so well designed for getting the job done. Now a C100mk3 at 4000€ as a B cam to the C200....hmmm.

The ideal system would be:  

 A cam C700, B cam C300/200, C cam XC10/C100mk3

or

A cam C300, B cam C200/C100mk3, C cam XC10/C100(mk1 or 2)

or 

A cam C200, B cam C100mk3, C cam XC10/C100(mk1 or 2)

or

A cam C100mk3, B cam XC10/C100(mk1 or 2)

All depending on your budget and what you shoot. This way you'd have a clear route to upgrade or downgrade.

 

[cpc]

36 minutes ago, mercer said:

I just read that the human eye cannot perceive anything over 8bit... is that true? If so, I still see the benefit of it for professional colorists, but for the novice, a light grade in 8bit should be more than enough. I also understand why Panasonic gave 10bit because they needed that internal Log to compete with Sony. Since Panny's implementation of VLog with the GH4 was disastrous for anybody who only used it internally, 10bit was necessary. And cLog was designed with 8bit color in mind. I would think the 4:22 aspect is more important than the 10bit?

The human eye does not perceive bits so such a claim makes no sense by itself. The necessary precision depends on many factors. There are multiple experiments on the tonal resolution of the eye. Perhaps the most applicable are the ones done during the research and setup of the digital cinema specifications, which determined that for movie theater viewing conditions and for the typical tonal curves dialed in by film colorists during the DI process and for the encoding gamma of the digital cinema spec (2.6 power gamma), you'd need around 11 bits to avoid noticeable posterization/banding artifacts after discretization (seen in gradients in the darks, by the way). This was rounded up to 12 bits in the actual specification. In an office viewing environment (brighter environments) you can do fine with less precision.

This is about delivery though -- meant for images for display. You'd usually need more tonal precision when you capture an image, because it needs to withstand the abuse -- pushing and stretching -- of post production. The precision will mostly depend on transfer curves -- you need relatively more for linear images, and relatively less for logarithmic images. With today's DRs 8 bits is absolutely not enough anymore for log curves (and not even remotely close for linear images). It usually does fine for delivery for consumer devices (some of these displays are 8-bit, some are 6-bit; likely moving to 10 bits in the future).

[Jaime Valles]

40 minutes ago, cpc said:

You'd usually need more tonal precision when you capture an image, because it needs to withstand the abuse -- pushing and stretching -- of post production. The precision will mostly depend on transfer curves -- you need relatively more for linear images, and relatively less for logarithmic images. With today's DRs 8 bits is absolutely not enough anymore for log curves (and not even remotely close for linear images). It usually does fine for delivery for consumer devices (some of these displays are 8-bit, some are 6-bit; likely moving to 10 bits in the future).

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.

[Oliver Daniel]

2 hours ago, Jaime Valles said:

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? 

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.

 

I can see what you're thinking, however Arri Alexas and Mini's are not the same target market as the C300, C200 etc. 

Also Canon have a huge line of DSLR, mirrorless and compact cameras that shoot video, where Arri do not. 

I own an FS5, and the B-camera (for a videographer) to the FS5 is not an FS5. Sony have made a bunch of smaller mirrorless cameras that exclusively do a few things brilliantly (low light, IBIS, autofocus, compact and powerful) and it's likely the FS5 user will buy 1, 2 or even 3 of these to make up the pack. 

The C200 is in a similar ballpark. So when someone like myself is intrigued by the prospect of going to the C200... I start to think about my other camera bodies too. That's where the intrigue hits a wall. Maybe a 5D Mk IV and XC10/15 will do, but we're missing a lot of features here now that we had before with Sony.

It really depends on what's most important. 

 

 

[Andrew Reid]

Anyone watching Oliver Stone's Putin interviews on Sky Atlantic?

Canon C series but 5D Mk III as B-camera and quite a few DSLRs going on there.

B-cameras are a real thing... Saying C200 is B-cam on a C200 shoot is just silly.

[DBounce]

46 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Anyone watching Oliver Stone's Putin interviews on Sky Atlantic?

Canon C series but 5D Mk III as B-camera and quite a few DSLRs going on there.

B-cameras are a real thing... Saying C200 is B-cam on a C200 shoot is just silly.

Which is B or C or A cam comes down to preference suitability and budget. Silly has noting to do with it. 

[Andrew Reid]

No, it's absurd to deny the existence of B-cameras.

Same camera as the A cam isn't a B cam, it's another A cam!!

That's the way the concept works!

[hijodeibn]

20 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

No, it's absurd to deny the existence of B-cameras.

Same camera as the A cam isn't a B cam, it's another A cam!!

That's the way the concept works!

This concept came from the film era, and if I remember correctly, B-cam were also film cameras, I think most of the time the same brand and model than the A-cam, and the difference was they were used by another camera team, usually the director was always behind the A-cam team checking everything…..so in the beginning B-cam never mean a cheaper camera. 

[Andrew Reid]

I'm talking about the way people shoot now, not in the 50's.

Yes there will always be the exception like a crew with 4 A-cams all with the same purpose.

But in my mind and in this topic with Oliver we are talking supporting role, small camera, multiple bodies at a price lower than the A cam.

[Jaime Valles]

2 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

I own an FS5, and the B-camera (for a videographer) to the FS5 is not an FS5. Sony have made a bunch of smaller mirrorless cameras that exclusively do a few things brilliantly (low light, IBIS, autofocus, compact and powerful) and it's likely the FS5 user will buy 1, 2 or even 3 of these to make up the pack. 

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.

46 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Which is B or C or A cam comes down to preference suitability and budget. Silly has noting to do with it. 

Exactly. Use whatever you can afford and deliver the content your client wants.

40 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

No, it's absurd to deny the existence of B-cameras.

Same camera as the A cam isn't a B cam, it's another A cam!!

That's the way the concept works!

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.

[hijodeibn]

15 minutes ago, Jaime Valles said:

"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."

This is exactly my feeling, thanks for putting it in words Jaime!!!

[tugela]

19 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I'm talking about the way people shoot now, not in the 50's.

Yes there will always be the exception like a crew with 4 A-cams all with the same purpose.

But in my mind and in this topic with Oliver we are talking supporting role, small camera, multiple bodies at a price lower than the A cam.

Improper usage of a term does not make it proper just because people use it improperly.

[hmcindie]

36 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I'm talking about the way people shoot now, not in the 50's.

 

People still shoot Alexa's as A and B-cameras in films. 

[DBounce]

I can see from this conversation that some here think the B-cam is about price or quality... And therefore must be inferior to the A-cam, but the fact is it's about getting shot from a different angle to support the story. That's it... Nothing more.