LOL Canon... C200 Codec "Upgrade" details announced

[EthanAlexander]

"Well today I found out directly from the Canon C200 engineers that the new codec that will be introduced early in 2018 will be XF-AVC YCbCr 4:2:0 8bit, and it will be a free upgrade (if you can call it that). It will also be recorded to the SD cards and not the CFast card."

http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/08/24/new-codec-coming-to-the-c200-in-2018-will-only-be-420-8-bit/

Seems to me this was a bit unethical promising a middle-ground codec upgrade (which you have to assume they did to increase both hype and sales) and then have it turn out it's only an improvement in that it can hold more metadata. 

What do you guys think?

[mercer]

I find it highly suspect. A lot of the aforementioned, middle codec specs are specific to the codec in the XC10/15, so I agree that it may be 8 bit but I would expect that it will be 4:22 recorded to CFast cards.

Or Canon fears the backlash of the expensive media, so they dumbed it down to record to SD cards.

Until the firmware path is updated on their website, it's all just conjecture.

[jcs]

lol Thank You Canon for not giving the C200 10-bit which would make our C300 II further depreciate  

[tugela]

As I have said many times, the codecs they can implement will be limited by the hardware encoder in the processor. That encoder has likely been designed and optimized for consumer grade video in DSLRs and compacts, so it is unlikely that anything more than some higher bit rates will be implemented. To do that they would have to replace the processor with the 2019 version, and 2019 has not arrived yet.

You can't expect miracles or features to be implemented that are not supported by the hardware in a particular model.

If you want to use a middle codec rather than RAW, then you will need to get one of the cameras that use the older processor, such as the C300M2.

[EthanAlexander]

@DBounce I accidentally double posted. For consistency I'm quoting what you said in the duplicate here. Mods, can you delete the other thread? Thanks.

I think it's weak... protectionist... and no longer on my list. 

[Django]

Camera is also now off my list. It all the sudden becomes a ultra niche camera for RAW only shooters.. that need 420 proxies ..?!

[Tim Sewell]

CAnon does seem to have - as we say here in England - dropped a bollock on this occasion.

[noone]

I think it is exactly what they said it would be and I thought it would be.

It amazed me they didn't have it at launch though as it just seemed odd.      IE it is a bit like as if the A7s was launched with AVCHD and XAVC-s was added 6 months later.    Does not make sense.

[jhnkng]

I went to a C200 seminar that Canon held a month or so back and the Canon rep was adamant that the MXF upgrade was only 8bit 420. At the time I thought he might've been wrong, but dang...

Glad I didn't buy it!

[Jimmy]

Off my list too. Let's hope Canon read this forum!

[DBounce]

Canon could care less what we think. Everyone that has commented on this camera has mentioned wanting 10 bit 422, in a reasonable codec... So what does Canon do... They add another 8 bit option that no one wanted, and no one will use. Great work Canon. Basically this competes with any bit camera. Raw will be used in special conditions only, as most simply have not the time to waste with transcoding it.

GH5 is a smarter option for 98% of shooters. Eva1 is an option also, but I'm not convinced it is a significant enough upgrade to justify the $7k price tag. I guess we need to see footage to judge. But keep in mind the GH5 is also getting a 400mb codec soon. So all bets are off. 

[Oliver Daniel]

Canon are very frustrating. Their feature choices between models are so trivial. So intricately, and purposefully strategised to the point of almost complete bafflement. 

The 1DX II doesn't have C-Log. The 5D IV does. 

The C300II has 10 bit 422, and crippled high frame rates. The C200 has RAW, has 4k60p and non-cropped 120fps. But doesn't have a 10bit codec. 

The XC10 has 422. The C200 doesn't. The C300 MK I does, which is 6 years old. 

You could go on forever. 

Canon should just combine the C200 and C300 II together and sell that. Now that would be a blockbuster! But they won't. 

At the end of the day, it is just cameras, with specs and buttons and other stuff. We're actually lucky to have so many options in order to tell good stories. 

But still....  

 

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, noone said:

IE it is a bit like as if the A7s was launched with AVCHD and XAVC-s was added 6 months later.    Does not make sense.

That happened with the a6000

 

Meant for a while you had the odd situation of the a5100 being a better camera than the a6000 (which is why I bought the a5100)

[Snowfun]

Is there any camera other than the C200 which offers decent* high ISO (25600)  4K raw?

A niche market but I'm tempted... aurora filming.

Tim

 

* from Bloom's review - maybe I'm mistaken.

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, Snowfun said:

Is there any camera other than the C200 which offers decent* high ISO (25600)  4K raw?

A niche market but I'm tempted... aurora filming.

Tim

 

* from Bloom's review - maybe I'm mistaken.

But is it really 4k? 

[Snowfun]

5 minutes ago, DBounce said:

But is it really 4k? 

That's what it says on the box (apparently - not seen one) so that's good enough! Please, no more Nyquist...

[mercer]

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

But is it really 4k? 

It's 4K Raw...?

[noone]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

That happened with the a6000

 

Meant for a while you had the odd situation of the a5100 being a better camera than the a6000 (which is why I bought the a5100)

Yes though It isn't to the same level though as the A6000 was being sold as a stills camera that has video and it wasn't the only non dedicated video camera from Sony that didn't have XAVC-s.      Sony had started putting it into more cameras around that time and I guess it wasn't something that they thought important (certainly not of primary importance to the vast majority who would have purchased the camera).

A6000 is still sold new here too (I keep thinking I wouldn't mind one).

This Canon is a video camera and a serious one at that and so a LOT more puzzling an omission (if Sony had left out higher quality jpegs from the A6000 and gone from RAW to low quality would be more the equivalent I think and not even Sony would do that).

[BenEricson]

I guess it is still 422/8bit out to 4k then? 

15 hours ago, Django said:

Camera is also now off my list. It all the sudden becomes a ultra niche camera for RAW only shooters.. that need 420 proxies ..?!

R3D seems to be doing pretty well. 

[Andrew Reid]

Seems there is internal disagreement at Canon about how far to push the codec upgrade, or even just not upgrading it at all, despite having said they would.

Poor form!