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

[pablogrollan]

On 3/9/2017 at 11:24 PM, Andrew Reid said:

8bit 4:2:0 on the C200 is a shame, but I understood why it had to be crippled to protect the C300 II.

I don't... I would if the C300 MKII were a successful seller that needed to be proctected or "not cannibalised", but the sad truth for Canon is the C300 MKII cycle is over. The original C300 had a long life and was a sold and rented long after its release, but the C300 MKII failed to do so from the start -mainly due to the FS7- and it's gathering dust in the shelves of stores and rental companies. Whatever hype sales or loyal customers it had, they ran out long ago. Canon should accept that fact and move on -even if some C300 MKII owners feel a little screwed-.

[hijodeibn]

18 hours ago, Arikhan said:

Hmm...I don't want to be a kill-joy for Canon haters and GH5 enthusiasts, but even the 8bit codec quality of the Canon C100 is not bad at all. It seems not much worse than the newer GH5 as seen here (very interesting blind test...):

...and now C-Log of the C100 vs V-Log of the GH5:

It seems, the "old" 8bit codec it's not bad at all...

I really don`t see much difference, Canon 420 8bit codec is really good, and the colors even better, but certainly if they said will be in the future an upgrade with a middle codec, they should at least add 422 8bit…. 

[Arikhan]

There IS 422 8bit for UHD when recording via HDMI on an external recorder. And there IS 422 10bit for FullHD when recording on an external recorder (SDI + HDMI):

Though I completely gave up my Canon photo gear (dozens of lenses and many cameras) and use mainly Nikon for photography now, I just wonder how many people hate Canon. Why? Too expensive for you? OK, buy a cheaper camera offering more features or exactly the features you need. Not including ALL specifications you'd like to see? There is no perfect "all in one" camera...

That's why I will buy the C200 (for my personal requirements and my personal needs) for filming (main reasons only):

1. I want to get into RAW shooting (only disadvantages from my personal POV is it takes time in post, when aiming to get the footage really beautiful and the huge amount of data, when archiving the footage)
2. Canon cinema cams aren't spec champions but they offer a very solid 8bit codec, quite maleable/durable in post for quick post-pro
3. Nice colour science in film cameras (personal taste) in baked in codecs
4. Phantastic customer care and service (own experience as my whole family serviced many devices there)
5. Reliable DPAF - great for small teams and one man bands
6. Great ergonomics and usability
7. Reliability and build quality (no plastic garbage compared with other devices)

Sure, not offering a 422 10bit is a shame, but you can convert internal 4k 8bit to 422 10bit broadcast footage...Or internal RAW...Or shoot with an external recorder (costing used as much as a new speedbooster for a m43 camera...) directly FullHD in 422 10bit.

In my eyes, the verbal "rebellion" against Canon products is simply useless. They will though sell a bunch of their C100, 200, 300 and so on, because these devices are simply great cameras, offering shooters great results and high reliability. Not for all needs and budgets, but they are very reputable and solid devices. It's not only about specs and endless specs debates...

The DSLR / MILC "rebellion" is over guys: Appropriate film/video cameras got quite affordable and light weight, good DSLR and MILC got more expensive and heavy, when equiped with some great lenses. And then what about additional costs and weight of speedboosters? XLR? ND filters? Cages?...

There are very many options out there now...If none of them matches exactly your expectations buy or rent a second or a third one, depending on your needs and requirements...

[mkabi]

I guess, I will add my 2 cents in this....

I think the issue is name and price.

Suppose they named it C100 mark 3 and priced it closer to that.... 

You can't even argue about the specs because its an obvious evolution of the C100 mark 2 - and the price would also be obvious....

In my opinion, they made a mistake with the C200 and C700.

In fact, if I had a time machine and I was part of Canon's advisory committee....

I would have went back in time and told them to make a C100 mark 2 with 2.5K...Release C500 mark 2 with 6K (external recording - just following their thought process with the first C500).... and when you are ready with 8K.... then create a new line that will be the C700. Scrap the whole C200 idea.

 

[Kisaha]

@mkabi I am wondering, in what way they will degrade the Canon C100mkIII, so to not cannibalize the C200s sales, from now - to the next 3-4 years.

Is really anyone expecting a C100mkIII for his/hers next buy? The logical step would be a similar to C200 camera (touch screen AF, 4K, some short of slow motion) without the RAW and for around 5000euros/$, but I do not see that happening now.

[BenEricson]

People want to knock this, but wow the images out of this camera are amazing. It's like getting Arri Alexa colors and feel with that auto focus and 4k/60p. Look at how clean that lowlight is in the first video. I bet this camera is so much fun to use. Lighter than the C300ii and internal raw. 

I could see shooting interviews in 4k/8bit or 1080p 422 to a recorder and shooting the b-roll in raw. 

 

[EthanAlexander]

9 hours ago, Arikhan said:

That's why I will buy the C200

This is why they'll never learn. They can make false promises and unnecessarily cripple their lower end products and they'll never have negative repercussions. I'm not personally blaming you I'm just using you as an example of the reality of the situation.

I don't care your opinions about Sony and Panasonic cameras, but those two companies actually listen to the community and rarely hold back features on their lower end products.

[mercer]

44 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

People want to knock this, but wow the images out of this camera are amazing. It's like getting Arri Alexa colors and feel with that auto focus and 4k/60p. Look at how clean that lowlight is in the first video. I bet this camera is so much fun to use. Lighter than the C300ii and internal raw. 

I could see shooting interviews in 4k/8bit or 1080p 422 to a recorder and shooting the b-roll in raw. 

 

Yeah, I get that this camera isn't for everyone, but for those filmmakers interested in narratives... it's a $7000 Alexa. Unbelievable. 

[Arikhan]

6 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

This is why they'll never learn. They can make false promises and unnecessarily cripple their lower end products and they'll never have negative repercussions. I'm not personally blaming you I'm just using you as an example of the reality of the situation.

I don't care your opinions about Sony and Panasonic cameras, but those two companies actually listen to the community and rarely hold back features on their lower end products.

It seems, you were not interested in reading my individual needs:

15 hours ago, Arikhan said:

That's why I will buy the C200 (for my personal requirements and my personal needs) for filming (main reasons only):

1. I want to get into RAW shooting (only disadvantages from my personal POV is it takes time in post, when aiming to get the footage really beautiful and the huge amount of data, when archiving the footage)
2. ....
3. ....
4. Phantastic customer care and service (own experience as my whole family serviced many devices there)
5. Reliable DPAF - great for small teams and one man bands
6. ....
7. ....

I am brand agnostic. Please name Pana or Sony devices fitting all these needs for 7.000 EUR (European price, excl. VAT). It could be another brand too, even a Russian camera would be nice - it only has to correspond to my requirements and budget limitations...

[EthanAlexander]

2 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

it only has to correspond to my requirements and budget limitations...

I did read your list. My reaction has to do with this:

The fact that you don't care about which company you buy from, only that your "needs are met," is the reason that big companies can get away with things like false promises and unnecessary crippling of products.

Important: I'm not trying to say that big companies are bad or the system is bad. What I AM saying is that it's ultimately not in our self interest as video/film professionals to keep buying from a company like this. If we vote with our wallets, then we can force these companies to listen to us and give us better options. In fact, it's in the best interest of Canon in the long run, too!

There are dozens of other cameras that you can use. People have made good livings using cameras that didn't have DPAF or internal raw for decades. You WANT this camera. That's fine. I'm not mad and I don't think you're a bad person or anything, I'm just trying to point out how we can enact change (or not).

[Arikhan]

Quote

If we vote with our wallets, then we can force these companies to listen to us and give us better options

.OK, I see...My POV: I agree with you but debating ideology doesn't get the shots.

32 minutes ago, EthanAlexander said:

The fact that you don't care about which company you buy from, only that your "needs are met," is the reason that big companies can get away with things like false promises and unnecessary crippling of products.

Canon cripples its products, yes. That's one of the reasons I lived Canon DSLRs for photography. BUT....Talking about the C200, I just need its features/capabilities "as it is", I never rely on promises or on future "functionality upgrades"...I just want to pay for features I get NOW...
 

32 minutes ago, EthanAlexander said:

There are dozens of other cameras that you can use.

Again: Name me some devices meeting my listed needs...Please name me even just one, I will take a closer look...

[IronFilm]

On 9/4/2017 at 8:51 AM, ntblowz said:

The only thing ML did to Canon is change their firmware update policy to require the camera to be send authorized canon center to do the update... *cough* 5dmkiv

Wait.... WHAT??? Are they seriously requiring you send in your 5Dmk4 if you want a simple firmware update??? Shocking!! :-o

On 9/5/2017 at 6:40 AM, Kisaha said:

2018 can be the decisive year for Sony, with a couple of right moves I can see a lot of people turn to Sony for a full kit (A7sIII/FS5III, hopefully an a7000).

Oh wow, up to a FSmk3 already! ;-) :-D 

I'm hoping for an a5200, as let's not forget about the little guy!

On 9/5/2017 at 9:37 PM, pablogrollan said:

I don't... I would if the C300 MKII were a successful seller that needed to be proctected or "not cannibalised", but the sad truth for Canon is the C300 MKII cycle is over. The original C300 had a long life and was a sold and rented long after its release, but the C300 MKII failed to do so from the start -mainly due to the FS7- and it's gathering dust in the shelves of stores and rental companies. Whatever hype sales or loyal customers it had, they ran out long ago. Canon should accept that fact and move on -even if some C300 MKII owners feel a little screwed-.

The C300mk2 seemed to pick up a little bit of traction after it got its big price drop.

16 hours ago, Kisaha said:

@mkabi I am wondering, in what way they will degrade the Canon C100mkIII, so to not cannibalize the C200s sales, from now - to the next 3-4 years.

Is really anyone expecting a C100mkIII for his/hers next buy? The logical step would be a similar to C200 camera (touch screen AF, 4K, some short of slow motion) without the RAW and for around 5000euros/$, but I do not see that happening now.

Be weird as hell if the C100mk3 has the missing middle codec the C200 lacks!! lol
(but in return of course the C100mk3 will not have raw)

8 hours ago, Arikhan said:

Again: Name me some devices meeting my listed needs...Please name me even just one, I will take a closer look...

I feel you created this "needs" list by looking at the C200 spec sheet then listing what it is on it? (and not including anything that is not on it)

When you take that approach it becomes very easy to justify your decision to exclude others! haha

[jcs]

19 hours ago, mercer said:

Yeah, I get that this camera isn't for everyone, but for those filmmakers interested in narratives... it's a $7000 Alexa. Unbelievable. 

+ killer AF! No competition on the market at that price point. Recently shot an art piece on the 1DX II at 4K60 (vs. C300 II which has 10-bit but no 60p) and 8-bit was fine. Most of the shots wouldn't have been possible without DPAF (the alternative would have been a wireless FF and an AC).

For those with a $7500 camera budget, especially if one has many Canon lenses, it's a no brainer. Again, the C300 II doesn't do 4K60, the C200 does. If the C200 had been available when we got the 1DXII, we would have gotten the C200 to get 4K60 instead.

The most popular camera on this forum right now, the GH5, is a useful tool which creates great images, however it's not in the same league as the C200. Both products are priced fairly for their performance and features.

[Damphousse]

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I feel you created this "needs" list by looking at the C200 spec sheet then listing what it is on it? (and not including anything that is not on it)

When you take that approach it becomes very easy to justify your decision to exclude others! haha

Not trying to take Arikhan's side or defend Canon but that does seem like a pretty reasonable and general "needs" list.  I mean there are a billion threads by a million people request all those features.  Frankly I think that is why the thread is so hot.  The camera checks all the boxes besides 10 bit 4:2:2... and a cheap price of course

The frustration comes from the fact that the camera is almost there.  That's the real irritation.  But you can't discount all the other positive things about the camera because of one irritation... even if it is a big irritation.

 

And yeah.  Pretty big dick move by Canon.