C200 - some thoughts

[mercer]

3 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

You act like everyone here lives in Ohio LoL. I bet half the people on here are from oversee's. Lot in England. BBC does make a shit to them.

It still doesn't matter. This is 2017, 2018, 10 bit is IT. If they were ballsy enough to put Raw in this thing whey the hell not a 10 bit 1080p, why? You know the processor is robust enough. Grading 8 bit stuff doesn't cut it on a 7 thousand dollar camera in 2018.

If they even had a 8 bit 50Mbps middle codec it would work. They would sell the shit out of them. God damn, Canon is just stupid as hell on some stuff. They ought to just go out of business. They do the least they can get by with as of late, not the best they can do. The 5D mk IV, 6D mk II is a great example of that.

Sorry Don, you know we’re buds but that was a silly comment. My point was that 99% of the people on this board have as much of a chance selling a documentary to the BBC as Trump has at becoming Pope... so why sweat BBC standards?

As far as Canon being in business... Sorry but I can’t help but laugh. Canon is the most successful camera and lens maker of all time. The idea that a 10bit middle codec on a $7500 camera that is marketed towards professional filmmakers should make or break the company is just ludicrous. 

Canon knows what their customer base wants and it knows that the overwhelming majority of its users do not have the interest or computing power to handle 4K, let alone 10bit. Just because Panasonic wanted to cater to the videographer niche of the market (which is great) doesn’t mean the standards for all consumers have changed one iota.

And trust me, 10bit does not make that much of a difference with color grading. If you can’t grade an 8 bit file (which I am not very good at) then those extra 2 bits aren’t helping you all that much. It took 14 bits for me to get noticeably better. So be happy with 8 bit for the immediate future or get a Panasonic.

And trust me if either Panasonic or Canon decides one day to get out of the camera business, you can guarantee it won’t be Canon.

12 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Oh come on you don't really believe that is the reason for no IBIS on it. Read the articles. DP's didn't Want IBIS, they listened, not to protect the GH5.

GH5 is a flop anyways, Jon is the only one that even bought one, and only for HDR.

Glenn you are just a Canon lover admit it. Warts and all.

Here you are shooting a 5D mk III for Raw that Canon could have given you when it first came out.

Don, why would anyone continue to buy the GH5 if the GH5s had IBIS? And I’m sorry, this professional DP argument not wanting IBIS is just outright silly for the simple reason that very few professional DPs are using any variant of the GH5... But I guess that depends on ones definition of “professional DP?”

Honestly I don’t know if the GH5 is a flop or not but I suppose the sales aren’t as great as the interest in the GH5 is on this forum. And I would go one further and say that the comparably priced Canon camera probably has better overall sales numbers.

And yeah, nothing to admit... I don’t think it’s any secret that I like Canon cameras.

But I don’t sweat the choices of multi-national corporations. Canon released a camera that can shoot 14bit 1080p Raw, how it ended up happening is irrelevant. To be mad at Canon for not offering it themselves is a colossal waste of time. The end result still equals me shooting 14bit 1080p Raw... so the world is good. 

[DBounce]

9 minutes ago, mercer said:

Sorry Don, you know we’re buds but that was a silly comment. My point was that 99% of the people on this board have as much of a chance selling a documentary to the BBC as Trump has at becoming Pope... so why sweat BBC standards?

As far as Canon being in business... Sorry but I can’t help but laugh. Canon is the most successful camera and lens maker of all time. The idea that a 10bit middle codec on a $7500 camera that is marketed towards professional filmmakers should make or break the company is just ludicrous. 

Canon knows what their customer base wants and it knows that the overwhelming majority of its users do not have the interest or computing power to handle 4K, let alone 10bit. Just because Panasonic wanted to cater to the videographer niche of the market (which is great) doesn’t mean the standards for all consumers have changed one iota.

And trust me, 10bit does not make that much of a difference with color grading. If you can’t grade an 8 bit file (which I am not very good at) then those extra 2 bits aren’t helping you all that much. It took 14 bits for me to get noticeably better. So be happy with 8 bit for the immediate future or get a Panasonic.

And trust me if either Panasonic or Canon decides one day to get out of the camera business, you can guarantee it won’t be Canon.

I have to disagree.

1. There would be a shiny new Canon C200 sitting on my shelf... right now, if not for the absence of a middle codec. It’s the added workflow that I don’t dig. I like a fast turn around time. You just don’t get that when you have to sit around transcoding.

2. I can push my 10 bit footage considerably further in post than I can my 8 bit footage. 

I think Raw 12 bit is great. Lovely to have it. But for most here the 12 bit would be for special situations, whereas the 10 bit would be for general use. I would have preferred they left out 8 bit, as with the move to HDR, it seems it’s usefulness is in sight. Now I know some of you will banter on about how, “  only .00001% of the population has 4K HDR TVs”... well that’s all fine and dandy, but I have four of them, and I’m not even counting my numerous smartphone that all support HDR content. So for me, it’s important. 

I don’t even have a problem with the crazy expensive media. I have many of these 256GB, $700 a pop CFast cards laying around that I use in the 1DXMk2. But it would have been great to have a clean 12 bit raw output that I could send to an external recorder. That would have silenced many of the naysayers. 

We are not annoyed because we hate Canon. I would bet that most of those who are bothered by the implementation of the C200 are that way because they had planned on buying one... at least that’s how I feel. 

If any of you have a C200 and 1DXMk2 I would love to see a shootout comparing overal image quality. I see nothing like this online. The two cameras a priced close enough so that many might consider one vs the other. Granted they have different focuses... but still... 

 

[mercer]

@DBounce I understand that but to be fair you represent an even bigger niche market. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t you say that you don’t do any professional work? If so, the fact that you would even consider the C200 as an enthusiast puts you in one of the most unique market segments.

With that being said, there are plenty of cameras out there and I guess I don’t understand why people, who would never buy a C200 anyway... or even any Canon... are getting so angry over the lack of anything in the camera?

But I will say, if the cost of the media doesn’t bother you, I guess I really don’t understand your issues with the camera... shoot Raw... it seems like you have everything you need for the storage and if you want to get a little more out of it, then use an external recorder and get beautifully downscaled 2K from the Raw output. Honestly, until someone mentioned this... I didn’t even know the C200 did this. With a BMVA, one could get amazing ProRes files with the C200B.

[DBounce]

3 minutes ago, mercer said:

@DBounce I understand that but to be fair you represent an even bigger niche market. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t you say that you don’t do any professional work? If so, the fact that you would even consider the C200 as an enthusiast puts you in one of the most unique market segments.

With that being said, there are plenty of cameras out there and I guess I don’t understand why people, who would never buy a C200 anyway... or even any Canon... are getting so angry over the lack of anything in the camera?

But I will say, if the cost of the media doesn’t bother you, I guess I really don’t understand your issues with the camera... shoot Raw... it seems like you have everything you need for the storage and if you want to get a little more out of it, then use an external recorder and get beautifully downscaled 2K from the Raw output. Honestly, until someone mentioned this... I didn’t even know the C200 did this. With a BMVA, one could get amazing ProRes files with the C200B.

I did know about the HD output in 10 bit... but why no 12 -bit output in 4K? Or 10 bit output in 4K? We both know it could do this.. if not for Canon deliberately preventing this. I’m not going to complain. It’s still a great camera... it’s just not one I’m clamoring to own. 

I need a better reason. Something that would make me want to put up with the added workflow. Honestly, the first camera that can do a clean ISO 6400 with an upper limit of 12800, that has on-chip HDR is going to be a must have. I think at that point even the diehards will be jumping ship to whatever that is. My guess is it will come from Panasonic or Sony. 

[mercer]

So... yeah then this camera isn’t for you. Luckily, there are other cameras out there. Of course, I don’t think there’s any added workflow. Resolve and FCPX reads the files natively.

[Mattias Burling]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

DP's didn't Want IBIS, they listened, not to protect the GH5.

This I don't and won't believe no matter who said it

[Kisaha]

BBC it is not just a TV station in UK, the number 1 cable TV station here gave us a few pages of standard, and they were the BBC ones. They even asked for surround sound (which didn't happen in the end because of budget restrictions) but in the end we went with the C300mkII.

Specs are not just numbers in pro numbers, organizations and TV stations can ask for whatever they want, if you do not provide, you can rent of course. It is no secret the C100mkII is my most used camera (more than my NX cameras) but in some cases we had to use the JVC LS300 because we had to deliver a more robust codec.

The truth is that I paused when I learned about the non existed middle codec.

[andrgl]

Canon forces you to shoot 60 fps in 10bit RAW. (Found this out the hard way on a shoot.) Think about that. They fucking have an intermediary 10bit codec right there ready to go, but say fuck you, deal with 125 MB/s. (BTW: 24 fps 10bit on the C200 would theoretically top out at 50MB/s, which is half the size of 422 ProRes HQ.)

Anyone who can defend Canon for pulling shit like this, do they pay you? Or do you just not shoot with these cameras to really understand how flawed they are?

[mercer]

There’s nothing to defend or ridicule. Canon released a camera that does A or B... if A or B doesn’t fit your needs, then buy a different camera. It’s really quite simple.

[Snowfun]

Not sure I understand this...

If you shoot 30fps in 4k raw it’s 12 bit, but if you choose 60fps in 4k raw it drops to 10 bit. Is that correct?

If that’s correct (and it may, indeed, not be) I’m not sure where the need to shoot 60fps comes from?

[Kisaha]

I do not disagree in principle with you @mercer, just saying that Canon has a camera that does A and C, and some of us are missing the B part. I personally, would prefer to have a Canon camera, and love the touch AF and the Canon approach on ergonomics/color science e.t.c but they are going to loose a lot of customers, going EVA/Ursa mini pro/FS5/FS7. When they have the new C300 out, I am positive that they will give that middle coded but until then the C series is loosing ground. I live in a pro-Canon country, and I remember how many C100 and C300 were out there, and I can not say the same now. Believe it or not, GH5 is eating their pie too!

Also, I can not possibly invest on a C200+one or two CN-E lenses lightheartedly, especially when a FS5mkII is right (or should be) in the corner, and already offer a cheaper alternative to the CN-E lenses (and much cheaper Fuji ones). 

[andrgl]

1 hour ago, Snowfun said:

Not sure I understand this...

If you shoot 30fps in 4k raw it’s 12 bit, but if you choose 60fps in 4k raw it drops to 10 bit. Is that correct?

If that’s correct (and it may, indeed, not be) I’m not sure where the need to shoot 60fps comes from?

It is correct. I've contacted Canon USA and Canada for an answer and get the standard boilerplate response: Canon Japan makes all the decisions, if there are enough people who raise this issue we can pass the suggestion on to Canon Japan, thank you for your time.

In my parts this camera has sold poorly compared to the FS5, FS7, Ursa, C100 and C300. (Oddly enough the FS7 + Inferno is the most popular here.) Still, I am very eager to see the new firmware.

As for there being another camera from Canon that fulfills my whishes, nope. I want compressed internal RAW. 12 bit crushes those very expensive CFAST 2.0 vpg-130 cards. Last time I calculated how much it cost me, it was like 20$USD per minute. Two 128gb cards is like 30 min and cost as much as a mint used FF Sigma prime.

Remember, Canon could write like 10 lines of code and enable 24/30fps 10bit.

Oh well, this camera stays a rental until something better comes along.

 

Edit: Just want to say I defend the C200 IRL heavily. If there's a budget for it and I know the shoot is going to use a gimbal, jib, dolly, slider, whatever; I always fight to get this camera. Browser Remote blows people's minds when they actually use it. I think the C200 is the best B cams out there for small shoots.

[User]

I would have liked to see a 'middle' codec as well. But in times like this, I stand up and walk over to the window and remind myself that there is a whole world just waiting for me out there. Then I come and sit back down again. With God's help, I hope to beat this horrible affliction.

[jhnkng]

I find all this 8 bit vs 10 bit talk a bit silly. 10 bit gives you only an incremental increase in grad-ability -- if your workflow requires heavy grading then RAW is where you need to be. And if you're not shooting RAW and you think you need 10 bit over 8 bit, I think you need to ask yourself why. 10 bit isn't going to help if you shoot in crappy light. 10 bit isn't going to help you rescue a shot 4 stops over. 10 bit isn't going to give you the malleability to create an interesting look from a badly lit scene. I know all this because I shoot mostly uncontrolled/run-and-gun and I've owned both a GH4 with VLog and a Shogun, and a BMMCC, and I can tell you that if the scene looks crap to your eyes there's no rescuing that even if you'd shot on an Alexa. And if you're good enough to grade beautiful cinematic scenes then you've got the know-how to fake it with a decently shot 8 bit file. 

None of this is to say that you should or shouldn't get a C200, because you need to take into account the way you shoot. I chose a C100mk2 because the package has everything I need to work solo, but I wouldn't chose that camera if I had the budget for crew. I chose to buy the cheapest camera that has everything built in so when I shoot I can concentrate on telling the story.  I'd like to get a C200 when the prices come down because it would fit on a gimbal better, and the autofocus is better. I love Canon's DPAF system, it increases my hit rate and helps me shoot more efficiently. Canon Log is super easy to grade and work with as long as you protect your highlights -- half stop over and the highlights are cooked, but I've brought back shots that were 2+ stops under (because I forgot to change my ND setting, duh!) with barely an issue. 

 

[webrunner5]

9 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

This I don't and won't believe no matter who said it

It is on the video with the Panasonic rep saying it on here. What the hell can I say. I am going to lie about it!

What, you think they got rid of it to save a buck or two money wise? To just piss people off? What is your Theory about why they did it? So they don't get GH5 buyers mad, I doubt it.

[DBounce]

11 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

It is on the video with the Panasonic rep saying it on here. What the hell can I say. I am going to lie about it!

What, you think they got rid of it to save a buck or two money wise? To just piss people off? What is your Theory about why they did it? So they don't get GH5 buyers mad, I doubt it.

Are there any cinema cameras that have IBIS? Nothing comes to mind

[webrunner5]

5 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Are there any cinema cameras that have IBIS? Nothing comes to mind

Are there any Cine cameras that don't have 10 bit other than a select few Canon cameras as of late? Nothing comes to mind.

10 hours ago, DBounce said:

I need a better reason. Something that would make me want to put up with the added workflow. Honestly, the first camera that can do a clean ISO 6400 with an upper limit of 12800, that has on-chip HDR is going to be a must have. I think at that point even the diehards will be jumping ship to whatever that is. My guess is it will come from Panasonic or Sony. 

I may be wrong, but isn't that already here, isn't it called a Panasonic GH5s??

[Mattias Burling]

51 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

What, you think they got rid of it to save a buck or two money wise? 

Why speculate on what I think when you can just ask me? But yes. Because of money.

Mercer already gave an answer on one theory far more likely and what some rep said. That leads to money by selling more cameras.

And you are never gonna convince me that they asked a DP if he/she wanted ibis and they said no. More likely they asked if they wanted ibis if it meant consequences A, B, C and D. For example price.

So yeah. It is about saving bucks. What, you really think Canon asked people here on a forum if the C200 should have a middle codec and they said no?  See what I did there?

[webrunner5]

I think you are wrong. Panasonic Had to know when they designed the GH5s that it would piss the hell out of people that had just bought a GH5 even if it Had IBIS in it. And I am sure they would Never sell a lot of them, or hell even many. It can't cost 100, to 200 dollars to do IBIS. I bet they could not have kept them in stock at 2700 dollars if they added it to them. People would be selling their GH5 left and right to buy one. It will probably be a bust for the units they sell. But they have told the world they are here to play big boy ball.

I think it was an opportunity to draw a line in the sand and say a m4/3 sensor Can be used in a Cine camera. It can compete with a FF powerhouse, a Sony A7s mk II. This GH5s is a Cine camera. It is not for my mother, daughter, it is a Cheap way into with the big boys. It is that simple. Panny is saying we are here to play, and damned if they aren't. You watch the next thing they will do is Raw. And then it is grab your ass  big time. Even if it is 3000 bucks, it will shake it up even more. I say other than Raw what can't it do now. How many cameras do Anamorphic, HDR, all 10 bit, pretty good at low light, ehh, ehh, not many at Any cost. Panasonic is out to kill, and they are doing it on the cheap.

Hell I would argue Panasonic knowingly threw EVA1 people under the bus with the GH5s. I don't see a lot of reasons to buy a EVA1 over it. By the time they come out with Raw on the EVA1 hell the GH5s May have it. Who knows if the new sensor in it is not capable of doing it. Heck if a old 5D mk III can do Raw why not a GH5s. I would guess it is the most advanced sensor out in the world now.

[ade towell]

As always it seems everyone has different needs in a camera.

There is quite a difference when grading 10 bit log compared with 8 bit, and with the C200 you are giving up dynamic range sticking to their 8 bit codec. For me the fs7 seems to have spoilt many of the production companies at least in my world, and so they are now asking more for 10 bit not 8 bit. You can argue they should instead just leap to dealing with RAW but that is not where they seem to be at, for better or worse...

There is a lot to like about the c200 and even though I do prefer the EVA1's image, the c200 ticks most of the boxes for me, I come from the c100 so it would seem like a natural step - but for that pesky 8 bit (or RAW). Canon are trying to push me towards the C300 mk2 but that's another jump in price (and has its own niggles for me)  - am swinging towards the EVA1 with GH5 or GH5s  as b cam, a lot to be said for having cameras that can easily be graded to match