I might get the C200

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

I am wondering / hoping this might be a bit of hyperbole. Maybe you can elaborate on this a bit

yes, I have been impressed with what I have seen of the colors coming from the X-T3 (in particular using the eterna profile).

But it seems to me that the colors coming from the Panasonic are pretty good as well.

Is it really that much of a time-saver to get pleasing results from the X-T3 compared to the GH5? For instance, in 4K 60p is the 10-bit 4:2:0 of the X-T3 better than the 8-bit 4:2:2 out of the GH5???

Thanks in advance for any elaboration you can provide.

I think the 4k 60p out of the XT3 is much better then the 4k 60p out of the GH5. The higher bitrate, better codec H265 vs H264, and 10 bit really give it an advantage. 

That said the 10 bit 422 footage out of the GH5 has an advantage over the XT3 as the Fuji only does 420 not 422. The XT3 holds more detail at higher ISO's though. If you are good at grading you should be able to get good colors out of 10 bit 422 though either way. 

 

[Thpriest]

23 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Somebody, I don't know who, is going to come out with a PK4 type camera in a FS5, C100 body for 3500 bucks and it is going to be game on for a lot of people. You know it will happen. I mean a real camera, ready to shoot, not one that you have to buy a bunch of stuff for it. Sure it won't have IBIS maybe but.. No reason for these too small mirrorless bodies for a somewhat dedicated video camera like the GH5, GH5s, PK4 is. Heck they could cost only 2500 bucks, why not.

I really hope so. A new Canon C100 type but a bit lighter and taking the best from the P4K, GH5 and FS5

[austinchimp]

2 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

I am wondering / hoping this might be a bit of hyperbole. Maybe you can elaborate on this a bit

yes, I have been impressed with what I have seen of the colors coming from the X-T3 (in particular using the eterna profile).

But it seems to me that the colors coming from the Panasonic are pretty good as well.

Is it really that much of a time-saver to get pleasing results from the X-T3 compared to the GH5? For instance, in 4K 60p is the 10-bit 4:2:0 of the X-T3 better than the 8-bit 4:2:2 out of the GH5???

Thanks in advance for any elaboration you can provide.

Sorry if this is taking the thread off topic...

I haven't spent a great deal of time working with the Fuji files yet, but I have played around with them a bit so this is based on that. I've worked with the GH5 since shortly after it was released so know it quite well.

From what I've seen so far the X-T3 has better dynamic range, particularly in the shadows. Gh5 shadows tend to get quite crushed and noisy. The quality of the image also seems more organic to me and less brittle and sharpened.

And I agree the GH5 has good colour, maybe not so much out of the camera but with a little tweaking, mainly on skin which can be a little yellow.

However there is an illusive sweet spot with colour and skin tones for me where it just feels right, and the Fuji lives in that sweet spot a lot more. I haven't done much testing but I'd predict that on the vectorscope Fuji skin tones will be closer to the skin line under more circumstances. GH5 skin was often awry or distorted. I've also noticed Canon skin is pretty much always bang on the line.

[Oliver Daniel]

18 minutes ago, austinchimp said:

Sorry if this is taking the thread off topic...

I haven't spent a great deal of time working with the Fuji files yet, but I have played around with them a bit so this is based on that. I've worked with the GH5 since shortly after it was released so know it quite well.

From what I've seen so far the X-T3 has better dynamic range, particularly in the shadows. Gh5 shadows tend to get quite crushed and noisy. The quality of the image also seems more organic to me and less brittle and sharpened.

And I agree the GH5 has good colour, maybe not so much out of the camera but with a little tweaking, mainly on skin which can be a little yellow.

However there is an illusive sweet spot with colour and skin tones for me where it just feels right, and the Fuji lives in that sweet spot a lot more. I haven't done much testing but I'd predict that on the vectorscope Fuji skin tones will be closer to the skin line under more circumstances. GH5 skin was often awry or distorted. I've also noticed Canon skin is pretty much always bang on the line.

I know where you’re coming from. 

My wife had been shooting on her Canon 750d for a year (now 6D mk II). She specialises in newborns. I’m always astounded at the colours. The skin looks perfect. Always thought it beats the crap out of my Sony / Pana images! 

Fuji is the same. I get that same feeling. I can definitely get there with the GH5 or other Sony but like you say, there’s something missing you can get so easily from a Canon or Fuji image. Their motion is better too. 

I think this is the reason people get so infuriated with Canon. They WANT to shoot with one but the video features slam the door on most desires.

Sayin’ that, I’m going to try the C200 and maybe I’ll find a new friend, and become an intolerable Canon fanboy! ?

[Mark Romero 2]

@austinchimp

Thanks for sharing your experience and your impressions.

[ntblowz]

C200 is a beast for sure, a bit more heavier than c100mkii 

 

 

 

[Oliver Daniel]

5 hours ago, ntblowz said:

C200 is a beast for sure, a bit more heavier than c100mkii 

 

 

 

That's some sexy ass kit! 

I'm bringing in the C200 to give it a go.....

[Lux Shots]

On 11/15/2018 at 3:31 PM, Mark Romero 2 said:

I am wondering / hoping this might be a bit of hyperbole. Maybe you can elaborate on this a bit

yes, I have been impressed with what I have seen of the colors coming from the X-T3 (in particular using the eterna profile).

But it seems to me that the colors coming from the Panasonic are pretty good as well....

If you think the colors from the GH5 are pretty good, rent the GH5S for a few days, and you'll see just how great the GH5S is over the GH5.

[Mark Romero 2]

37 minutes ago, Lux Shots said:

If you think the colors from the GH5 are pretty good, rent the GH5S for a few days, and you'll see just how great the GH5S is over the GH5.

Of course the GH5S has great colors... it uses a sensor made by Sony

Seriously, though, did not know that the GH5S has even better colors.

[thebrothersthre3]

10 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Of course the GH5S has great colors... it uses a sensor made by Sony

Seriously, though, did not know that the GH5S has even better colors.

Pretty much all sensors are made by sony these days tho haha. 

Some people were saying the GH5S color looks better because its being sampled from a 14 bit sensor vs the 12 bit on the GH5. Honestly it makes no sense to me tho. 

[Kisaha]

4 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Pretty much all sensors are made by sony these days tho haha. 

Some people were saying the GH5S color looks better because its being sampled from a 14 bit sensor vs the 12 bit on the GH5. Honestly it makes no sense to me tho. 

The color science is (was) different - better.

 

 

[KitaCam]

Couple of practical (non image quality) thoughts on the C200:

 - I like the fact that it's built for the job rather than needing to have several extra's bolted on. Not as much customisation/fun (perhaps) in that sense, but just works.

 - Price represents a solid tool for the job etc. A lot of money (Though why pay list/offer price? Always negotiate as you may be surprised), but see it as an investment for 5 years say and the pain is a little less. Be warned this purchase won't stop you browsing camera body threads, but it helps a little with that affliction. You'll most likely end up endlessly browsing lens/lighting choices from now on (no bad thing), content in the knowledge the body is solid and fairly future proofed (for a decent enough amount of time anyhow).....

 - Can be kept pretty compact/stealthy and stabilised with just a small (IS) prime attached

 - I have the Shape cage for additional protection and ability to bolt on more kit if really needed. Good snug fit. You'll want to protect that investment

 - Would be tempting to remove the viewfinder but permanently removed would be problematic. Such a shame this is not easily detachable/attachable by user. Size of unit quickly increases with top handle, microphone and 70-200 for example, far from stealthy..

 - Viewfinder feels pretty substandard compared to recent mirrorless offerings. Totally fit for purpose, just quite noticeably smaller/less pleasant to use vs. say Fuji X-H1

 - Screen good enough, touch very responsive in my view. Use is not so great in bright light and hence the viewfinder is present for a reason

 - Cable from camera to the screen is heavy/stiff/short and causes issues with Gimbal mounting/balancing

 - On that note, i'm far from convinced the Ronin-S is a good choice here. Balancing near impossible (especially with screen attached) without counterweights unless you really want to limit the choice of lens. Admittedly the Shape cage doesn't help here. Really you'd want counterweights (to mount to bottom of C200 or DJI mounting plate somehow?) and a very lightweight HDMI cable to feed another (non C200) monitor screen that is mounted to the handle somehow - if you want to see what you're doing that is....

 - DP Autofocus is very good, but it's not infallible. For example, Fuji is 'nearly' comparable in my book, X-T3 better than X-H1 it seems, but still Canon is not lightyears ahead or perfect (in my opinion) as is frequently stated. Of course there's manual focus for which the aids are good..

 - Moving the focus point with the joystick is painfully slow. Why not a two speed setting here I wonder? There is the touch screen of course which is responsive

 - Internal ND's. Well, brilliant really, but you'll still be tweaking ISO/Aperture as expected as they are stepped. Not easy to change ISO and Aperture without side handle attached. Perhaps i'm missing something here. Aperture/ISO vertical side wheel on the left is an odd one, it works, just not very tactile/easy to locate..

 - No AutoISO exposure as far as I can find? I know it's perhaps regarded as a amateurs tool by some, but would be very useful still at times. I can hope this will be added in the future via Firmware revisions

 - Battery life concerns, well forget about them really compared to many mirrorless, especially with the larger BP-A60 (expensive but again sized for a job). Larger battery may also be beneficial in terms of weight placement on a gimbal - depending on lens etc.

 - Not having a stabilised sensor (of course good and bad here) means that stabilised lenses are well advised for many. The 85mm 1.4 IS is frankly amazing in my view. 35mm F2 IS also great. Want to go wide and stabilised with autofocus, hmmmm, F4 wide/shallow enough for you? Room for a new lens in the Canon line-up here....

 - Will not be compatible with present/future RF lenses so 'forced' to invest in lens tech that may be superseded, but is of course still brilliant in many instances and will always work with an adapter on future models

 - In terms of general usability, accessing menus/options/button placements, I just don't love it, perhaps that is a 'yet' statement. Difficult to quantify, just a personal feeling..

Hope it helps some...

[Kisaha]

35 minutes ago, KitaCam said:

 - I like the fact that it's built for the job rather than needing to have several extra's bolted on. Not as much customisation/fun (perhaps) in that sense, but just works.

+++ Prefer the C100mkIi ergonomics when I want a smaller camera, C300mkII when I want a bigger one.

 - Price represents a solid tool for the job etc. A lot of money (Though why pay list/offer price? Always negotiate as you may be surprised), but see it as an investment for 5 years say and the pain is a little less. Be warned this purchase won't stop you browsing camera body threads, but it helps a little with that affliction. You'll most likely end up endlessly browsing lens/lighting choices from now on (no bad thing), content in the knowledge the body is solid and fairly future proofed (for a decent enough amount of time anyhow).....

+++ Ofcourse you will, especially when cameras 1/5 of the price offer better light codecs, and better raw codecs already, and that trend will continue.

 - Can be kept pretty compact/stealthy and stabilised with just a small (IS) prime attached

+++ Not really. Is this smaller than a GH5S or an FS5?

 - Would be tempting to remove the viewfinder but permanently removed would be problematic. Such a shame this is not easily detachable/attachable by user. Size of unit quickly increases with top handle, microphone and 70-200 for example, far from stealthy..

+++ Yes.

 - Viewfinder feels pretty substandard compared to recent mirrorless offerings. Totally fit for purpose, just quite noticeably smaller/less pleasant to use vs. say Fuji X-H1

+++ Or other brands..

 - Screen good enough, touch very responsive in my view. Use is not so great in bright light and hence the viewfinder is present for a reason

+++ Not very bright, especially for us living in ? countries. I do not find it that responsive, especially for touch AF, the camera always moves a little, even in sturdy Sachtler tripods. Could be error mistake, but I use the feature much less than my mirrorless cameras.

 - Cable from camera to the screen is heavy/stiff/short and causes issues with Gimbal mounting/balancing

+++ What is this all about? Just get rid of the damn cables already. Even mirrorless cameras do not need cables to their hot shoe attachments.

 - On that note, i'm far from convinced the Ronin-S is a good choice here. Balancing near impossible (especially with screen attached) without counterweights unless you really want to limit the choice of lens. Admittedly the Shape cage doesn't help here. Really you'd want counterweights (to mount to bottom of C200 or DJI mounting plate somehow?) and a very lightweight HDMI cable to feed another (non C200) monitor screen that is mounted to the handle somehow - if you want to see what you're doing that is....

+++ I can't see how a one handed gimbal is practical here. I would be looking for a proper gimbal for that camera.

 - DP Autofocus is very good, but it's not infallible. For example, Fuji is 'nearly' comparable in my book, X-T3 better than X-H1 it seems, but still Canon is not lightyears ahead or perfect (in my opinion) as is frequently stated. Of course there's manual focus for which the aids are good..

+++ Pretty good, not there yet. Still going manual

 - Internal ND's. Well, brilliant really, but you'll still be tweaking ISO/Aperture as expected as they are stepped. Not easy to change ISO and Aperture without side handle attached. Perhaps i'm missing something here. Aperture/ISO vertical side wheel on the left is an odd one, it works, just not very tactile/easy to locate..

+++ I agree...and Sony has the upper hand here (and the lower price).

 - Battery life concerns, well forget about them really compared to many mirrorless, especially with the larger BP-A60 (expensive but again sized for a job). Larger battery may also be beneficial in terms of weight placement on a gimbal - depending on lens etc.

+++ Eats battery a lot more than other C cameras. A lot more than my NX1 (we did some interviews, and with the same use we had to charge the Canon battery) does. We had 2, I assume, small batteries.

 - Not having a stabilised sensor (of course good and bad here) means that stabilised lenses are well advised for many. The 85mm 1.4 IS is frankly amazing in my view. 35mm F2 IS also great. Want to go wide and stabilised with autofocus, hmmmm, F4 wide/shallow enough for you? Room for a new lens in the Canon line-up here..

+++ The solution is the CN-E 18-80 and the 70-200 4.4T lenses I guess.

 - Will not be compatible with present/future RF lenses so 'forced' to invest in lens tech that may be superseded, but is of course still brilliant in many instances and will always work with an adapter on future models

+++ Yep, RF is the future of Canon!

 - In terms of general usability, accessing menus/options/button placements, I just don't love it, perhaps that is a 'yet' statement. Difficult to quantify, just a personal feeling..

+++Do not love it. Better than Sony..

Hope it helps some...

+++Certainly! Thank you!

 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Just did my first shoot with the C200. A few observations:

-It's a small, weird little body. Taller, and maybe even fatter, than it is long. Strange ergonomic choice if you want to get it on the shoulder. Still, the dedicated buttons cover all the essential tools/controls and are easy to find...except the strangely placed operator-side record button, which is hard to find by feel. Comes into play when you're jammed in a little closet.

-With Wide DR gamma and Production Camera matrix, the tones and color palette are lovely straight out of the camera. Particularly in mixed lighting, the Canon pumps out predictably pretty results. Can't speak to their accuracy, but for a sentimental narrative it was just what the doctor ordered.

-The new 2K XF-AVC is a weak codec. Looks nice with no corrections or grading, but falls apart quickly if you biff your white balance or start to mess around in Resolve/Lumetri. Still, it's nice to have the extra metadata, and they make good dailies/proxies to use until we circle back and link up the RAW Lite files (which we haven't touched yet).

-The viewfinder is nice and usable. Not nearly as good as the incomparable C700 EVF, but that costs about as much as the C200. ? For a built in, it does exactly what I need--show an accurate enough, sharp enough picture to operate and review with. The tilt was nice too, especially since I LOVE low angles.

-RAW Lite chews through CFast cards like nothing. 128GB cards gave us 15mins each. Now I know how film shooters feel with their limited mag sizes. It didn't hold us back too much this time, but our future days will have longer, more complex takes, and I don't relish the idea of nervously watching our card time tick down.

-It's a nice light camera, and moves around easily. In my case, I really prefer more mass to keep things uber steady. Might have to rig her up a bit more for our next go around.

-I was fighting the fading sunlight in our last scene of the day (these damn, short Wisconsin days...), but I didn't seem to suffer too much penalty for bumping up to ISO 1600/2000 for our last couple shots. A little NR should take care of it. Ultimately, I think it'll actually be less noticable than the blue shift in the window light. Hopefully I can color it out convincingly.

I'll end with a few stills for your perusal, but...for the price, it really is an easy, simple little camera. If the RAW punches as hard as I've heard, then the ease of use vs strength of results ratio is very impressive. I have mixed feelings on the body, but as a nice cheap rental, it delivered exactly what I needed.

 

[thebrothersthre3]

Nice looking shots.

[BenEricson]

28 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Just did my first shoot with the C200. A few observations:

-It's a small, weird little body. Taller, and maybe even fatter, than it is long. Strange ergonomic choice if you want to get it on the shoulder. Still, the dedicated buttons cover all the essential tools/controls and are easy to find...except the strangely placed operator-side record button, which is hard to find by feel. Comes into play when you're jammed in a little closet.

-With Wide DR gamma and Production Camera matrix, the tones and color palette are lovely straight out of the camera. Particularly in mixed lighting, the Canon pumps out predictably pretty results. Can't speak to their accuracy, but for a sentimental narrative it was just what the doctor ordered.

-The new 2K XF-AVC is a weak codec. Looks nice with no corrections or grading, but falls apart quickly if you biff your white balance or start to mess around in Resolve/Lumetri. Still, it's nice to have the extra metadata, and they make good dailies/proxies to use until we circle back and link up the RAW Lite files (which we haven't touched yet).

-The viewfinder is nice and usable. Not nearly as good as the incomparable C700 EVF, but that costs about as much as the C200. ? For a built in, it does exactly what I need--show an accurate enough, sharp enough picture to operate and review with. The tilt was nice too, especially since I LOVE low angles.

-RAW Lite chews through CFast cards like nothing. 128GB cards gave us 15mins each. Now I know how film shooters feel with their limited mag sizes. It didn't hold us back too much this time, but our future days will have longer, more complex takes, and I don't relish the idea of nervously watching our card time tick down.

-It's a nice light camera, and moves around easily. In my case, I really prefer more mass to keep things uber steady. Might have to rig her up a bit more for our next go around.

-I was fighting the fading sunlight in our last scene of the day (these damn, short Wisconsin days...), but I didn't seem to suffer too much penalty for bumping up to ISO 1600/2000 for our last couple shots. A little NR should take care of it. Ultimately, I think it'll actually be less noticable than the blue shift in the window light. Hopefully I can color it out convincingly.

I'll end with a few stills for your perusal, but...for the price, it really is an easy, simple little camera. If the RAW punches as hard as I've heard, then the ease of use vs strength of results ratio is very impressive. I have mixed feelings on the body, but as a nice cheap rental, it delivered exactly what I needed.

 

Looks good. If you’re renting, why not the C300 mk2? I’m assuming for narrative the high but rate would be more valuable than the 60p in 4K. 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

51 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

Looks good. If you’re renting, why not the C300 mk2? I’m assuming for narrative the high but rate would be more valuable than the 60p in 4K. 

Because Cinema Raw Light is actually higher quality than the 10-bit XF-AVC from the C300 II, and we didn't need the faster workflow or broadcast features of the latter.

[Gregormannschaft]

18 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Because Cinema Raw Light is actually higher quality than the 10-bit XF-AVC from the C300 II, and we didn't need the faster workflow or broadcast features of the latter.

Really nice shots. Curious why you went with Wide DR? Don't get me wrong, it's great for stuff with a quick turnaround but I wouldn't have thought it would be the go to choice for narrative work.

We shoot with a bunch of these at work on a very regular basis. The 8bit footage can be made to look great, but the 10bit footage from the C300 mk2 is noticeably better in quality, as it should be. RAW Lite is beautiful though, if you have a good data management system on set (basically just offloading 1 of 3 cards and juggling them) it's very doable to shoot all day. Just prepare to use Neat Video a lot in post.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

6 hours ago, Gregormannschaft said:

Really nice shots. Curious why you went with Wide DR? Don't get me wrong, it's great for stuff with a quick turnaround but I wouldn't have thought it would be the go to choice for narrative work.

We shoot with a bunch of these at work on a very regular basis. The 8bit footage can be made to look great, but the 10bit footage from the C300 mk2 is noticeably better in quality, as it should be. RAW Lite is beautiful though, if you have a good data management system on set (basically just offloading 1 of 3 cards and juggling them) it's very doable to shoot all day. Just prepare to use Neat Video a lot in post.

Our XF-AVC files were just for review/dailies and the offline edit, so I wanted something that looked nice right out of the camera. Plenty of time to work with LOG gammas when we circle back to the RAW files.

We had about 6 128gb cards to shuffle between, averaging 4 mins of card space per shot. Did alright on that system, since we were only doing simple coverage that day; once we get into more complex blocking, emotions, and camera movement, I can see storage becoming a concern. Time will tell.

I'm curious about your Neat Video comment. Are you saying the sensor itself is noisy? Or just that the CRL files don't have much baked in NR?

[Gregormannschaft]

1 hour ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Our XF-AVC files were just for review/dailies and the offline edit, so I wanted something that looked nice right out of the camera. Plenty of time to work with LOG gammas when we circle back to the RAW files.

We had about 6 128gb cards to shuffle between, averaging 4 mins of card space per shot. Did alright on that system, since we were only doing simple coverage that day; once we get into more complex blocking, emotions, and camera movement, I can see storage becoming a concern. Time will tell.

I'm curious about your Neat Video comment. Are you saying the sensor itself is noisy? Or just that the CRL files don't have much baked in NR?

To me it looks like there's minimal NR going on with CRL and it's most noticeable in the shadows. I'd be interested to see what you find when you get to looking at your files.