C200: $1,000 Price Drop.....C500MKII coming soon?

puredrifting said:
What I havent seen delineated in this discussion very much is the difference between crew served cameras and single op cameras, that seems to be a large differentiator. I work on several shows like The Handmaids Tale, Homeland, Prison Break as well as features here and there and no small inexpensive cameras are used as A or even B cameras in this type of production. I don't see that changing anytime in the near future. As long as you have two or three ACs for each camera, the form factor kind of has to be larger with a crew side and an operator side. I've been on set on a few indie/student films that tried to utilize small cameras like the XT-3 fully rigged and even the HVX200 back in the day. Those type cameras for that type production are a hindrance, they literally slow down production and end up costing more to use than a large professional camera because workflow issues come up that have to be solved and solving problems on set costs a lot of money.

Where I see cameras like the Pocket Cinemas and the S1H gaining a foothold is in documentary, some reality and some event type shoots. I've used large, heavy, bulky cameras like the Varicams, REDs amd Arris for that type of production and they are often a hindrance in situations where you are trying to be low key, fit into a crowd, shoot in public without permits, getting in and out of vehicles while shooting. I don't think either type of camera is intrinsically better than the other, it all just depends on the situation. I agree, I don't see cameras like the S1H being used by Hollywood on "bigger" productions, other than as plant cams, car cams, etc. I don't think that paradigm will change anytime soon. I see fewer and fewer larger cameras being used in Documentary and BTS type production too, why would we when we have tools that are as capable and unobtrusive as mirrorless rigs?

There is no one type of professional camera. In the right context, even crappy Go Pros can be professional cameras. To me, shooting documentary programming requires just as much professional acumen as being an operator on a high-end show or feature, it's just a totally different mindset with different requirements. When you are crew on a 200 person crew project, you are merely a cog in the machine, whereas in a four person documentary crew, you are the machine, you have to have a totally different, wider context about drawing out and capturing your story at all times, whereas when I crew on big productions, I just listen to the ADs who tell us what we're doing next. 100% different mindset and gear requirements. I enjoy both. I get Eric's points about specs versus actual output. My C200 with careful lighting and post shooting RAW can look almost indistinguishable from an Arri. But the Arri is much better built, and is superior for any kind of crewed production. But for documentary shoots, I'd rather have three C200s running around than one Amira, even though the Amira is objectively a better tool. Coverage trumps quality, in that situation, for me. But If I am shooting my centerpiece interviews with my main talent, I'd typically rather us an Amira than the C200, because that extra 15% better picture quality might actually make a difference in the end product. Not a huge difference but a significant difference. For an interview, I don't generally need ACs, but I'd still always use the better camera, given that choice. So many variables though.
Click to expand...
Perfect!.....and I personally hate "work arounds"....in the end, it just makes more work and eats up time...and can eat up time in post.......there, my micro rant!
 
puredrifting said:
What I havent seen delineated in this discussion very much is the difference between crew served cameras and single op cameras, that seems to be a large differentiator. I work on several shows like The Handmaids Tale, Homeland, Prison Break as well as features here and there and no small inexpensive cameras are used as A or even B cameras in this type of production. I don't see that changing anytime in the near future. As long as you have two or three ACs for each camera, the form factor kind of has to be larger with a crew side and an operator side. I've been on set on a few indie/student films that tried to utilize small cameras like the XT-3 fully rigged and even the HVX200 back in the day. Those type cameras for that type production are a hindrance, they literally slow down production and end up costing more to use than a large professional camera because workflow issues come up that have to be solved and solving problems on set costs a lot of money.

Where I see cameras like the Pocket Cinemas and the S1H gaining a foothold is in documentary, some reality and some event type shoots. I've used large, heavy, bulky cameras like the Varicams, REDs amd Arris for that type of production and they are often a hindrance in situations where you are trying to be low key, fit into a crowd, shoot in public without permits, getting in and out of vehicles while shooting. I don't think either type of camera is intrinsically better than the other, it all just depends on the situation. I agree, I don't see cameras like the S1H being used by Hollywood on "bigger" productions, other than as plant cams, car cams, etc. I don't think that paradigm will change anytime soon. I see fewer and fewer larger cameras being used in Documentary and BTS type production too, why would we when we have tools that are as capable and unobtrusive as mirrorless rigs?

There is no one type of professional camera. In the right context, even crappy Go Pros can be professional cameras. To me, shooting documentary programming requires just as much professional acumen as being an operator on a high-end show or feature, it's just a totally different mindset with different requirements. When you are crew on a 200 person crew project, you are merely a cog in the machine, whereas in a four person documentary crew, you are the machine, you have to have a totally different, wider context about drawing out and capturing your story at all times, whereas when I crew on big productions, I just listen to the ADs who tell us what we're doing next. 100% different mindset and gear requirements. I enjoy both. I get Eric's points about specs versus actual output. My C200 with careful lighting and post shooting RAW can look almost indistinguishable from an Arri. But the Arri is much better built, and is superior for any kind of crewed production. But for documentary shoots, I'd rather have three C200s running around than one Amira, even though the Amira is objectively a better tool. Coverage trumps quality, in that situation, for me. But If I am shooting my centerpiece interviews with my main talent, I'd typically rather us an Amira than the C200, because that extra 15% better picture quality might actually make a difference in the end product. Not a huge difference but a significant difference. For an interview, I don't generally need ACs, but I'd still always use the better camera, given that choice. So many variables though.
Click to expand...

Even in documentaries there are different kinds of situations. When I am shooting folks who have never spoken infront of a camera, the bigger the camera you use the more tensed they become. Forget Amira, even the C300 (without a matte box) becomes a big thing for them. The C300 viewfinder is ok, but I prefer the monitor. The monitor makes it look professional to people. So shooting with 1DXII. The BMD 6K pocket will be a better bet due to its smaller size. So the person will feel that these guys are amateurs and be confident. Same thing shooting in crowded streets without permissions. Even without monitor the C300 or 1DXII look big.

Personally I have no problem in using high end equipment. It is about the economics of buying it. For my corporate and other shoots where I have more control and where I am not shooting in the crowd these bigger cameras are better. As I slowly scale up, each scenario needs to be evaluated before my next camera buying decision as there are enough signs of an economic slowdown.
 
Run&Gun said:
Here is where me and Dan part ways, most of the time. I actually think, most of the time, that the larger cameras are easier to use as a one-man band, because cameras like my VariCam were designed to go on the operators shoulder from the get-go. They have a large, native VF. You’re not rigging up a monitor or a third party VF. I drop my wireless into the slot and it is connected and powered by the camera. It’s not hanging off the side by rubber bands with a mess of cables. TC isn’t an issue, either. And one battery powers it all. It’s just so much easier and more efficient. Even over fixed lens handycam type cameras. And oh yeah, the lens on a big camera...

If you’re just out shooting some b-roll or pretty pictures, sure, the little cameras can be just fine, but otherwise, they are just such a compromise and pain to actually operate.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you say at all, it just comes down to the situation. For the stuff I've been shooting the past couple of years, a full sized camera, while easier to operate with, would have not let me capture the stories I have, in the way that I have. Operating a mirrorless is definitely more of a PITA than a professional shoulder mounted camera. But in some ways, like not exhausting myself after carrying it around for hours and hours, shooting in cars, on tiny boats, etc. the smaller and lighter, the better. Operationally, pro cameras are definitely the best, mirrorless is a compromise with ergos, tools missing, ruggedness, reliability, etc. But for some shoots and productions, they are better, mine lately being the case.
 
indiawilds said:
Even in documentaries there are different kinds of situations. When I am shooting folks who have never spoken infront of a camera, the bigger the camera you use the more tensed they become. Forget Amira, even the C300 (without a matte box) becomes a big thing for them. The C300 viewfinder is ok, but I prefer the monitor. The monitor makes it look professional to people. So shooting with 1DXII. The BMD 6K pocket will be a better bet due to its smaller size. So the person will feel that these guys are amateurs and be confident. Same thing shooting in crowded streets without permissions. Even without monitor the C300 or 1DXII look big.

Personally I have no problem in using high end equipment. It is about the economics of buying it. For my corporate and other shoots where I have more control and where I am not shooting in the crowd these bigger cameras are better. As I slowly scale up, each scenario needs to be evaluated before my next camera buying decision as there are enough signs of an economic slowdown.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, good synopsis. It's true, non-professional talent are literally more emotionally open with me when I am shooting them relating to me when I have a tiny XT-3 in their face than a fully rigged Amira or RED. I can shoot in so many more public places without getting hassled with an XT-3 even than with the C200. Small, high quality cameras have been a Godsend for documentary filmmaking, they let you capture stories in a way that simply wasn't possible before.
 
IMO, these new rumored C500/FS-9 designs will show a greater universality, where they'll be good enough for a high end narrative (6K, Raw) and ENG (auto focus, 2.8K crop). The workflow solution might not be far away with the external control panels or a simple WiFi Blu Tooth connections to smartphones and laptops/Notepads.

Likewise, the less obtrusive devices will be producing a good enough image quality for most uses. Sony's purported to announce its APS-C models in the next few weeks. Considering how much processing power and AI is stuffed into smartphones these days, these units will also be bumping against the limitations of the human eye.
 
The C700 can most probably upgrade the sensor, so there is no need for another full frame line, as you can just switch to 8K in both the S35 and FF model. The C500 Mark II will most probably be Super 35.
 
Well, we should find out soon. 90D was kind of outed last night, so that Canon rumor was pretty accurate.

Let's see how well they'll do on C500 MKII.
 
I watched the "leaked" 90D promo. The AF seems to be working very well - eye, face, group, etc. And all off one Digic8 processor. You'd think that a $10,000-$20,000 camera would have all that and more.

Side note - an artist friend posts a lot of Gustav Klimt paintings (photos). Just to watch Klimt's framing and composition makes you want a large sensor.
 
DLD said:
Side note - an artist friend posts a lot of Gustav Klimt paintings (photos). Just to watch Klimt's framing and composition makes you want a large sensor.
Click to expand...

Most obscure, interesting visual analogy I've seen on camera boards in a long time.
I bet 99% of FF users have never heard of Klimt, the Vienna Secession Movement and his erotically charged female portraits but that's a valid aspiration.
 
puredrifting said:
I hope so. I truly dislike FF imagers for cinematography, they're an answer to a question that nobody asked.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind it, if only to turn the 24-105 f/4 IS lens into a true documentary workhorse lens and my 16-35 f/4 IS lens into a fantastic wide angle option. Might help offset the price of the camera by breathing new life into some really nice, but relatively inexpensive lenses.
 
Last edited:
chris f said:
I wouldn't mind it, if only to turn the 24-105 f/4 IS lens into a true documentary workhorse lens and my 16-35 f/4 IS lens into a fantastic wide angle option. Might help offset the price of the camera by breathing new life into some really nice, but relatively inexpensive lenses.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people buy cameras like the C200 and put "budget" lenses on it rather than lenses like 18-80 which are great but just not a lens a lot of people own.
I think the fact that the 17-55 is vignettes so much on the C200 sort of stinks. It's too bad the image circle isn't a little bit bigger.
I'm too lazy to look up the image circle for the 24-105 and 16-35 but if you put any kind of filter on them and they start to vignette I'd rather have a 1.1 sensor versus a 1.0.
I definitely wouldn't want a 1.3 though.
The 24-105 is the lens that is on my C200 most of the time though. I prefer FF lenses on it. I'm not a fan of lenses like Sigma with their short throw. They just don't zoom enough for my taste.
I'm probably not really interested in FF anytime soon. I'd want 8k and it would be too expensive, cut too many corners and be way more of a data hog than even todays RAW cameras.
 
Stills2HDConvert said:
I'd want 8k and it would be too expensive, cut too many corners and be way more of a data hog than even todays RAW cameras.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. You will get 8K at 100Mb/s.

First we had HD at 100Mb/s. Then 4K at 100Mb/s. People look for how many Ks resolution the camera is capable of. Data rate is overlooked.
 
indiawilds said:
Don't worry. You will get 8K at 100Mb/s.

First we had HD at 100Mb/s. Then 4K at 100Mb/s. People look for how many Ks resolution the camera is capable of. Data rate is overlooked.
Click to expand...
The data rate per number of pixels is going down due to the processing power increase and the newer quality sensors. A full sensor 6K readout is no longer a novelty and what was once heavily binned can be just included into a data stream and only then compressed. And then 100 Mbps is still way above YouTube's 30-40.

PS. And codecs are far more efficient also.
 
indiawilds said:
Don't worry. You will get 8K at 100Mb/s.

First we had HD at 100Mb/s. Then 4K at 100Mb/s. People look for how many Ks resolution the camera is capable of. Data rate is overlooked.
Click to expand...

My Mavic Pro does 4K at 60Mbps. Which looks like hell, almost unusable but with some Neat Video and CC, it's okay looking.
I personally feel that 100Mbps is completely inadequate for UHD, yet the entire Sony A7 line does just that, at 8-bit. Then again,
I'm not a fan of the look of the A7 variant footage. I mostly shoot the XT-3 at 200Mbps, that seems to be a great sweet spot for
UHD. I've compared it to the 400Mbps setting and I can't see any difference on my iMac 5K screen? What do you guys think is
the best data rate for H.265 UHD?
 
Samsung NX1 had two recording speeds at HEVC - a 40 Mbps (low IQ) and 80 Mbps (high IQ). It was hacked to produce 150 ... but then "everyone" thought 150 wasn't any different than 80 anyway.

Of course, that was five years ago. So, as Saby said, 100 just might be enough for 6K.
 
DLD said:
Samsung NX1 had two recording speeds at HEVC - a 40 Mbps (low IQ) and 80 Mbps (high IQ). It was hacked to produce 150 ... but then "everyone" thought 150 wasn't any different than 80 anyway.

Of course, that was five years ago. So, as Saby said, 100 just might be enough for 6K.
Click to expand...

That seems crazy low for such a huge raster but what do I know, I'm not a compression expert.
 
So, is anyone going to start a C500 MKII thread here or is the Industry News forum good enough?
 
DLD said:
So, is anyone going to start a C500 MKII thread here or is the Industry News forum good enough?
Click to expand...

I thought this was the C500 MKII thread? But all of the posting is over in the Industry News forum. I'm sure once we get some reviews and hands ons, someone will begin a thread over here possibly?
 
I am sure someone will start it once the official announcement is made and all the details are known.

But here's some pondering -- Canon is going to release a bunch of fairly high priced RF-mount lenses ... but 500 MKII is EF. And they're not backward compatible. Which makes me think that there'll be new RF-mount cameras. "Duh, captain Obvious", you might say. "Clearly, there'll be new RF models coming out soon. There's plenty of talk about a 70 MPX stills shooter already".

But is there going to be a more video-centric model coming out as well? If C500 MKII is around $20,000, there'd have to be other models in the S1H mode. And the C300 mode. There have to be. Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top