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

NorBro said:
The thing about the 8K though is that realistically it's only for less than 1% of people right now just how 4K was at one point in time.

Like how many people were paying $20K for a RED ONE in 2007, you know? Or something else?

I didn't get my first 4K camera until 2014. 7 years later!

So just because 8K exists now doesn't mean it has to immediately come into serious play for everyone. I know it may seem crazy now and really difficult to comprehend, but you might look back at this thread in 5 years and laugh because of how much more the world has changed again in such a short period of time.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. But as a late adopter, I'm just now starting to come around to 4k, and I can still just barely see its practical application. Watching a movie in a theater and sitting 20 feet in front of a screen, I'm perfectly satisfied with 4k. On a TV in a living room, I can hardly tell a difference unless I'm sitting within arms distance of the screen. On a computer monitor or a phone, it's even more unnecessary. So 8k seems like a completely unnecessary upgrade. There's only so much the human senses can perceive. I go to a ton of film festivals, and projects shot in HD don't really look any worse to my eyes than those shot in 4k. Good craft is what matters.
 
James0b57 said:
Dude! That is awesome! Glad to hear about your C200 aquisition!
Click to expand...

Thanks! Finally making the leap to 4K.

ade4all said:
How do you get that out of the c200?
Click to expand...

Record 12-bit Canon Raw Lite in-camera, and then compress down to 10-bit ProRes HQ. Using Adobe Media Encoder's watch folders and leaving the CRL files on the card, this can be automated so that it's basically a transparent part of the ingesting process. Of course, you do lose the flexibility of raw, but I'm fine with that.

The real struggle is finding reliable media in large enough sizes. The camera seems to have trouble with 512GB cards. Not all of them, but enough of them to suggest that 512GB cards are not fully supported by the camera. There are off-camera recording solutions like the SolidPod, but there are reports of problems with those as well. I'm currently researching my options.
 
Last edited:
Check out that thread on the Silicon Power cards. They seem to be holding up. I just bought a couple and can report back.
QuickHitRecord said:
Thanks! Finally making the leap to 4K.




Record 12-bit Canon Raw Lite in-camera, and then compress down to 10-bit ProRes HQ. Using Adobe Media Encoder's watch folders and leaving the CRL files on the card, this can be automated so that it's basically a transparent part of the ingesting process. Of course, you do lose the flexibility of raw, but I'm fine with that.

The real struggle is finding reliable media in large enough sizes. The camera seems to have trouble with 512GB cards. Not all of them, but enough of them to suggest that 512GB cards are not fully supported by the camera. There are off-camera recording solutions like the SolidPod, but there are reports of problems with those as well. I'm currently researching my options.
Click to expand...
 
Shoot 12bit RAW...via solidpod (or whatever you want). Then don't take it off the card. Leave it on the card and transcode on ingest. Then it lands on your working drive as however you specify. With that process you could get most of whatever you want out of it. Yea, you would lose the RAW workflow...but dial it in upon ingest and your pretty much there anyway .
 
There's speculation that doing any work on the files while they are still on the card isn't very good for the card.

(I don't know as I've never tried it to know any better. All of my life I've ingested first to a separate drive and then transcoded on/from there.)
 
NorBro said:
There's speculation that doing any work on the files while they are still on the card isn't very good for the card.

(I don't know as I've never tried it to know any better. All of my life I've ingested first to a separate drive and then transcoded on/from there.)
Click to expand...

If you want to be safe...record a 10bit 2K file out the HDMI for a backup (and/or a low data rate 4K) at the same time. Delete it once you get the 4K transcode. So you would still not be in danger of losing footage.
 
QuickHitRecord said:
Interesting. Never heard of this before. Was there a hard source that we could look at, or was someone just talking about it?
Click to expand...

I wish I could quickly reference the threads I've read over the years, but it would be difficult to find any particular thoughts now.

On the forums, it was mostly discussed whether or not you should edit off of your SD/SDHC/XC cards.

I searched Google and this was one of the first articles that popped up:

https://www.quora.com/Should-I-edit...he-video-files-to-a-SSD-then-edit-off-of-that

Another one: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/editing-hd-straight-from-sd-cards.1581725/

The reason transcoding from your cards may fall into the same category is because it's doing similar unnecessary, excessive reading/writing on your media.
 
QuickHitRecord said:
Yeah, at that price it was finally time to make the move. As I recall, you are (or were) a C100 shooter as well. The C100 didn't really leave me wanting for much.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm still shooting with two C100 Mark 1 cameras (and a 1DX II). After all these years, I finally now have a client requesting 4K footage, so I'm looking into the C200. I'm also intrigued by the Canon XF705 for event work, but I haven't seen enough samples in theatrical venues to know if it's good for my needs. Also, it's now more expensive than a C200 ($6999 vs $6499) so I'm leaning more to the C200, even though I lose the long servo zoom.

Decisions, decisions...
 
I used to be anti-full frame, but this week I worked a job on a Sony FS-7 with a speed booster and I'll be darned if it wasn't nice shooting on a psuedo full frame set-up. Shot all my doc B-Roll coverage on the Canon 24-105 f/4 (shooting at 2.8) and it was great.

I'd kick the tires on a full frame C500 if it had a good internal codec (in addition to raw), proper high speed frame rate, and in-body stabilization.......but who am I kidding, why would I upgrade for a much more expensive camera for things I want, when I have all my needs met on my C200s.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I always hear it's larger pixels that can contribute to better sensitivity, so if you increase both the resolution and sensor size equally then you'd not gaining anything in terms of high ISO capabilities. Take the Alexa 35mm vs the Alexa 65 which has four Alexa sensors stitched together; as far as I'm aware the image quality is exactly the same in terms of ISO performance, color rendition, etc., with the only difference being that it's a larger image (resulting in a large format look with shallower depth of field) with more resolution.

The downsides are you need larger, heavier, and more expensive lenses, as well as the depth of field being more shallow than what many would prefer.

Super35 and medium format both have their own looks, advantages, and disadvantages, and while cameras will continue to progress in technology, I don't see medium format becoming a standard that out-dates Super35.
Click to expand...

I haven't done any of the math myself, so I might be wrong. It is obvious that Arri didn't want to increase resolution without increasing sensor size because they didn't want users to suddenly be complaining about losing the IQ they had at 2K on the old sensor. Arri thinks they have found the sweet spot for the tradeoff between sensor size and resolution. I would guess that Canon would also increase sensor size when going to 8K for the same reason, although Canon does all kinds of noise reduction to keep the noise low at high ISO at the expense of detail.

Anyway, besides the basic electronic noise of the sensor, there is also the shot/poisson noise related to light hitting the sensor which I believe should decrease as the photosite area increases. In any case, between the finer noise detail and the increased sensor performance, I don't see why having an 8K full frame sensor should annoy anyone. Most people are already using full frame lenses so it isn't like it is going to be a huge weight increase. Just stop down or use a sensor crop if you want a different aesthetic.
 
If I were a betting man - and I am not - I'd say Canon will have an 8K camera announcement before the end of the year. It may be C700 MK X or C500 MK II. 8K is unlikely to appear on a sub-$10,000 camera, if they even come out with one. But Canon needs, at least, 6K to counter S1H and EVA1. And whatever Sony comes out with.
 
If the C500 MKII is full frame, I wonder if they would also release something equivilant to a full frame version of the Canon 18-80 along side it and/or have a sensor crop mode to use that lens and the servo 70-200.

After reading over the specs it almost sounds like they're chopping up the C700 so you can buy a cheaper one without all of the parts that you don't want. Will be interested to see if there's any new innovation in the camera or if it's just a more affordable jump into a C700-ish world.
 
"The same source said that the camera will cost under $20,000 USD."

...aka $19,999.00, ha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top