C200: $1,000 Price Drop.....C500MKII coming soon?
- Thread starter chris f
- Start date
rob norton
Veteran
That's also my plan but if there's room to make enough money by getting hired because of c500 ii ownership and I had the projects lined up then it'd be a no brainer. I guess you could say this about any piece of equipment. But shooting and editing myself (not put off by CRL) then the c200 will keep going strong.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I'm pretty stoked, I just booked a BTS shoot on a big commercial shoot with A-list talent next week. C200 and client specifically doesn't want to shoot 4K, he said it's overkill. This will be for broadcast and web use.
Still making money with my ancient Ninja Blade, shooting Prores HQ, which they like. So I am using my four or five year old recorder and my year and a half old camera with my fifteen year
old tripod and head to go make some money.
I'm never buying another camera until clients tell me they want me to buy another camera and they are willing to pay more for me to shoot with the new camera. Other than that, you're just putting money into disposable
technology that could be paying off consumer debt, buying real estate, 401k. I love new toys but it doesn't sound like either of your clients will bump your day camera rental rate over the C200 to shoot the C500 MKII will they?
Still making money with my ancient Ninja Blade, shooting Prores HQ, which they like. So I am using my four or five year old recorder and my year and a half old camera with my fifteen year
old tripod and head to go make some money.
I'm never buying another camera until clients tell me they want me to buy another camera and they are willing to pay more for me to shoot with the new camera. Other than that, you're just putting money into disposable
technology that could be paying off consumer debt, buying real estate, 401k. I love new toys but it doesn't sound like either of your clients will bump your day camera rental rate over the C200 to shoot the C500 MKII will they?
chris f
Veteran
Couple of interesting tidbits here (including a few about my C200 that I didn't know about...): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4TqoBBvdg4
- 120fps still doesn't look good
- IBIS only works when shooting compressed (not when shooting raw)
- Camera still defaults to 60P when you switch back from raw to compressed or visa versa (come on Canon! figure it out)
- Hard to tell from a YouTube video but image quality improvements over the C200 were minimal at best
Will be interested to see more reviews/test come out, but wonder if this upgrade is going to be more about added features/versatility than it is increased image quality.
- 120fps still doesn't look good
- IBIS only works when shooting compressed (not when shooting raw)
- Camera still defaults to 60P when you switch back from raw to compressed or visa versa (come on Canon! figure it out)
- Hard to tell from a YouTube video but image quality improvements over the C200 were minimal at best
Will be interested to see more reviews/test come out, but wonder if this upgrade is going to be more about added features/versatility than it is increased image quality.
Last edited:
rob norton
Veteran
Yeah, I think it's a fairly weak reason to upgrade to the c500 ii from the c200 because of image quality alone.
Grug
Veteran
One VERY important caveat to keep in mind when looking at those tests - they were comparing all three cameras on the same lens, and cropping the C500ii to S35mm in order to make the comparison.
So you're not actually seeing how the full-frame image from the C500ii compares, just how it'll look in S35mm mode.
Using the full 6k sensor, the noise will be smaller, and the resolution higher - it should yield a noticeable improvement in IQ and overall latitude. In S35mm mode, there looks to be virtually nothing in it between the C200 and C500ii - which is good, because obviously the C200 will make a terrific B-camera when needed.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I've shot 120 fps on our C200 once, it does look terrible. The 120 fps on our XT-3 looks so much better
Weird about the IBIS not being active when shooting RAW, disappointing
The default to 60p upon format/raster change is maddening, I can't conceive why Canon refuses to make this work correctly, especially on a newly engineered camera! Why Canon, why?!??
As far as image improvements, I saw slight differences but nothing radical. I wish they would have also shot some FF to compare against the C200.
As far as upgrading, for me, it's still a business decision and IMHO, our type of clients won't pay any more for a day rate for the C500 MKII versus our C200. Especially if
we showed them this test video. As far as convenience and cool new features, I'd love to get one but it's really not worth the extra $15k I'd have to com up with to get one.
Last edited:
If it's fully digital or mechanical/optical + digital, it makes perfect sense for it not to be available in Raw.
chris f
Veteran
That's a good point. Will be interested to see any visual IQ improvements beyond the FF look.
chris f
Veteran
I'm still in a similar spot. For example last week I did a 3-day doc shoot where the director was using his C300MKII and I was able to convince him and the producer that my C200s would match well and explained the shooting options (compressed vs. raw). The director wanted to shoot raw which surprised me because I knew how much data I was going to burn through, but that's what we went with. Sure enough before day 3 started there was a mad dash to find more hard drives because they ran out of space and needed to get everything transferred and double backed up before their flight the next morning.
They probably weren't happy about dropping an extra $400-$600 on hard drives nor having their producer run around town frantically for a few hours, but at the same time they probably wouldn't have bumped my rate $400-$600 to shoot on a C500MKII and get them really high quality compressed files that wouldn't fill their drives.
So the C500MKII would have made shooting easier, offloading easier, and post easier (this is their first time editing with Canon Raw so I'm having to do some additional education there...), but I doubt it would have garnered any extra $$ to pay for all of those benefits (it's a non-profit client that had to squeeze the budget as much as possible).
puredrifting
Major Contributor
That's what I think is the dilemma for C200 owners. If the C500 MKII was $11k like the FX-9, it would be a no brainer to upgrade but for more than double the cost of the C200, If you mainly want to shoot RAW, which I do and at least some of my clients do, the business case to buy one just isn't there.
Clients don't care about FF, most of them probably have no idea what that even means. RAW is an easier sell, if they are a still photographer, they might shoot RAW or even just explaining that it's 12-bit, it has greater detail, resolution, DR, etc.
I like those early C200 tests that Crimson Engine shot comparing the 8-bit MP4 to the 12b-bit RAW you can even see the difference with crappy YouTube compression. C500 MKII is an aspirational camera for me, I would buy it in a heartbeat for a big, long term project like I've shot in the past
but for day playing, a day here, two days there, I don't find it a good business case for me.
Run&Gun
Veteran
1) I'm with DLD, I thought the interior samples looked pretty darn good.
2) Yes, it's only a short sample test with a pre-production model(correct?), but the IBIS was unimpressive, as was the auto-focus.
3) Just based on the cost of this camera, it doesn't warrant a $400-$600 rate increase over a C200 unless you are below market rates for an op with gear(most of my clients don't pay based on the particular camera unless you go into Arri-land. They pay the same for an F55, F5, Fs7, C300, VariCam, etc.) But if you're in CA, your rates are probably below ours here on the east coast, anyway. I could interchange the 500/II with my original 300, rate wise and never miss a beat, beside the 300 being paid off and making gravy for years. I still get the same with my OG 300 as I did the day I bought it. But again, I'm in the southeast, not CA/NY where guys will cut their own mothers throats for work. It is getting more and more crowded/competitive here everyday, but it's still not to the level of absurdity that it is there.
2) Yes, it's only a short sample test with a pre-production model(correct?), but the IBIS was unimpressive, as was the auto-focus.
3) Just based on the cost of this camera, it doesn't warrant a $400-$600 rate increase over a C200 unless you are below market rates for an op with gear(most of my clients don't pay based on the particular camera unless you go into Arri-land. They pay the same for an F55, F5, Fs7, C300, VariCam, etc.) But if you're in CA, your rates are probably below ours here on the east coast, anyway. I could interchange the 500/II with my original 300, rate wise and never miss a beat, beside the 300 being paid off and making gravy for years. I still get the same with my OG 300 as I did the day I bought it. But again, I'm in the southeast, not CA/NY where guys will cut their own mothers throats for work. It is getting more and more crowded/competitive here everyday, but it's still not to the level of absurdity that it is there.
cpreston
Veteran
I don't think the C200 and the C500 MK II are really in the same market. To me, the C500 MK II is really geared toward the C300 MK II shooters or luring people away from the FS7. when the C200 was announced, I went out and bought another C300 II. The C200 really didn't have much to offer me because it lacked timecode and an intermediate codec and some of the video outputs. The C500 MK II is really more of a replacement for the C300 folks who might be able to convince their clients to try out the new(old) full frame look with all of the extra frame rate options. I can also see a couple of clients agreeing to work with CRL for their product shots.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
It's just the sheer amount of people and gear out here that makes it stupid. I was on a shoot at a Comedy Club two years ago and the way the shoot was set up, there were multiple crews, shooting for multiple clients. All three person small crews, kind of EPK style, shooting interviews and all of us shooting red carpet as the comedians and attendees arrived. At least for that shoot, there were ten crews working it, every single crew was shooting C300, C300 MKII or C100. This was before the FS7 started blowing up. During breaks I spoke with a lot of the people in the other crews and listened in as people were discussing what they were working on. Almost all were shooting projects for the studios as we were, most were doing TV also. The competition out here is insane, there are literally tens of thousands of people in this market with your same camera, lighting, gear, vying for the same work. There is a lot of work but it's still too cutthroat to get much traction. That's why I sort of try to go back and forth from entertainment/studio stuff to higher end corporate. There is still more money in producing corporate work than day playing for bigger production companies and ad agencies/PR firms.
At least if you can land a few higher end corporate clients, you can still get projects that have budgets of $20k to $50k versus day playing at your rate. Day playing only works if you can do a LOT of them in a month. This month was good, I think I shot 12 days, day playing, but the past few months over the Summer were slow as hell. The key is landing some longer term projects and getting off of the treadmill. Or hooking up with one of the huge production services companies who will work you a lot but it's hard to get a foot into those doors.
Last edited:
IMO, unless Panasonic soon brings out a non-DSLR style model (though S1H produces darn good images and many will rig it for the pro use), C500 MKII and FX9 will swallow the whole $8,000-$30,000 market in no time. The most negatively effected will be Red but many current C100/200/300/500 and FS7 owners will be forced to go with the flow and invest into a new camera also. Either one or the other, keep the glass you have but upgrade your model pronto.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
JPNola
Veteran
I know some of you have scoffed at my making a big deal out of the C500MkII not coming with a full-size eyepiece as standard and said it isn't a big deal to you personally, but I still think it a significant factor for folks such as rental houses or for someone making the gear selection for a reality-tv show. Ready to go, as is, out of the box- that's a big consideration for some. And no doubt that the rental rates on the Fx9 will be lower than for the C500mkII. If you don't need or want raw there is little reason to go with the C500MkII.
"Video Europe signs up for 20 Sony FX9 cameras"
https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/tech/video-europe-signs-up-for-20-sony-fx9-cameras/5143120.article
Run&Gun
Veteran
I've said this forever. A real VF is invaluable. I stand by my assertion that the little dinky POS's on the backs of the C cameras is a joke to anyone that has spent their career shooting with real EVF's. Will it do in a pinch? Yes. Is it something you want to constantly operate with? Hell no. If you say otherwise, you're also probably the type of person that enjoys being kicked in the face with a hobnail boot.
I'll save you the trouble of looking it up, just in case you don't know what I'm talking about. https://youtu.be/UtoJVv968ng?t=170