C200: Alexa Mini VS C200

I haven't shot my C200 against the Alexa or Amira but I did a similar test with the RED Epic Dragon last year and personally, I thought the image from my C200 was more pleasing, had less noise although not as much adjustability/latitude as the RED image.
But I am not a colorist so the RED image probably could have been made to look a lot better than I was capable of making it look.
 
The Canon C200 has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of here: it's offering a better resolved image with less dynamic range. While DR is very desirable, the irony is that any effort to CREATE content implies controlling the frame including the lighting. The higher end your production is, the fewer stops of DR your camera will need to manage due to proper lighting and/or diffusion.

On the upside, the C200 offers usable auto focus, ND-filters and a much smaller power solution. For many users, these things are equally, if not more important than.... no, make that 'deal breaking' features that if omitted the camera becomes so much less functional that it's essentially a non starter.

Larger productions will appreciate the sturdiness and build quality of the ARRI, plus it's such an established standard that there are few surprises—which is probably high on the thumbs-up-list for people where the camera is one small piece of a much larger puzzle.

Now, if they'd both only stop saying "sensor size" and immediately quote the pixel resolution. Not the same thing. =)
 
AndreeOnline said:
The higher end your production is, the fewer stops of DR your camera will need to manage due to proper lighting and/or diffusion.
Click to expand...

I've always found this paradox to be interesting - the higher the budget and better you are at your craft, the more you use tools that are built to fix mistakes that you shouldn't be making at that level - wrong exposure, color, or composition wrong on set. It's almost like your buying yourself a better insurance policy than you are a camera with that extra budget.

In practice I imagine all of these things give you more flexibility to make an already great shot look/feel even greater with manipulation in post, but comparison videos like this makes me feel like I really made a great choice in going with the C200.
 
chris f said:
I've always found this paradox to be interesting - the higher the budget and better you are at your craft, the more you use tools that are built to fix mistakes that you shouldn't be making at that level - wrong exposure, color, or composition wrong on set. It's almost like your buying yourself a better insurance policy than you are a camera with that extra budget.

In practice I imagine all of these things give you more flexibility to make an already great shot look/feel even greater with manipulation in post, but comparison videos like this makes me feel like I really made a great choice in going with the C200.
Click to expand...

That is true.
But the Alexa is really built with all of the interconnects wanted by a crew environment.
The C200 is not.
The DR/wide latitude argument is only a part of the picture.
For run and gun, autofocus, focus assist, the C200 is the clear choice.
Nice to see the C200 holds up very well in color grading with an Alexa.
The C200 is a great camera.
 
When properly lit and exposed, the C200/C300 II/C700 FF etc. can hang with the Alexas for color/skintones. However when overexposed, the Alexa is still usable and the Canons are not: https://youtu.be/HYSFSXr2G8w?t=405 . Canons have AF, Alexas don't: different capabilities and uses.

Watching a recent Red/Alexa Mini review, the Red looked pretty good, even in highlights next to the Alexa Mini. The dealbreaker was the comments of reliability issues for the Red. When there's sufficient budget, that's why Alexas get used: less risk and costs due to camera failures. Also cost savings for Red won't make sense since no professional would even attempt a higher end shoot with a single Red camera (true at the higher end even Alexas will have back up cameras). Canon and Sony cinema cameras are also reliable and in some ways better designed than Alexas (e.g. VF). VENICE has been getting kudos for high-end production usage.

3 years ago I found the Sony A7S II could hang very well against the C300 II (except in AF lol). From what I've seen of the Fuji X-T3 and A7 III, in terms of real detail, these little cameras surpass the C200 and C300 II for 4K image quality (~6K => 4K downsampling). The 1DX II also has superior detail in 4K vs. the C300 II.

This trend will continue: smaller cameras will continue to get better image quality and will see more adoption into higher end productions (vs. only crashcams and B/C cameras). Curious to see how ARRI will react with future products. The ALEV III processor while still great is now ancient in tech-time. The Mini is perhaps the most popular ARRI rental (lighter, cheaper, smaller), however it's still pretty big/heavy when rigged up, even compared to an equivalent Red. An Alexa LF owner stated they weren't renting their camera as much as the Alexa Mini, even though it has a superior image (more resolution, easier to get shallow DOF (FF sensor)). I think ARRI could make some interesting waves by producing a DSLR/mirrorless sized camera that could also shoot industry-leading stills (a larger market for cameras by far). Sure, the cinema purists might get cranky, however ARRI could make a lot of $$$. Perhaps a merger with Sony- in the same way Fiat and Ferrari teamed up (which boosted Ferrari into a much stronger company (starting in 1969), now mostly independent again (80% in 2015)).
 
They seem like a pair of mildly clueless types when it comes to camera testing.

The lack of ability to 'recover' the C200 could clearly be worked around - possibly at some cost.

.. make a exposure plus one LUT, expose for that (ie under expose from base) and magically a recoverable file (that might be noisy)

To be honest im not sure they had the canon raw working at all.

--
Resolution.. hmm lets zoom in a bit.
Now - folks might say resolution doesnt matter.. but if you friends in post want to push in.. or maybe you are shooting with a load of space to make multiple format deliverables.. then resolution matters.


--

Does the Mini do 200FPS? If so that is a major difference.
 
chris f said:
I've always found this paradox to be interesting - the higher the budget and better you are at your craft, the more you use tools that are built to fix mistakes that you shouldn't be making at that level - wrong exposure, color, or composition wrong on set. It's almost like your buying yourself a better insurance policy than you are a camera with that extra budget.
Click to expand...

I've thought about this alot while shooting weddings. It's one scenario where an Alexa really would stand out in quality compared to the competition. Its ability to deal with skintones under multiple mixed lights, and its dynamic range would be hugely valuable in many of the extreme lighting situations I found myself in.

Of course, lugging an Alexa around to film a wedding would seem absurdly silly.
 
Also found this older test from about a year ago. Looks like what you’re paying for with the Alexa Mini has more to do with better DR, Prores recording, build quality, latitude, production friendly design (TC, multiple SDI etc) and brand recognition/respect than pure image quality in a lot of scenarios. The Alexa is clearly superior when you list it all out like that, but as an owner/operator camera for “only” $6k, the C200, and it’s sister cameras the Ursa mini and EVA1, do punch above their weight.

 
Fahnon said:
Also found this older test from about a year ago. Looks like what you’re paying for with the Alexa Mini has more to do with better DR, Prores recording, build quality, latitude, production friendly design (TC, multiple SDI etc) and brand recognition/respect than pure image quality in a lot of scenarios. The Alexa is clearly superior when you list it all out like that, but as an owner/operator camera for “only” $6k, the C200, and it’s sister cameras the Ursa mini and EVA1, do punch above their weight.
Click to expand...

Matching a lower color quality camera to a higher one isn't the same as trying to get good results with the lower color quality camera by itself. That's why in general we see Alexa footage looking better than all the lower end cameras (on average).

I've found that Canon's DSLRs have better color than their cinema cameras, and using a 5D3 (or better) Canon DSLR as a reference by shooting raw stills can be very helpful for later color tuning video in post (a Nikon DLSR could also work). This can help with any camera shooting video: Canon Cx00, Sony, Panasonic, etc.
 
jcs said:
Matching a lower color quality camera to a higher one isn't the same as trying to get good results with the lower color quality camera by itself. That's why in general we see Alexa footage looking better than all the lower end cameras (on average).
Click to expand...

Well this brings up an excellent point. In neither of these tests did they have to degrade the Alexa to match the C200. Seems like if you nail exposure and limit the DR in your scene, the performance and image quality is largely the same. But the latitude and DR of the Alexa is in a different class.

I wonder if a pro colorist could get more DR out of the C200 using CLog 2, as that’s where Canon claims you can get a full 15 stops out of it and that’s Alexa territory.
 
Fahnon said:
Well this brings up an excellent point. In neither of these tests did they have to degrade the Alexa to match the C200. Seems like if you nail exposure and limit the DR in your scene, the performance and image quality is largely the same. But the latitude and DR of the Alexa is in a different class.

I wonder if a pro colorist could get more DR out of the C200 using CLog 2, as that’s where Canon claims you can get a full 15 stops out of it and that’s Alexa territory.
Click to expand...

There’s plenty of examples debunking the 15 stop claim. Shooting CLog 2 on the C300 II didn’t provide any magical DR improvement nor ability to recover from under/over exposure like ARRI. I have seen impressive results working with raw on Canon still cameras (never shot raw in the C300 II). Curious how Canon sensors are engineered- separate divisions or shared technology (color science is clearly different).
 
Highly doubt the camera provides 15 stops...Canon's always been a bit generous with their DR, but nothing else.

Then again it's all about usability so a camera can have 20 stops in someone's mind.
 
While it's convenient for the video makers to dwell on a few of their images, they barely touch on how both cameras would be used on set. They should've interviewed a handful of ACs who use the camera everyday, who could talk about where either camera would excel or slow down a production.

Even things like playback can be the difference between choosing one camera over the other once a shoot reaches a certain size.

Another big difference - I definitely cannot rent out my C200 for $1000/day before lenses but I'm sure there are mini owners who can't either!

Wasn't the alexa mini a slight accident in that it was more of a rigging camera that took off as a production camera?
 
jcs said:
Matching a lower color quality camera to a higher one isn't the same as trying to get good results with the lower color quality camera by itself.
Click to expand...

Who shoots the C200 by itself! I thought everyone would dual shoot with an Alexa so they could use it as a reference to get the C200 closer in post.

Jokes aside, most people would slap on a LUT (like from this guy or Arri Log C or @jcs?), in which case they would really have no idea how close their shot was to an actual Alexa, just an assumption it is close.
 
Fahnon said:
Also found this older test from about a year ago.
Click to expand...

Another completely clueless 'test'.

Tests only start when the director makes requests in post to the colourist.

009 - 'the window is blown can you pull the outside back for me'

0017 - the man with the dog.. I can't see him - lighten up the forest'

053 - hoodie smoking.. 'its too red.. make it blue like night'

Then the file breaks.. or not.

==

My personal opinion is that 90% of operators have no clue how to expose or workflow the C200 to get the best from it.

--
 
jcs said:
There’s plenty of examples debunking the 15 stop claim. Shooting CLog 2 on the C300 II didn’t provide any magical DR improvement nor ability to recover from under/over exposure like ARRI. I have seen impressive results working with raw on Canon still cameras (never shot raw in the C300 II). Curious how Canon sensors are engineered- separate divisions or shared technology (color science is clearly different).
Click to expand...

I guess Clog 2 can bring improvements depending on your post pieline.

If you are shooting raw, exporting to 'something' and then grading the 'something' then if you export in a form that clips the raw data then the something wont grade well. THe export from raw to 'something' should therefore be done in the most flat manner possible.

If you are gradeing ina suite that is referencing the original raw then your profile matters not.
 
Dynamic range is over rated in my estimation as there are so few viewing situations where you can capitalize on 13,14,15 stops of DR. Granted, that. The trend is towards greater DR these days but stillI think its a fad. In some recent years 3D was the fad- there was this huge stampede over to the side of the film space where everything was going to be shot 3D, and then poof no more 3D. DR seems like the same thing to me. No way, no how more DR fills more theater seats, its just the latest thing that people in the film industry have adopted as a means of differentiation which is for the most part meaningless.
I am not advocating going back to rec601 standard def with 6-8 stops of DR, but the quibbling over 13,14 or 15 stops of DR just strikes me as kind of silly since a huge % of displays in use these days can’t replicate those numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top