C300: C200/C300ii Which is A cam?

Rayden

Rayden

Well-known member
Hey guys,

It's been a while since I've been in the forum so excuse my absence or redundant post. I recently had a commercial shoot with my C300ii and a C200. Initially I planned on the C300 to be the A camera for the dialog shots, and the c200 for B roll. To my surprise, I ended up using the c200 for 85% of the shoot. I was totally blown away by the image in 4k raw, and having the ability to shoot in 4k 60 was so refreshing. I tried really hard to justify using more of my C300 but it just didn't happen. I'm sure it's been covered a million times, but it appears that we wont be getting 4k/60 in the C300mii at all, and that makes me really really sad. :crybaby:
 
I've done several shoots with my C200 and a pair of C300 MKIIs (rented). I'm surprised at how different the cameras look using WDR and trying to match them. I'm not very talented at grading and color correction but I have a feeling that a good colorist would reduce the difference between well shot CRL from the C200 and well shot XF-AVC from the C300 MKII. And yes, 4K 60p on the C300 MIII is an issue that's been dead for years, never happening. The replacement (C400? C300 MKIII?) will obviously have it. I like everything about the C300 MKII other than the lame clamshell monitor and audio input setup, which I truly hate. But the images look great if you know how to light and shoot. But I have been very happy with the C200 as well, shooting two long-term documentaries exclusively in Cinema RAW Light and so far, so good and the 2K proxies are really handy for off-line and demo/sizzle reels.
 
Honestly I think it depends on what kind of work you're doing. Because the C200 is so much newer, it has advantages even though it's supposed to be downmarket from the C300 line. This will change once the C30 II is replaced I'm sure, but for now it's this weird area where the lower priced camera is just flat out superior in some ways.

If you're shooting a music video, you're likely going to value RAW and full res overcranking and the C200 would be the A camera. I'm doing a job next week where I'll be filming interviews for 4x days, and I'm renting the C300 II, even though I own a C200, because I'm not shooting RAW as the benefits won't be apparent on-screen and there's no real incentive to deal with the downsides...
 
Last edited:
Fahnon said:
...I'm doing a job next week whee I'll be filming interviews for 4x days, and I'm renting the C300 II, even though I own a C200, because I'm not shooting RAW as the benefits will won't be apparent on-screen and there's no real incentive to deal with the downsides...
Click to expand...

I hear you, I am still shooting all client green screen my Ninja Blade in 1080 with the C200, I just record UHD .MP4 internally as a back up. Glad I kept the Blade, it's outdated but I have not had client requests yet that most of these green screen shoots need to be UHD, they seem happy with 1080 still. I'd rather not buy another external recorder. The RAW looks amazing with green screen but my clients are not set up to deal with the size and processing requirements of Cinema RAW Light. Thankfully, other than for certain projects that are specified as 4K, most of our clients are still in 1080 land.
 
Fahnon said:
... for now it's this weird area ...
Click to expand...

I've weighed up the C200 vs C300 MKII and came to the conclusion that a third generation C300 would probably be my dream camera (other than weight) and might be an end game for me in terms of camera upgrades. So waiting 1-2 years gives me time to save my pennies.
 
dumb question...as i don't own nor have used either the c300mkii or the c200.
but wouldn't an external recorder on the C200 be the best of both worlds? external is 10bit...
of course unless you needed another camera.
 
I find that most times when C300 Mark II would have to be the A can, the C200 simply wouldn’t work (things with jam sync time code, gen locked live stuff, etc. They both have the same sensor. If you can shoot RAW light, the C200 looks better, if you can’t, the C300 Mark II looks better. If you need 4K 60 fps, C200. The price difference I feel is largely due to several “pro” features that he C300 Mark II has that simply are required for certain professional video workflows. But for most things an owner/operator does these days, the C200 is amazing.
 
Matt Turner said:
2-3 years. :D

I suspect the C300 MKIII will make the C200 look like a one trick pony.

Edit: that came across as a bit harsh, as it's one trick is pretty awesome.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's more than a one-trick pony. To my eye it has the highest quality, low-bandwidth 4K image out there. That's why I bought it.
 
IronFilm said:
You would hope Canon would have learnt their lesson after the C300mk2 and launch the mk3 at a lower price.
Click to expand...

Who knows, the price point on the C200 seemed to have turned over a new leaf for them, perhaps that will carry over to the C300 MKIII? Most feel that an internal RAW camera well under $8k was a surprising value from Canon, who up until last year, generally seemed to overprice their cameras. I think the C300 MKIII should be $12k out of the gate, leaving the C200 at $7.5k and the C100p MKIII, which should just be a C200 without Cinema RAW Light for $4.5k or $5k. But that's just me. C300 MKIII should be a C200 with XF-AVC like the MKII, two slots of CRL to CFast (as well as the XF-AVC) and bump the .MP4 to the front of the cam as proxy, keep two SD card slots if you want to dominate the market. Add in a 6k imager for the oversampling ala EVA 1 and it'll sell like hotcakes. 120 FPS full res 4K with full imager readout too!
 
puredrifting said:
Who knows, the price point on the C200 seemed to have turned over a new leaf for them, perhaps that will carry over to the C300 MKIII? Most feel that an internal RAW camera well under $8k was a surprising value from Canon, who up until last year, generally seemed to overprice their cameras. I think the C300 MKIII should be $12k out of the gate, leaving the C200 at $7.5k and the C100p MKIII, which should just be a C200 without Cinema RAW Light for $4.5k or $5k. But that's just me. C300 MKIII should be a C200 with XF-AVC like the MKII, two slots of CRL to CFast (as well as the XF-AVC) and bump the .MP4 to the front of the cam as proxy, keep two SD card slots if you want to dominate the market. Add in a 6k imager for the oversampling ala EVA 1 and it'll sell like hotcakes. 120 FPS full res 4K with full imager readout too!
Click to expand...

Yup, all correct. Canon has a history of releasing their cameras at a high price and then lowering it dramatically after a year or so. Starting with the $16k C300 that dropped to $12k, then $10k and so on. That worked with the C300, and with the C100 mk 1 (which people forget was released at only $1k less than the current C200 price), but I think Sony ate their lunch in the C300 II vs FS7 fight.

Since they priced the C200 @ $7500 out of the gate, I wonder if they're changing that formula and just released it at a more competitive price out of the gate, or if they're going to drop it to $5k by the end of the year. I actually think that the C200 is a lot more camera than you would normally get at the ~$5k price point (excepting disruptors like BMD), and unless the market shifts suddenly to 6k or 8k sensors (doubtful) I don't think we'll see more than a $500 or $1k drop on the C200 anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top