C200: C200 Firmware Update Spring 2018
- Thread starter Alexander.M
- Start date
rob norton
Veteran
x4 magnification FTW
Tim Nitsch
Well-known member
Is the digital-tele converter just cropping the sensor? That is one of the things I like about the FS7 is that I could take use a center crop in 1080 to get some extra range.
R_Marvin
Active member
So where is it? I've looked all over Canon's web site and don't see a link for it anywhere, anyone know?
So disappointing still no 4:2:2 10-bit, seriously we as Canon clients should all band together and stop buying their cameras until this is resolved, and not only their cameras but especially their lenses because lens sales are much more important to them!
If they continue to say it's not possible — I don't buy it, one thing I noticed when I record UHD to my external recorder, a PIX-E5, it shows that a 8-bit signal is received, however when I pause the camera the PIX-E5 then indicates that it is receiving a 10-bit signal but the screen displays are being output to the recorder too. So what they need to add is output at that same 10-bits but with the screen displays turned completely off. Now I can turn off the screen displays but when the camera is paused it is indicated in the display and output so you don't have a clean output. I think this could be an easy fix?!
So disappointing still no 4:2:2 10-bit, seriously we as Canon clients should all band together and stop buying their cameras until this is resolved, and not only their cameras but especially their lenses because lens sales are much more important to them!
If they continue to say it's not possible — I don't buy it, one thing I noticed when I record UHD to my external recorder, a PIX-E5, it shows that a 8-bit signal is received, however when I pause the camera the PIX-E5 then indicates that it is receiving a 10-bit signal but the screen displays are being output to the recorder too. So what they need to add is output at that same 10-bits but with the screen displays turned completely off. Now I can turn off the screen displays but when the camera is paused it is indicated in the display and output so you don't have a clean output. I think this could be an easy fix?!
AndreeOnline
Veteran
I'm pretty sure no one from Canon has said that 10bit in the C200 is impossible. If they did, they should probably be fired, since it's very possible. The omission is a strategic decision based on the C200's price and placement in the product lineup. And with this new firmware update we can see that Canon hasn't changed its mind on that decision.
Canon DID have another opportunity here though: make sure that the 8bit XF-AVC is high bitrate, 422 intra frame—that is: the best flavour of 8bit they could give the camera. The internal 4k .mp4 files are actually quite OK for what they are, but why not provide something here that is a substantial upgrade within the given limitations? The small XC-10/15 is also 8bit but uses a 422, 305 Mbps intra frame XF-AVC. Those files would have been something C200 users could look forward to, as they would be able to retain a bit more detail and bring them closer to the .crm files compared to current .mp4.
On another note: 4K60 on the C300 mkII, on the other hand, might very well not be possible since the hardware is indeed of an older generation in that camera.
johnniebutters
Active member
This is not an attack on you but I really don't understand why this bothers so many people. The entire point of the C200 is internal RAW and it shocks me to see most users of the camera not even touch RAW. If you want 10 Bit MP4, you bought the wrong camera. This is where the C300 Mark II shines and if they add 10 bit MP4 the C300 II becomes useless.
1. EVA 1 has it, maybe their biggest competitor in the price range.
2. My GH5 has it. (I would have loved to buy a Canon if they were leading the development, not following.)
3. The XF15 has 305Mbps 4K 4:2:2, 50Mbps 1080 4:2:2. Its a $2200 Canon camera.
4. It's already got 12 bit cinema raw light. Why not give it a usable more file size friendly codec? "The C300 II becomes useless if they give it 10bit MP4" – Shouldn't the internal RAW of the C200 make the C300 II useless already?
5. C300 II is due for a replacement, I would have guessed that the larger part of the sales are already in the bag for that camera? Maybe someone has some insights in camera sales numbers when a camera's been out for over 2 years?
We invested in two C200 at work and had longed for a better codec due for 2018 for our relatively fast turnaround projects, this was a big let down.
AndreeOnline
Veteran
There's no need to defend Canon in this, but there is a side to the "I want internal 10-bit" argument that has a whining component to it, that becomes tiresome.
Is it fair to assume that WE ALL know that internal 10-bit isn't lacking because Canon doesn't realise it's popular? It's a decision.
The obvious solution is: then buy the cheapest of these cameras: the GH5. My feeling is there will be a response like "no I won't do that because…"
Everything that comes after "because" is the reason Canon feels they don't 'have' to include it to compete.
Everyone here complaining that 12-bit CRM isn't enough is an argument against this. It appears that 12-bit CRM and 10-bit intra frame are two separate needs and one doesn't necessarily cover the other.
Indeed. Canon has been known to introduce better features in cheaper equipment (AF came to C100 first) due to staggered launch cycles. In this case the CRM files came to C200 first. What is almost completely sure is that the next C300 mkII-level camera will get CRM too. It seems that Canon thinks that internal broadcast ready 10-bit is a higher end feature.
Utilitarian codec scenario in my mind:
To this, add the ability to use whole sensor and save to "Super 2K" in CRM, like the C100 used 4K pixels for HD.
In fact, I would get VERY excited about a new C100, at an aggressive price, that used the new S35 sensor in 4K mode but only offered 12-bit 2K CRMs internally. That would produce beautiful and robust images that were ready for large screen projection.
Is it fair to assume that WE ALL know that internal 10-bit isn't lacking because Canon doesn't realise it's popular? It's a decision.
The obvious solution is: then buy the cheapest of these cameras: the GH5. My feeling is there will be a response like "no I won't do that because…"
Everything that comes after "because" is the reason Canon feels they don't 'have' to include it to compete.
Everyone here complaining that 12-bit CRM isn't enough is an argument against this. It appears that 12-bit CRM and 10-bit intra frame are two separate needs and one doesn't necessarily cover the other.
Indeed. Canon has been known to introduce better features in cheaper equipment (AF came to C100 first) due to staggered launch cycles. In this case the CRM files came to C200 first. What is almost completely sure is that the next C300 mkII-level camera will get CRM too. It seems that Canon thinks that internal broadcast ready 10-bit is a higher end feature.
Utilitarian codec scenario in my mind:
- 4K | 422 | 12-bit | CRM[SUP]5X[/SUP] | 1000 Mbps
- 4K | 422 | 12-bit | CRM[SUP]10X[/SUP] | 500 Mbps
- 4K | 422 | 8-bit | XF-AVC 150 Mbps
To this, add the ability to use whole sensor and save to "Super 2K" in CRM, like the C100 used 4K pixels for HD.
In fact, I would get VERY excited about a new C100, at an aggressive price, that used the new S35 sensor in 4K mode but only offered 12-bit 2K CRMs internally. That would produce beautiful and robust images that were ready for large screen projection.
That would be awesome! Unfortunately Canon never gives users what they need (or want?).
Canon's probl...let's be like Apple and say "situation" is fanbase. There is aura around Canon that their AF and Color Science is the best and people are buying their cameras (same applies for DSLR and M series) like crazy even though they are not offering enough features and innovations for the money. Canon is not forced to bring new tech. C200 with its limitations is best seller anyway (my local shop says that EVA1 sucks and C200 shine when it comes to sales).
Not saying Canon sucks! Just what is the problem in my eyes. I simply don't get that there is no C100mkIII for wedding dudes etc.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Interesting, but not unexpected. Canon obviously is not interested in competing with the GH5S and the EVA 1 on specs, I didn't think they would be. I also didn't think they would add 10-bit although 4:2:0 is just stupid.
1. Anyone know the data rates for the XF-AVC? I assume it's the same 150 Mbps as the .MP4 in UHD? Will the XF-AVC be a 2K proxy still? Or a UHD proxy for shooting 4K DCI?
2. I wonder if they might include UHD Cinema RAW Light as many of us requested? Or even 1080 Cinema RAW Light?
3. Magnify features, who cares? Not me. The ones we have now suffice.
4. Monitor output options are welcomed by everyone, the ones they shipped with were way too limited.
5. Overall, a meh update, it sounds as if they addressed a few requests, ignored the majority of the concerns we expressed in our Firmware update request thread. To be expected, it's Canon, not Panasonic.
1. Anyone know the data rates for the XF-AVC? I assume it's the same 150 Mbps as the .MP4 in UHD? Will the XF-AVC be a 2K proxy still? Or a UHD proxy for shooting 4K DCI?
2. I wonder if they might include UHD Cinema RAW Light as many of us requested? Or even 1080 Cinema RAW Light?
3. Magnify features, who cares? Not me. The ones we have now suffice.
4. Monitor output options are welcomed by everyone, the ones they shipped with were way too limited.
5. Overall, a meh update, it sounds as if they addressed a few requests, ignored the majority of the concerns we expressed in our Firmware update request thread. To be expected, it's Canon, not Panasonic.
cpreston
Veteran
I don't think Canon is intentionally crippling their cameras for some arbitrary reason. I think they are attempting to produce cameras for certain market segments that they determine. In the case of the C200, they determined that there was a market segment consisting of owner operators who do most of their business on events/weddings/low end corporate who are also enthralled with "RAW" for self produced narrative and pet projects. Based on the response to the RAW lite that I have seen online, Canon appears to have been right. The lack of an intermediate codec was probably an oversight more than anything else. I doubt that when Canon was polling their users, "intermediate codec between RAW and Long GOP" was one of the most requested features. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining when I would use an intermediate codec in my own work. Most of my clients either want all or nothing in terms of bit rate.
johnniebutters
Active member
Thank you!!! I upgraded from a 1DX Mark II and my entire reasoning apart from wanting to try out their Cinema line is internal RAW Recording. I've yet to touch MP4 recording and probably never will. It was made to be useless on purpose. Just because the C300 Mark II is in need of an upgrade doesn't me they should give C200 all the goods. C300 ii has a huge market of people behind it still. Give C200 users 422 10 Bit and you might have some very upset C300 ii users.
There are so many videos online from the C200 of people not utilizing what the camera is meant to do and that is shoot raw. Video description: MP4 4k 60 etc, Like what did you buy this camera for? If your looking to get into broadcast or interviewing people, C300 Mark II is a much better option.
johnniebutters
Active member
You shouldn't buy the C200 unless you are willing to shoot RAW, sorry but they don't care about 422 10 Bit on the C200. It was never the goal. You would be a lot happier with a C300 Mark II.
Well, even Tim Smith, Senior Advisor for Canon says and I quote: ”Please keep screaming for it”, ”The harder they scream, the better the possibility” and finally ”We should have it”
If you haven't seen it, check out Zacutos C200 vs EVA 1 shootout.
If people high up in the Canon organization themselves think that they should have it, well... Who am I to say something else... =)
I did, for my own private use. I would have loved to buy the 5D IV but they crippled it.. I waited ever since the 5D III came out, hoping for a better video implementation from Canon but in the end, I had to jump ship. Haven't regretted it tho, since the GH5 delivers a truly amazing image with the speed booster!
A 500 Mbps option for CRM would have been very cool!
150Mbps for 4:2:2 is maybe hard though with all that extra color information?
The statement that, being able to have the same names on proxy files as the RAW files is a "massive update", must be nominated to 2018's overstatement of the year! =D (A joke, I realize there's more in the firmware you might well be thinking of as "massive updates")
Last edited:
indiawilds
Veteran
C200 should be seen as a camera which liberates you by allowing you to shoot in raw at a much lower price point. People had tried lot of round about methods to shoot raw using magic lantern. So Canon gave internal RAW and what one gets is whining, a lot of that fueled by rivals/rival fans. Use what ever is the best in a particular camera based on your need. There will never be a single camera which will fulfill all your desires. Life is too short to waste in whining.