C200: C200 Footage

i like the first one, nice to finally see something at least a little "cinematic". Most videos have been people obsessing over autofocus.
 
NorBro said:
Not putting anything down, but this all looks like a C100...

Worth $7500? $6000?
Click to expand...

What are you watching it on?

If I watch it on my phone, sure, they look pretty close, but on a bigger 4K monitor the difference is pretty apparent.

As a C100 owner, the C200 looks way sharper (as it should I guess), and much cleaner. Dynamic range wise, it should look pretty close because in M4P the C200 is getting 13 stops, and the C100 gets around 12 so fairly close. The 15 stops in RAW is what your paying for.
 
Yup, the first video looks like a Canon. The second video of the cows looks really nice considering that he says he shot it in "s log 3" (assuming he meant c log 3) and graded in film convert.
 
Watching it on my HP ZDisplay, it definitely is sharper. Watching C100mk2 footage side by side and even with YouTube compression, I can tell. It feels like C100mk2 but with a 4k image (if that makes any sense). And that's exactly what I wanted as the C100mk2 was a great camera.
 
Never on a phone, ha...anything looks good on one.

Being slightly facetious here and there's of course a difference (you would expect one from a camera released half a decade later), but just not what I am expecting. That's all I'll really say about that.

---

But on a side note, what is up with people down-voting? I don't care about myself, but Danilo shares a link and gets 4 down-votes? (5 for his last link.)

How is that unhelpful? Extremely flawed system. Shouldn't happen because someone's sensitive and has their poor feelings hurt.
 
Yup yup. I guess thats why those cameras are still selling. Great camera indeed.

--

I honestly didn't even know there was a downvote system on this site till now. Yeah that doesn't really add to this forum -_-
 
NorBro said:
Not putting anything down, but this all looks like a C100...

Worth $7500? $6000?
Click to expand...

Naw, man this looks more like what you'd get out of a C300 mk 2 or the Ursa Mini 4.6k to me (both of which I've shot a bunch with). In fact, it looks exactly like C300 mk 2 to my eyes. I didn't think Skipped looked amazing, but it wasn't the camera (I wasn't a fan of the grade). I don't think it looked bad, but that one wouldn't have magically looked better with an Alexa pointed at it.

PS - the C100 is no slouch and has a 4k sensor and downscales the image in-camera; I've seen fantastic work come from that camera. My issues with it were no 4k recording and the codec, both of which the new camera fixes and adds a bunch more to.
 
Last edited:
URSA Minis are 100x more cinematic...just cameras with potentially lots of issues depending on which one you get off the conveyor belt.

Canons will be flawless in that area.
 
NorBro said:
URSA Minis are 100x more cinematic...just cameras with potentially lots of issues depending on which one you get off the conveyor belt.

Canons will be flawless in that area.
Click to expand...

Uhhhhh... I'll agree I haven't seen anything that's blown me away from this thread's videos, but as a former Ursa mini 4.6k owner, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. In fact I shot a project with a C300 II and Ursa Mini as a b-can and with the exception of the RAW flexibility (which I'll be happy to have back), I thought it was a wash. Biggest difference was I could afford the Ursa and could only rent the Canon.
 
I'd be interested in knowing what you think about how the C200 compares to your 1DC. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

IMO, the thing about Canon cameras is they are such amazing tools that always improve everywhere, but very minimally with the image quality.

Like yea, it's better, but you're not really paying for that. You're paying for the increased DR like someone mentioned (even if it's only 14 stops max), the DPAF, the RAW, etc.

And yea...the C100s were some of Canon's greatest achievements.
 
NorBro said:
... But on a side note, what is up with people down-voting? I don't care about myself, but Danilo shares a link and gets 4 down-votes? (5 for his last link.)...
Click to expand...
I know! I was going to bring it up yesterday but I was afraid it was going to be downvoted! (by the same people, obviously)

In any case, much like everyone, I've seen good URSA 4.6 footage and badly graded (with an orange&teal LUT) URSA 4.6 footage. While I have cast doubts on Steve Yedlin's (somewhat self-serving) opinions, one has to agree with him that one can get pretty much any look he desires with Raw. And C700 does this for about $50,000 with the external Codex recorder. C200 does it internally for $7,500 with (basically) the same sensor. And, if someone's footage doesn't look like Alexa, it will be because s/he is not Steve Yedlin, not because Canon is not ARRI.
 
NorBro said:
I'd be interested in knowing what you think about how the C200 compares to your 1DC. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

IMO, the thing about Canon cameras is they are such amazing tools that always improve everywhere, but very minimally with the image quality.

Like yea, it's better, but you're not really paying for that. You're paying for the increased DR like someone mentioned (even if it's only 14 stops max), the DPAF, the RAW, etc.

And yea...the C100s were some of Canon's greatest achievements.
Click to expand...

I'm expecting them to cut well together. Like minimal effort in matching well. I'll be sure to share footage!

LOL I think your expectations are really high, man. "Only" 14 stops max? That's full on Alexa territory and is world class!
 
DLD said:
I know! I was going to bring it up yesterday but I was afraid it was going to be downvoted! (by the same people, obviously)

In any case, much like everyone, I've seen good URSA 4.6 footage and badly graded (with an orange&teal LUT) URSA 4.6 footage. While I have cast doubts on Steve Yedlin's (somewhat self-serving) opinions, one has to agree with him that one can get pretty much any look he desires with Raw. And C700 does this for about $50,000 with the external Codex recorder. C200 does it internally for $7,500 with (basically) the same sensor. And, if someone's footage doesn't look like Alexa, it will be because s/he is not Steve Yedlin, not because Canon is not ARRI.
Click to expand...

Agreed about both the Yedlin point and the downvoting. I've heard a bunch these past couple of years that the higher end cameras only really look a cut above the rest these days is because of the production values an Arri or Helium brings.
 
Fahnon said:
I'm expecting them to cut well together. Like minimal effort in matching well. I'll be sure to share footage!

LOL I think your expectations are really high, man. "Only" 14 stops max? That's full on Alexa territory and is world class!
Click to expand...

To be clear, the Alexa's 14-stop sensor uses a "Dual Gain Architecture" to give the image a lot more than 14 stops of usability. This contributes to Alexa's super clean shadows and smooth highlight rolloff when you've exposed correctly but it also makes it possible to push and pull the Alexa a lot further than other cameras if you have an exposure mishap.

EDIT: I get your point that 14 stops isn't trivial, but I just wanted to make sure you understood some differences with the Alexa's 14-stop sensor and other cameras'.
 
NorBro said:
What do you mean? The camera claims 15...I am being conservative?
Click to expand...

Well now I'm confused... I thought you were saying the C200 is 14 (I did assume you were being conservative). And that 14 isn't really, really impressive...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top