C200: C200 or C300 II?

[definitionxmk]

OK you don't NEED 4k 60p but it DEFINITELY is a deciding factor when referencing the OPs post. And if you go by what Eric is saying, it's probably better just to get two C100 mk IIs and get those different angles. For the projects OP is doing, it just makes sense to get a C200... Mostly because of the 4k 60p -_-

He even says it here:

4k 60p would allow me to get beautiful slow motion 4k shots, something the c300ii won't do.

Shooting it at 1080p 60p and upscaling it is acceptable, but why not just do it in 4k since you have the technology? Oh and i bet you it'll look great.

 

[kohl-sudduth]

I don't get these last three comments. Are you guys saying because you don't or haven't needed to overcrank that it's an objectively unimportant feature?

We overcranked the c300 mk ii in 1080p for a few broadcast commercials this year. Worked fine. Even more important to me personally is that the camera was paid for with one job. Would not have bought the camera if I wasn't certain of that ROI.

I question the word 'need'. After studying Mr Yedlin's recent resolution tests, I'm a convert. I believe it's more a sign of over-valuing resolution at capture over myriad other parameters that more significantly influence real world perception of image quality. A product of very effective marketing.

Once there's more properly exposed 4K 60p from the c200 in the wild, be interesting to test it against uprezzed c300 mk ii 60p. We'll see.

That said, if a future consumer feels they really 'need' 4K 60p at 4:2:0 and that is the deciding factor for them, then hey, I really hope that it serves them well, that they get their money back fast, and that they make lots of awesome stuff with it.

 

[DLD]

That really depends on where the C300 Mark III (or whatever it's called) lands price-wise...

My hunch at $13,000 with C200 falling to $7,000. If we go by Canon's history, it'll be announced at the NAB'18 and shipped by September of 2018. Chances are it'll have the full C700 4.6K sensor with several compression ratios of Raw Light, dual CFast 2.0 slots, time code, etc.

 

[Fahnon]

Yeah. That only makes sense. If you don't need something then it's generally not important.

I shoot for maybe 50 different clients per year. Maybe one sort of wanted 4K 60p on a shoot over a year ago, but they'd already hired me at that point and asked about it mid-shoot, and we just ended up staying at 24p since they wanted to stay in 4K.

I shoot 1080p 60p fairly often. It's 4K that's not that important to me. Could be nice to have, but not super important.

I think a lot of people tend to want 4K 60p because it's a buzzword and not so much because they actually need it. I'm sure some actually do need it, but I'm guessing the majority who act like it's a big deal don't actually need it for the kind of work they do.


Sometimes 4K actually can make a project worse. Here's an example. Two camera interview setup. So, client decides to do one 4K camera instead of two 1080p cameras, and then crop in on the 4K to 200% to simulate a second camera. The 200% magnifies the noise, isn't nearly as sharp as say a C100's 1080p, causes a jump cut since it's the same exact angle and depth of field, and overall just looks rather cruddy.

Client is obsessed with 4K so the idea of using two 1080p cameras to capture the multiple angles is just right out. Yet, the 200% crop is obviously going to be only 1080p at that point. And, the client isn't delivering the project in 4K, they're delivering it in 1080p because it's a simple corporate web video. But they have to have 4K, even if after the 200% crop it's no longer 4K, but it was recorded in 4K, and that's...cool?

So, shooting in 4K becomes more important than delivering a good image. Why? Maybe they upcharged their client to shoot (but not deliver) a 4K video, so they have to meet the specs even if it's at the cost of having lower image quality. Frustrating.

I said "objectively". I know more than one working professional that your examples don't apply to. That and the OP specifically mentioned types of shooting that would have use for 4k/60. My point was more: ok you guys haven't needed it but that doesn't mean the feature isn't useful as hell to a lot of people, and that we all have different needs and styles.

The only reason I haven't used it myself is because I didn't have it...

PS - one of the folks I'm talking about specifically got the FS7 over the C300 mk II because he didn't feel that a $16k camera shouldn't have this feature he needs.

 

[Fahnon]

My hunch at $13,000 with C200 falling to $7,000. If we go by Canon's history, it'll be announced at the NAB'18 and shipped by September of 2018. Chances are it'll have the full C700 4.6K sensor with several compression ratios of Raw Light, dual CFast 2.0 slots, time code, etc.

I think you're right with the exception of the price. I think Canon will charge a full $16k again.

 

[DLD]

I think you're right with the exception of the price. I think Canon will charge a full $16k again.

I think the competition might be too strong for a 4/4.5K EF-mount camera to fetch much above $13,000-$14,000. Sony has been silent in this sector for far too long.