C200: C200 Philip Bloom review

Jim Feeley said:
Interesting. Andree, what are your Mac's general specs?
Click to expand...

I have Mac Pro from 2009 with 12 core 3.46GHz CPUs. I currently only have a single GPU in it: AMD RX 480 8GB.

Unless you are debayering raw at high res and high quality, the CPUs aren't really a huge factor in performance in Resolve; any somewhat modern price/performance CPU will do just fine.

With a 2k timeline, my RX480 manages most things nicely. If I go to a UHD timeline (I only have the free demo installed, not the Studio), I get 25 fps playback with Canon raw light files with basic adjustments, and it drops to 21-22 with a larger node tree. It is my plan to sell the RX480 and drop in two RX580 as a price/performance solution until I know more about either the iMac Pro or the next Mac Pro.
 
NorBro said:
Actually I know what it is...I have a MacBook Pro that I haven't upgraded in a while because I'm keeping the old FCPX for some projects on it and for whatever reason the 4K option (2160p) is available in FireFox there (and that's where I usually watch videos). It's not on Safari as you mentioned though.

But FireFox still shows 4K on that computer, but only 1440p on the MacBook Air.
Click to expand...
I sometimes get 1440 off GH5 videos that are in 2160 60p. Then my internet quits until I change speeds to 1440 60p but then the next video will play only 1440 regardless of whether it's in 24p or 60p and I have to click it back to 2160.

I am on FF (which cuts off on Google Hangout, @#$%^&*).
 
AndreeOnline said:
I have Mac Pro from 2009 with 12 core 3.46GHz CPUs. I currently only have a single GPU in it: AMD RX 480 8GB.

Unless you are debayering raw at high res and high quality, the CPUs aren't really a huge factor in performance in Resolve; any somewhat modern price/performance CPU will do just fine.

With a 2k timeline, my RX480 manages most things nicely. If I go to a UHD timeline (I only have the free demo installed, not the Studio), I get 25 fps playback with Canon raw light files with basic adjustments, and it drops to 21-22 with a larger node tree. It is my plan to sell the RX480 and drop in two RX580 as a price/performance solution until I know more about either the iMac Pro or the next Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

In a few months Vega cards should be fully supported, so the situation may improve. That's my upgrade plan, as I've currently got a GTX 980.
 
AndreeOnline said:
I have Mac Pro from 2009 with 12 core 3.46GHz CPUs. I currently only have a single GPU in it: AMD RX 480 8GB.

Unless you are debayering raw at high res and high quality, the CPUs aren't really a huge factor in performance in Resolve; any somewhat modern price/performance CPU will do just fine.

With a 2k timeline, my RX480 manages most things nicely.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Ya, I'm semi-hip to the CPU needs of RAW...But I'm still trying to get a serious handle on what makes "RAW Light" light and what short of processing overhead it introduces. And nice that a reasonable CPU is doing the job.
 
morgan_moore said:
I have no idea. What I do have an idea is that Ive not seen a usable interface to AF video presented by anyone. Jabbing the screen? Hitting buttons?.. well thats the sort of thing an operator learns not to do mid shot because it bumps the camera.. its the way an annoying director will ruin your shot.
It needs something with real feel and tactility.

(maybe a smooth barrel round the lens where you turn it one way to tell the camera to focus further away and the other way to tell the camera to focus closer??)

S
Click to expand...

I don't think that'll be an issue at all with the C200.

On a shoot with a crew, one can always separate the touchscreen from the C200 and have the focus puller or director hold it and tap to focus. It's connected to the camera by a cable, so no amount of tapping on the screen would shake the camera. The Camera Op could then be using the built-in EVF for framing the shot.

On a one-person shoot, the camera op touching the screen to focus won't be a nuisance because he/she will know when to touch the screen while keeping the camera stable. I do it all the time with the 1DX II and there's no way to tell I used the touchscreen to change focus. It just looks like a perfectly executed focus rack.

That said, I really hope they add a setting so the touchscreen focus on the C200 works like in the 1DX II. I don't want to have to press a button to then establish the AF tracking. It's basically perfect on the 1DX II, so I hope it can work that way as well here.
 
Jaime Valles said:
That said, I really hope they add a setting so the touchscreen focus on the C200 works like in the 1DX II. I don't want to have to press a button to then establish the AF tracking. It's basically perfect on the 1DX II, so I hope it can work that way as well here.
Click to expand...

Can anyone confirm that the C200 autofocus works differently than the 1DX II - with the extra button press to establish AF tracking? It is little details like this that stop me from pre-ordering.

Also, where "Initialize Media" is placed really makes me nervous as well. Hope that will be moved upon release.

All in all, the C200 looks to be a fantastic camera. Nice to see some new footage - even if it wasn't graded all that well. The image quality is excellent!
 
Is anyone leaning more to the C300 MKII with the recent pricedrop?

TCI and 10 bit files, plus 4K RAW output (yes large files, but uncompressed when you need best quality possible).
I've shot a lot of log footage with that camera and it is quite impressive. (I know, no 4k 60P and cropped at 120 in HD).

I shoot a lot of multi-cam and log so TCI and 10/12 bit make sense for me.
When I need the higher quality I go for the Amira, but for anything less I think the C300 MKII serves quite well.

Interested in what the hive thinks.
 
bill totolo said:
Is anyone leaning more to the C300 MKII with the recent pricedrop?

TCI and 10 bit files, plus 4K RAW output (yes large files, but uncompressed when you need best quality possible).
I've shot a lot of log footage with that camera and it is quite impressive. (I know, no 4k 60P and cropped at 120 in HD).

I shoot a lot of multi-cam and log so TCI and 10/12 bit make sense for me.
When I need the higher quality I go for the Amira, but for anything less I think the C300 MKII serves quite well.

Interested in what the hive thinks.
Click to expand...

I'm right on the edge, there. I feel like the c200 form factor is better, 4k 60p will be really nice to have, and it's a little more future proof (More so for me since I'm going for the c200b to potentially pair with a c300 mark iii), but if they were he same price I'd go with the c300mii. I'll be hunting for a good deal on a mark ii until I get my c200. I'm dreading stocking up on C-Fast...
 
I've really been on the fence but am leaning toward the C200. I shoot quite often with my 80D on my gimbal and I really like the touchscreen face tracking more than the joystick face tracking on the C300 MKII. I also hate the whole C300 XLRs on the monitor, dual clunky cable to the monitor and audio, no 4K 60p and cropped sensor 1080 higher frame rates. Once in a while I will wish I had the C300 MKII or MKIII for the TC and genlock but not more than once or twice a year. I will miss not having the 10-bit XF-AVC codec but not the end of the world. I like the size of the C200 better too. Having XLRs on the body is worth a LOT to me. I am also in production on two long-term projects that I am producing that I would love to shoot on Cinema RAW Light.

I also may pick up an EVA 1, a camera that really seems appealing in many ways.
 
Pure
It seems like you are revealing the flaws in all these cams - you seem to want three - maybe getting none is the answer.
 
morgan_moore said:
Pure
It seems like you are revealing the flaws in all these cams - you seem to want three - maybe getting none is the answer.
Click to expand...

There is no perfect camera, it's just which set of compromises you can live with. If I didn't need 4k, our clients are actually now requesting it, I would be very happy to just keep our C100 and C300. I'm cheap, I hate spending this kind of money but it takes what it takes to shoot in 4K. I did tell two of them that day rate for camera rental was going up a few hundred dollars ;-)
 
puredrifting said:
There is no perfect camera, it's just which set of compromises you can live with. If I didn't need 4k, our clients are actually now requesting it, I would be very happy to just keep our C100 and C300. I'm cheap, I hate spending this kind of money but it takes what it takes to shoot in 4K. I did tell two of them that day rate for camera rental was going up a few hundred dollars ;-)
Click to expand...

There is no perfect camera, that's true. But, it seems Canon is the only company that purposefully holds back one important thing on every damn camera they make. With the C300 it was slo-mo. Now with the C200 its 8bit. Their cameras aren't cheap, and they make you buy two for the price of one. I hope the EVA kicks Canons ass!
 
Michael Thames said:
There is no perfect camera, that's true. But, it seems Canon is the only company that purposefully holds back one important thing on every damn camera they make. With the C300 it was slo-mo. Now with the C200 its 8bit. Their cameras aren't cheap, and they make you buy two for the price of one. I hope the EVA kicks Canons ass!
Click to expand...


The point is, THERE ARE cameras to suit nearly all the requirements out there , it's not just about buying one or 2 and trying to cover every type of project that comes your way.

You will undoubtedly have to rent once in awhile if you do a variety of work, sometimes I need to hire an Arri Amira as thats what is required to match another Arri on set and my C300 MKII just isn't in the conversation, other times it's a RED but most of my direct client jobs and prob about 70% of my work I shoot on my C300 MKII, some situations I would love to go 4K 60p or more but I make do with 2K 60p and it's not a train smash because that's the tool available at the time.

It's truly not about the EVA1 kicking Canon's ass, why should it compare when one cam does raw internally and the other does raw externally. They may be in the same price bracket and announced at the same time but they really are different cameras. As I mentioned before, you really should be comparing the C200 to a Red Raven as both do raw internal and the real question is whether you think RED kicks Canon ass between these 2 cameras, I'm a fan of the RED image but I'm also a fan of the Canon usability as an owner operator or single shooter, yet I can't have both but the C200 would be a good compromise.

This argument could've been replicated between the Varicam LT ( better specs ) vs the C300 MKII ( arguably better image or color science, AF ) yet I don't see many posts or reviews saying the Varicam LT kicked the C300 MKII's ass...
 
The way I look at it, we all have a wealth of riches to choose from, we are bathed in amazing camera choices. One of my Summer projects recently was to go through all of my hard drive archives of the past decade, about 200 TB of drives to throw out some old footage that I don't have space for, recycle some drives rather than buy more new hard drives. In looking at 16, S16, SD and HD footage from my Arri SR2, CP-16, DVX100, HVX200, HPX170, BVWD600, DSR500, F900, Varicam HPX2700, etc. and I have to say, today's sub-$10k cameras objectively look better and are far more flexible and easier to use than any of my previous cameras. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, higher resolution, capable of better images.

This is why I have few objections to the compromises inherent in the C200 and the EVA 1 and will probably own both. Both will objectively be so good for so little money that it really will boil down to my eye, lens choice, composition and lighting, the camera has ceased to be much of a factor in how good something can look these days. Any competent DP can shoot with almost anything from a Sony A7 up to a RED Weapon or Alexa and it will look amazing if the DP/Gaffer/ACs do their part. I am bored about obsessing about specs, codecs, media, 8-bit vs. 10-bit, 4k vs. 6k/8k, stops of dynamic range, etc. I can guarantee that I can shoot good looking footage with any of the latest.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
The way I look at it, we all have a wealth of riches to choose from, we are bathed in amazing camera choices. One of my Summer projects recently was to go through all of my hard drive archives of the past decade, about 200 TB of drives to throw out some old footage that I don't have space for, recycle some drives rather than buy more new hard drives. In looking at 16, S16, SD and HD footage from my Arri SR2, CP-16, DVX100, HVX200, HPX170, BVWD600, DSR500, F900, Varicam HPX2700, etc. and I have to say, today's sub-$10k cameras objectively look better and are far more flexible and easier to use than any of my previous cameras. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, higher resolution, capable of better images. This is why I have few objections to the compromises inherent in the C200 and the EVA 1 and will probably own both. Both will objectively be so good for so little money that it really will boil down to my eye, lens choice, composition and lighting, the camera has ceased to be much of a factor in how good something can look these days. Any competent DP can shoot with almost anything from a Sony A7 up to a RED Weapon or Alexa and it will look amazing if the DP/Gaffer/ACs do their part. I am bored about obsessing about specs, codecs, media, 8-bit vs. 10-bit, 4k vs. 6k/8k, stops of dynamic range, etc. I can guarantee that I can shoot good looking footage with any of the latest.
Click to expand...

HA! I could agree more, I saw some of my old rushes from the DVX100 and later 5D2 stuff recently and we really are laughing today with cameras like the A7SII and up, If anything, we should be obsessing about glass more, the real character is in the lens that throws out the tone/colour and the camera should be about giving you the cleanest, most neutral image so the glass can shine!

That's why in the end it comes down to the hard fast ergonomics of the camera, what enables me to shoot the best way without the camera getting in the way...

I have seen some really beautiful images come out of BMPCC and yet it's a pain in the ass camera to use along with the BMPC 4K compared to Canon cameras of today and really the C300 MKII and the C200 will give you everything you need if you make it work.

We will see about the EVA1, I like the specs but if you didn't really get excited about Varicam LT when that was released then I'm not sure the EVA1 can be that much better at the lower price point.
 
Gosh, I've seen a lot of Varicam LT footage that has blown me away, including footage from our own Charles Papert. If the EVA 1 begins to approach the Varicam LT, it will be a great camera.
 
puredrifting said:
Gosh, I've seen a lot of Varicam LT footage that has blown me away, including footage from our own Charles Papert. If the EVA 1 begins to approach the Varicam LT, it will be a great camera.
Click to expand...

I've seen SOME footage that blows me away on commercial projects but not a lot that has me thinking wow, the good stuff has been the Varicam 35 but then I see many Epic Dragon clips that almost look good just shooting straight out of the box.

The EVA1 will have a new sensor for sure so even though I would like to think it has the same look as the Varicam 35, I can't see how it would be in the same ballpark... in the same way that the Sony FS5 is not at all the same look as the F55
 
bill totolo said:
Is anyone leaning more to the C300 MKII with the recent pricedrop?
Click to expand...

I’m in the market for a C200 - I’ve got a deposit on one at a local dealer - but the price drop on the C300M2 did give me pause. I also found a year-old but almost unused C300M2 for sale recently and that really got me wondering.

I decided to stick with the C200 purchase. Part of the appeal of the C300M2 was that I wouldn’t have to wait for it and I wouldn’t have to deal with any new-camera teething problems the C200 might have. However, I realized that if both cameras were in front of me, both were new, and even if both were the same price, I’d still take the C200. This is mostly because:

1. I’m excited about the prospect of raw without an external recorder.
2. I like the form factor of the C200 more (slightly smaller and not as tall ‘though the same weight).
3. I believe the sensor is an improvement over what’s in the C300M2
4. I think there will be a bunch of little improvements over the C300M2, things that don’t show up in a spec short or in a preliminary review but are still valuable.

I’m a still photographer getting my first “real” video camera and shooting in raw is really appealing. I can’t image using jpeg again (except perhaps some sports situations) and I don’t want to go back to doing the equivalent with video. I think in a few years that shooting raw will be the default. Processing power and storage have to catch-up but not by much. My main concern is actually backup of raw content. Today, I use a couple of Internet-based backup solutions for my still raws (CrashPlan and Backblaze) but that won’t work with the giant raw video size. I’m not sure what a good alternative will be but I’m sure there is one and I think the benefit of shooting in raw will outweigh the hassle.
 
fhammond said:
I’m in the market for a C200 - I’ve got a deposit on one at a local dealer - but the price drop on the C300M2 did give me pause. I also found a year-old but almost unused C300M2 for sale recently and that really got me wondering.

I decided to stick with the C200 purchase. Part of the appeal of the C300M2 was that I wouldn’t have to wait for it and I wouldn’t have to deal with any new-camera teething problems the C200 might have. However, I realized that if both cameras were in front of me, both were new, and even if both were the same price, I’d still take the C200. This is mostly because:

1. I’m excited about the prospect of raw without an external recorder.
2. I like the form factor of the C200 more (slightly smaller and not as tall ‘though the same weight).
3. I believe the sensor is an improvement over what’s in the C300M2
4. I think there will be a bunch of little improvements over the C300M2, things that don’t show up in a spec short or in a preliminary review but are still valuable.

I’m a still photographer getting my first “real” video camera and shooting in raw is really appealing. I can’t image using jpeg again (except perhaps some sports situations) and I don’t want to go back to doing the equivalent with video. I think in a few years that shooting raw will be the default. Processing power and storage have to catch-up but not by much. My main concern is actually backup of raw content. Today, I use a couple of Internet-based backup solutions for my still raws (CrashPlan and Backblaze) but that won’t work with the giant raw video size. I’m not sure what a good alternative will be but I’m sure there is one and I think the benefit of shooting in raw will outweigh the hassle.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, the only semi-viable digital backup still seems to be LTO tape drive. It seems anachronistic but there are no other proven, long-term digital storage and even LTO is thought to only be viable for about 15 years. We have to get used to everything we produce will not last or be accessible for more than a decade or two, unless recorded out to film stock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top