C200: C200 vs 1dx Mark II

R

RobAmy

Member
Hi all

Could someone explain the difference in use using the C200 vs 1d Mark II which I use now. I only shoot wildlife and with long glass, 200-400mm, 600mm, 800mm etc. So no run and gun here, usually all tripod mounted. I normally only shoot 4k with the occasional 120fps. I have a fair amount of CFast cards so that is no issue with either setup. I do not do this to make money but for self use. I always wanted to jump into the Cinema line but never have. I was thinking the C200 may be a good move but maybe not enough for what I already have and use. I do take the occasional screen grab for the footage too. Not sure is the C200 even does this. Any input would be great. I am very happy with the 1dx Mark II but was wondering if I am truely missing something vs the Cinema line. Looking forward to your input.

I do use screen grabs like this also

Goldfinch by A & R Photography, on Flickr

I do use the SmallHD 702 monitor with the zoom h5 at times but I also use just the camera at times for easier and faster setup depending on location.

Here is a setup with my 800mm, I have since upgraded to the Sacthler FSB8 which handles the payload much better. I do not always mount the Mic there and move it off camera so I do not get the AF noise when using DPAF.

Canon 1D X Mark II video setup by A & R Photography, on Flickr

Here is a setup using my 200-400mm with the monitor off to the side.

Out in the field by A & R Photography, on Flickr

I like doing clips like this



 
Last edited:
You are well equipped for what you do. I don't know if there would be much advantage to going C200. when you do regular video production- interviews, documentary, narrative, branding, there is a true advantage of having a proper shoulder rig, of having SDI outputs, and at times, of having XLR audio inputs direct to camera. The C200 will give you RAW Lite- which is great as long as you are willing to deal with the post overhead. The C200 does not give you higher FPS I believe. Your 1DXii is also weather sealed, more compact, and you already have it.

If anything I'd think a camera with a higher FPS capability would make a difference in your work. You may find a used Red Epic-W or Sony F55 (NOT F-S-5!) for a great price. (you can get EF mounts for them- but lose autofocus).

If you feel you really need a specific feature in a camera- (ie: greater dynamic range, higher framerate, deeper bit depth etc) do your research to find a solution. I suspect you have the ideal setup for now, without spending tens of thousands of dollars.
 
I have the 1Dx (original), a C100mkII, and a C200. The 1Dx is now almost exclusively for stills although I did a couple of shorts on it before getting a cine camera.

I would, personally, have a strong preference for the C200. The main advantages are ergonomics and UI, 12bit RAW internally, and 4 channels of 48/16PCM audio. Also, the crop factor might be appealing for your application while losing nothing in resolution. Getting 50% more reach with your lenses.

You clearly have your approach well worked out and can continue on as you have. Perhaps this suggests waiting for the next generation?
 
I think you are set up as ideally as you can without heading into a much more expensive realm (RED). BTW You have lovely footage. Just getting out and shooting is the critical part.
 
Your CFast cards might not work in a C200. They're pretty picky about CFast cards. The C200 has long start up times. The C200 is a much bulkier camera than your SLR. I personally don't use the external EVF touch screen much. I don't even have it or the bracket to hold it connected I use mine stripped down like an SLR. I do use the browser with my cellphone to select focus etc. And with your SLR you get higher resolution stills. The stills on the C200 are low res.
It looks like a nice set up you have there.
As others have said I'd look long and hard before buying a C200.
Or maybe you could rent one, and I'd recommend renting a CFast card with it. You could take one for a spin and see how much you like it.
And getting single frames off a C200 would be a project.
I have a BMPC which is more like your SLR.
It has a global shutter. Every single frame is a CinemaDNG file. So it's easy to take a single frame and use it like a still camera shot.
At the same time it's shooting video.
But it doesn't have autofocus. And it stinks in low light. BM QC can be quirky and you might end up with a camera with FPN.
And they might not even make it any more. You might have to get a Ursa mini that has global shutter. And an URSA mini is a big camera.
Again if I were you and interested in a BM I'd rent one first.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the responses. Very helpful. Sounds like I should just stay where I am vs the C200 but maybe other options could fit the bill but that means a bit more cash output. Great Idea on renting first before I dive in to the true Cinema world. I think I would love a Red setup but a bit pricey for just self use. That actually my be my first look if money was no factor.
 
Yeah, rent a C200 before buying it. I have a 1DX II also, and the footage it produces is incredible. The C200 would give you better video shooting ergonomics and built-in ND filters and XLR inputs, but you'd lose the weatherproofing and the high-res stills of the 1DX II. My only complaint about the 1DX II is the 30 minute record limit and the lack of Canon Log.
 
Nice setup. I also shoot with a 1DXM2 and a Canon 600mm f/4 II lens when filming wildlife including birds. I also have the GH5 and use it as well. My biggest gripe with the 1DXM2 is the dynamic range. It really is mediocre at best. The GH5 has about 1-stop better dynamic range in my estimation. If you shoot in scenarios in which exposure is pretty even across the frame, you can get away with the 1DXM2, but in scenarios in which you need greater latitude, the 1DXM2 just doesn't cut it. The 1DXM2 also does not have focus peaking and zebras which can be a hindrance. I also prefer to film wildlife with a viewfinder and most of the time end up throwing a hood on the back of the 1DXM2's screen to make it into a viewfinder.

Like you, I have been considering the C200. Besides the much better dynamic range, it has all the bells and whistles and ergonomics with an EVF that would really help. I have researched other cameras as well including the EVA-1, Ursa Mini Pro 4.6k, Sony FS5 and FS7. Ergonomically speaking, the C200 would fit nicely on long lenses, something that other cameras in the price range do not offer. Especially with having the ability to use Canon's fantastic autofocus for wildlife filming, it is by far the best option out there in my opinion.

I continue to have a love/hate relationship with Canon. I'm still pissed that they never came up with an option to add CLOG to the 1DXM2 like they did with the 5DM4. I do love Canon color however and it's very quick and easy to color footage whereas I typically spend more time getting GH5 footage to look as good as Canon's.

Like others have already stated, renting a C200 in advance seems like a good option. Something I plan to do myself.
 
RobAmy said:
Thanks for the responses. Very helpful. Sounds like I should just stay where I am vs the C200 but maybe other options could fit the bill but that means a bit more cash output. Great Idea on renting first before I dive in to the true Cinema world. I think I would love a Red setup but a bit pricey for just self use. That actually my be my first look if money was no factor.
Click to expand...

Hi Rob

I own both a C200 and 1DX Mark ii, any questions I'm happy to answer. In my opinion the C200 just has that few extra features that make it such a good video camera, like waveform, focus peaking, ND filters, XLR inputs, movable LCD etc. I like the hand-grip and ergonomics of the C200. Also the C200 raw light codec is amazing and gives such freedom in post and lots of latitude on those bright days which I suspect you would appreciate in those forest shots.

I find the 1DX2 has a nice but harsh look to it, it can be quite a contrasty look. Its light and super quick to get going (the video menu is great, press Q and you're straight into it, so simple). Both have dual pixel auto-focus but the 1DX2 is a bit better in its implementation, its a bit simpler but to be honest I've not delved into the C200 DPAF settings properly yet so my opinion could change.

The 1DX2 is my B-cam to the C200 (I previously had a C500) and I like having both as the 1DX2 is great for those backpack locations where I need a lightweight setup but the C200 is my main camera without a doubt for the look it gives (I'm still getting used to it).

I was also wanting a Red for a long time but I've moved further and further away after owning the Canon cinema line and also editing several projects from Red cameras (without a decent camera op you still get rubbish footage no matter the camera! lol)

Also really like your work, are you using any special profile? You should give the HD modes a go, that full frame look would really suit your footage. 
 
Since this is a hobby for you, not a way to make a living, I would personally stick with what you have. Yes, the C200 would give you some gains in some areas but you would lose in some areas (weight, size, stills ability). If you have $10k (you'll need at least that much total for the camera, extra batteries and CFast cards) burning a hole in your pocket that you have to spend, C200 is a pretty good camera, but your end gains would be negligible for what you are doing IMHO. I have the C200 and mostly like it but it has some challenges in several areas that are frustrating, you can check my other thread that I started about needed firmware updates for the camera, there are a lot of challenges operationally that Canon really needs to fix.
 
AndreeOnline said:
That's pretty harsh. I don't feel it's that bad. What picture profile are you using?
Click to expand...

I also had the Sony a7RII and the dynamic range (video) was close to the GH5, but the 1DXM2 lagged behind by about 1 stop. I tried all the internal profiles and also purchased the Miller CLOG profiles and LUTs. When exposing shadows in harsh lighting conditions, the shadows have very little data in them whereas the GH5 with VLOG does better.

I am open to other settings that I might have overlooked, but what I have seen so far is the 1DXM2 tends to crush the blacks or blow-out the highlights. With that stated, I have seen excellent footage taken with the 1DXM2, but I would stay out of harsh lighting and be very careful at how you expose. There is very little leeway in post-editing.
 
Last edited:
A couple of other points related to your questions...

As far as doing frame grabs, you can take footage from just about any camera and bring it in to Photoshop and make a frame into a still image. The camera body shouldn't matter unless the video clip can't be edited by Photoshop or transcoded prior to bringing it into Photoshop.

C200's resolution? I really don't think this is a fair test, but a recent test done by Max Yuryev compares the C200 vs the GH5 vs the A6500. About midway into his test, he compares the resolution of all three cameras and the C200 definitely lacks detail compared to the other two cameras. It appears however that his test of the C200 was with the 8-bit codec and not raw light.

Here is Yuryev's test:

If frame grabs are important to you, the C200's lack of resolution (at least with the 8-bit codec) might be an issue.
 
Agree the built in picture styles don't work that well for the 1DXII, nor do the CLog emulations (doesn't provide more real DR and can make skin look bad). Here's a custom picture style that optimizes for accurate color/contrast, closer to what the eye sees (and also happens to look more filmic IMO):
https://youtu.be/TkCJhAKxUK4
This is 1080p and full frame, 24-105 F4L at F4 on the 1DX II.

When I have the time I'll do some tests with custom picture styles shot on the 1DX II compared to the C300 II (using the ARRI settings and/or CLog3 and custom settings) in the same conditions. With custom picture styles and the 1DX II sensor, I'm getting looks that I'd like to get on the C300 II (will try tweaking the advanced settings).
 
Aajay said:
Nice setup. I also shoot with a 1DXM2 and a Canon 600mm f/4 II lens when filming wildlife including birds. I also have the GH5 and use it as well. My biggest gripe with the 1DXM2 is the dynamic range. It really is mediocre at best. The GH5 has about 1-stop better dynamic range in my estimation. If you shoot in scenarios in which exposure is pretty even across the frame, you can get away with the 1DXM2, but in scenarios in which you need greater latitude, the 1DXM2 just doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

Some pretty strong opinions expressed. I personally have no issues with my 1DXII while shooting wildlife. Having said that, I should also mention that I have come up shooting in slide films several decades ago, where spot on exposure was a must. Even if you give 15 stops of DR, shooters will always complain and talk about how some other camera is better.

I find the 1DXII to be fine unless one needs to do interviews. Also if one is producing programming as per directions of broadcasters who specifically want a particular camera, then 1DXII may not make the grade. I have shot documentaries with DSLR and hate that form factor. However, there are situations where one needs to shoot in a minimalistic configuration and the 1DXII works well in such situations. Being a small production, carrying tons of equipment to the field is always a hassle. The 1DXII also helps shooting stills and creating posters in commercial shooting situations.

C200 has a S35 sensor vis-a-vis a close to APS-H while shooting 4K in 1DXII.

I won't advise going for the REDs as you will get a shock as far as high ISOs, batteries etc are concerned.
 
Compared with other cameras (photo and video) even well below its price range the dr of the 1DXII is mediocre, don't think there's anything controversial in saying that. It has many fine attributes but I found the dr and lack of clog disappointing. The af and 4k 60p was nice though
 
My bad, for taking this thread in a different direction. It wasn't meant to be a bashing of the 1DX Mark II. I always have loved the skin tones produced on Canon cameras. Picture profiles definitely help bring out the max that Canon's codec can produce. As I stated, with proper lighting conditions, it does just fine. However, especially when working outdoors with wildlife in which one can't control lighting, there is a risk of over-blowing highlights or crushing the shadows and you will not be able to recover this in post-production. An 8-bit codec can only do so much.

The C200 along with all the other cinematic cameras found in this price range will do a much better job working in harsh lighting conditions, which for the cinematographer who works outdoors with wildlife is key to producing quality footage.
 
Here the C300 II shows much better DR vs. the 1DX II using a log emulation picture style and a LUT (which is part of the DR loss):
https://vimeo.com/187550111

Would expect the C200 to provide similar performance to the C300 II when shooting 10- or 12-bit RAW. Perhaps somewhere in the middle when shooting 8-bit MP4.

This is a silly video (audio is dubbed, not trying to match perfectly), however note the highlights (including blue sky), shadows (trees and rocks, sunglasses), and skintones (hold up better than 8-bit log emulations).
1DX II, custom picture style (no LUT needed or used), 1080p ALL-I, Tiffen variable ND, Canon 70-200 II (F2.8 IIRC). The 2nd part was just a test (was shooting mostly stills), Jacqui liked it so it was included in the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UywOZIkpT4k

Need to test my custom non-log picture styles on the 1DX II vs. the C300 II.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top