C200: C300mkII XFAVC vs C200 MP4?

K

kmoreau893

Active member
For a couple years I lusted after the C300mkII, but the $16K price tag and a few other things (kind of tall, weird EVF pod etc, weight) kept me from just going for it. When I saw the C200 a few months ago at Cinegear I this was a no brainer because of the price and ergonomics and the potential of RAW Lite.

I did get one of the first shipped C200's along with the 18-80 compact servo a couple months ago, thanks to Terry Nixon at Texas Media Systems who went the extra mile to get me a unit quickly.

Now I'm in the market for a 2nd Canon Cinema of mostly documentary work. I also want to get the new 70-200 servo when it comes out, and if you get that and the C300mkII, the price on that camcorder goes to $9,500, pretty close to the C200.

So, I know the RAW out of the C200 is probably unsurpassed, though a bit unwieldy at the moment due to it only be kind of native supported in Resolve and no FCPX or Premiere Pro support yet. I'm also kind of in love with the lowly MP4 150mbs 4K recording on the C200 in addition to the RAW, and it edits like butter in Premiere Pro.

So for laughs, what do you think is a better image, the C300mkII's 4K image quality with the 400mbs codec, or the C200's 150mbs MP4?

And since I already have the C200 would you recommend I get the older, maybe less advanced and quirky, but versatile C300mkII given that the 2K difference isn't that big of a deal for me right now?

I look forward to everybody's input and I plan talk about this thread in an upcoming episode of my cinematography podcast, www.techmovepodcast.com
 
If the C200 is working for you and you need a second camera, it seems like the best choice is another C200. The lack of NLE support for Cinema Raw Light is a temporary thing that'll be fixed in a few months at which you point you get all the benefits of two cameras that are identical.
 
I actually did a shoot two weeks ago with my C200 and a rented C300 MKII and I did one today with my C200 (shooting .MP4) with two C300 MKIIs. I have not yet compared the Cinema RAW Light with the XF-AVC from the C300 MKII but overall, the C300 MKII's XF-AVC codec is better and looks better than the C200's .MP4 codec. Also, I have noticed that even though I set the C200 to shoot WDR Gamma for this particular client and the C300 MKIIs to shoot WDR Gamma, the C300 MKIIs looked better as you can adjust their color Matrix in a way that the C200 cannot. Not that the C200 looks bad, it doesn't but it has a different quality than the C300MKII overall.
 
The C300 is much better on paper, but the difference might not be as dramatic as you'd expect. I think the bigger problem would be the picture settings and the color science aren't able to be matched 100% in camera. The fact that one is 10-bit and one is 8-bit might be a lot less noticeable in most situations.

If you're going to spend a lot of time worrying about perfectly matching two cameras, I would agree you should just get another C200.
 
puredrifting said:
I actually did a shoot two weeks ago with my C200 and a rented C300 MKII and I did one today with my C200 (shooting .MP4) with two C300 MKIIs. I have not yet compared the Cinema RAW Light with the XF-AVC from the C300 MKII but overall, the C300 MKII's XF-AVC codec is better and looks better than the C200's .MP4 codec.
Click to expand...

I'm curious when down-res'd to 1080HD, what the differences would be. 4:2:0 4K down-res'd becomes 4:4:4. 8-bit luminance becomes something else (maybe not 10-bit, but someone with better math skills than I could figure it out) because you average 4 pixels together. Compressions artifacts get reduced - not eliminated though. For me, the fact that C200 can deliver as close as it does to the C300 at less than half the data is the selling point. Had the C300 mkII had a 150mbps codec I would have considered it also. Though I'm loving the 60fps for slow-motion shots that I don't plan ahead of time. And I'm digging not having that stupid LCD/audio arrangement of the C300 Mk I that I left.
 
puredrifting said:
I actually did a shoot two weeks ago with my C200 and a rented C300 MKII and I did one today with my C200 (shooting .MP4) with two C300 MKIIs. I have not yet compared the Cinema RAW Light with the XF-AVC from the C300 MKII but overall, the C300 MKII's XF-AVC codec is better and looks better than the C200's .MP4 codec. Also, I have noticed that even though I set the C200 to shoot WDR Gamma for this particular client and the C300 MKIIs to shoot WDR Gamma, the C300 MKIIs looked better as you can adjust their color Matrix in a way that the C200 cannot. Not that the C200 looks bad, it doesn't but it has a different quality than the C300MKII overall.
Click to expand...


I've had both for awhile and have just recently sold my C300 MKII.

The C200 is obviously a far superior image in RAW and that is why I decided to sell my C300 MKII and have the C200 as my b-cam and low light cam alongside my RED SW.

The C200 MP4 codec is nowhere near worth comparing to the 10bit C300 MKII, it simply isn't in the same league and quite frankly, I find it a very different image aesthetically to the C300 MKII, both have their strengths.

Honestly, I loved the C300 MKII but for what I do and where I see the camera in a few years, I think you have to look at this cam in the longer term and know that while 4K Raw Light is a bit too much presently for most, it will be a walk in the park in a couple of years.

There really is no point at all comparing C200 MP4 to the C300 MKII XAVC, it's a different sensor and of course the 8bit MP4 will be a downgrade in quality, as it should be, but it's a different sensor with the same color science so regardless of the lower MP4 codec it's a different image in some regards.

I do find the C200 handles shadows and blacks much better than the purple/green smears that sometimes came up on the C300 MKII in backlit situations and in this case even the MP4 is pretty clean also in shadows but overall, you should use this camera in RAW and roundtrip to PRORES 4444 and you have an image head shoulders above the C300 MKII 10 bit...

All this being said, shooters who need answers on these codecs simply need take a look at their current portfolio and ask themselves if they really need the raw to improve the image of their work or if clients will be fine with the MP4 or can pixel-peep the difference.

I feel like these days you do need about 3 to 4 cameras to cover a variety of different projects, the FS7 MKI is a decent workhorse with 4K 10bit internal and is pretty much the same price as the C200 now on B&H and even cheaper used.

I mean, if you won't be shooting RAW at all, then a better comparison is the FS7/FS5 vs C200, and really, there is no contest if only using the C200 for MP4, you may as well go for the Sony, the RAW is the only reason to get the C200...
 
Last edited:
Thanks much all. @Cane131. No doubt the Sony's are a better value for the codec, and I have Sony stuff now too, I have the FS5. However, I'm finding the image quality of the C200 MP4 surpasses the FS5. There is something more cinematic about the images. I guess it is what we call "Canon Color". And the image is a lot less noisy and less artifacts. So while the FS7 is a workhorse and codec for codec a better deal than the Canon C200 particularly, the eMount vs EF mount, Autofocus, light sensitivity, ergonomics and aesthetic make the Canons a winner for me. I guess the real issue is, do I have work or time constraints to go for the C300m2 with it's clunkiness vs the C200, and the answer is, not really. For 90% of the bread and butter work the C200 MP4 will be fine. For projects requiring better grading options, the RAW workflow will probably be ok. When FCPX and Premiere Pro support RAW lite it might be a moot question.

Thank you all for your suggestions, it really helped me solidify the choice. I'll wind up getting a C200B as my "B" cam - how appropriate!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top