C400: C400 focus trial 2025

M

morgan_moore

Major Contributor
Ive been sitting on this for a while as Ive been too busy to look and I dont think the subjects were too happy to be filmed and I felt I need to like read the menu.

Id be interested to go back and do this properly.

Pro Av canon day.. they chose the perfect set up.. an unlit shed with a few lights causing distration.

25p timeline so 50p is 'slo mo' (a situation I would use to grab broll at a corporate horror) lense is 24-105 f 2.8 canon is C400 settings are on screen,

50 inside at 3200 is quite a challenge,.. I dont think my C200 woutd work at all

vimeo.com

Stresst test! Canon C400 'tested' at ProAv demo day

The canon c400 hdmi into my atomos monitor. Ive not published before as I feel more thought is needed,. but this it still worth a watch!. The lighting was terrible,…
vimeo.com
 
Canon's IQ has barely changed in like 10 years, lol...I mean, I know, the lighting, but this could literally be noted as the C200 and no one would blink.

P.S. Something is wrong with your slow motion at the end (very 'stuttery'). Thought it might be a shutter switch but it's at 180° so that's fine...maybe something off in the NLE? (I saw the aspect ratio changed, too.)
 
I was rushed on all fronts. Frame rate may not match atomos or nle!

Why i want going to post but ot came up in chat

Its way dark. C200 would not see or focu (in raw)

My conclusion was to test properly!
 
Not sure I ever saw an explanation for it, but the cinema cameras always performed worse (it was like this with Sony for a bit as well).

In my head, I made up the reasoning that it's because AF is so important in stills cameras that it must be designed, engineered differently and with more care and technology than the video cameras.

Because, really, what could it possibly be...anyone who spent time with a R5 and then used a C70 would be like what is this??

Same back in 2016 with Sony's first AI AF camera...a6300. Use that and then a newer cine cam like an FS5 II and WTH.

Maybe all are evening up now slowly.
 
NorBro said:
In my head, I made up the reasoning that it's because AF is so important in stills cameras that it must be designed, engineered differently and with more care and technology than the video cameras.
Click to expand...
I think AF is harder for video because every frame must be right on the money. For slow-mo, that can mean 120 frames per second with no slips. Stills only need to be in focus when the shutter is tripped, which might be only once or twice per second. In fact, if you fire off a burst of 15-30 still images of action, odds are pretty good many of those won't be in focus. Plus, stills doesn't need smooth tracking, and the camera can use technology such as predictive focus and other stuff that won't work for video.

Because it is easier, that's why AF on stills cameras was pretty much perfected 10-15 years ago, and it is only in the last couple years that video cameras catching up. AF on my FX6 and Z200 is amazing, but they are the only two cameras I've used that I would trust AF on non-human subjects. Human faces are easy for lots of cameras, but other moving targets are not so easy for most cameras.
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
I think AF is harder for video because every frame must be right on the money. For slow-mo, that can mean 120 frames per second with no slips. Stills only need to be in focus when the shutter is tripped, which might be only once or twice per second. In fact, if you fire off a burst of 15-30 still images of action, odds are pretty good many of those won't be in focus. Plus, stills doesn't need smooth tracking, and the camera can use technology such as predictive focus and other stuff that won't work for video.
Click to expand...
I think Norbro is talking about certain stills cameras having better AF while shooting video than their cine counterparts. Is the FX6 better than your A1?
 
Yeah, video AF with certain stills cameras...or hybrids, mirrorless', millennial cameras as the kids call them.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Yes, AF on the FX6 and Z200 is way ahead of the A1. Not even in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...
Thanks Doug! Would you say the same of the A1 II for video vs. fx6/z200?

We had another thread going, where it seems like the latest c80/c400, as well as the r5 mark ii mirrorless all pretty much have equal focus abilities, which were all released in late 2024.

It's really just a great endorsement for the 2020 released fx6.
 
Sorry, I can't answer that. I've never seen an A1 II and don't expect to because the A1 more than meets my needs. Even if AF is better it wouldn't be enough reason for me to make the jump. So, if someone can prove it is better, please don't tell me. I don't wanna hear about it. :)
 
Doug Jensen said:
Sorry, I can't answer that. I've never seen an A1 II and don't expect to because the A1 more than meets my needs. Even if AF is better it wouldn't be enough reason for me to make the jump. So, if someone can prove it is better, please don't tell me. I don't wanna hear about it. :)
Click to expand...
Safe to say, fx6 successor is going to be a ridiculously good camera.
morgan_moore said:
25p timeline so 50p is 'slo mo' (a situation I would use to grab broll at a corporate horror) lense is 24-105 f 2.8 canon is C400 settings are on screen,
Click to expand...
What did you think of the 24-105?

And yes your test shows some of the biggest advances from previous generation canon cameras - (mostly) handling low light and too bright a light in the background.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top