chris f
Veteran
I agree with Barry’s assessment here. Hit it right on the head.
C500: C500 Mark II: Observations from a C200 point of view
- Thread starter chris f
- Start date
I agree with Barry’s assessment here. Hit it right on the head.
cpreston
Veteran
Ah, I was talking about the reaction to the first couple of tests where people were mentioning how much worse the C500II looked compared to the C200. But, again, WideDR lifts the shadows and RAW doesn't have any NR so it is not surprising that both the C200 and the C500II are showing the same amount of noise.
One definite disadvantage that the C500II has over the C200 is the lack of a low bit rate recording. If you are shooting events, presentations, or low budget interviews, sometimes it is just better to shoot a fully compressed codec. I've decided to hold onto my C300 MK II's and keep the C500 II for b-roll just so that I can have the low bit rate options available for my clients that don't like to fill up their hard drive space.
chris f
Veteran
Hey Barry, that particular scene was a bit of a stress test on the cameras given the latitude of the scene. I exposed to hold the window which meant the shadow side was probably under exposed by a stop for both cameras, so for this particular shot I used the CinemaGamut_CanonLog3-to-BT709_WideDR_65_FF Lut instead of the CinemaGamut_CanonLog2-to-BT709_WideDR_65_FF Lut as to me that created a more pleasing image. The flip side is that that LUT seems to lift the shadows and mids more, lowering the contrast of the scene to my liking, but like you've mentioned puts the noise more out in front.
Here is that same noise segment with the Log2 LUT instead. I've turned downloading on so you can download the prores file from Vimeo. Noise is certainly less noticeable as it's hiding better in the shadows, but when I look closely at both it still seems to be pretty close to the same amount of noise:
Last edited:
Isn't the bit rate on the C300II XF-AVC identical to the one on the C500II? Or are you meaning the SD card proxy? (which the c500 has, but only when shooting raw, which is a bit screwy..).
So from my experience in FCPX the Raw files on the C500 default to the Log2 LUT, are you using the v.2.0 LUTs? they are a bit different than the previous v.1.2 LUTs. FWIW, when I'm testing cameras these days, I try to include a known reference value, (usually 18% grey or 90% white) exposed to spec (56 ire for 90% white on these cameras)...especially important when using a LUT, as the LUT is supposed to render that tone properly, and will "roll off" everything above it, shadow placement is equally important as the same thing happens at the bottom when a LUT is applied. While "exposing for the highlights" is often all you have in practice, its a bit too random for a test. Likely the image is underexposed as you said, which is why the noise. Given that you were able to hold the curtains at f3.5, it's down at least a stop, and probably more, which makes sense given the results. (the Wide DR LUT shouldn't be causing any weird noise, I use it all the time with this camera.
FWIW, for so many years I have exposed without charts, and I decided with this camera to start being disciplined...learn the craft... and do it the way the big boys do.
I have to say it helps produce a more reliable image. And given camera engineers set up these cameras with the same chart info, it makes sense.
chris f
Veteran
Here is that same noise segment with the Log2 LUT instead. I've turned downloading on so you can download the prores file from Vimeo. Noise is certainly less noticeable as it's hiding better in the shadows, but when I look closely at both it still seems to be pretty close to the same amount of noise:
https://vimeo.com/391304742/08c5e742f9
This is a really good note Barry and I really appreciate it. All of this is definitely inspiring me to step my game up on my "visual authorship" as Steve Yedlin likes to call it. For these series of tests I had 1 day to do camera prep and tests for a 2-day run-n-gun documentary shoot so I wanted to run all of my tests exactly how I would shoot and do post on my documentary shoot - a crash course so to speak to help me be as prepared as I could be for my shoot. It's definitely not a perfect test by any means, but I feel like it gave me accurate information as far as comparing the two cameras. Certainly the next step in increased IQ would be to properly expose the scene and tweak the lighting to reduce contrast in the scene and feed the Canon sensor what it wants. Overall I've found Canon's sensors to be quite nice when overexposing a bit, and definitely noisy when needing to pull up underexposed areas in post.
FWIW, for so many years I have exposed without charts, and I decided with this camera to start being disciplined...learn the craft... and do it the way the big boys do.
This is a really good note Barry and I really appreciate it. All of this is definitely inspiring me to step my game up on my "visual authorship" as Steve Yedlin likes to call it. For these series of tests I had 1 day to do camera prep and tests for a 2-day run-n-gun documentary shoot so I wanted to run all of my tests exactly how I would shoot and do post on my documentary shoot - a crash course so to speak to help me be as prepared as I could be for my shoot. It's definitely not a perfect test by any means, but I feel like it gave me accurate information as far as comparing the two cameras. Certainly the next step in increased IQ would be to properly expose the scene and tweak the lighting to reduce contrast in the scene and feed the Canon sensor what it wants. Overall I've found Canon's sensors to be quite nice when overexposing a bit, and definitely noisy when needing to pull up underexposed areas in post.
Last edited:
I am in this boat right now. I am really on the fence with upgrading from my C200. One thing I see as a massive plus for the C200 is the ability to use small BPA30 batteries. I love that they recess into the body and I can go a full day on 3 of them. I really dislike how that BPA60 sticks out of the C500 II. And I don't want to go with V-Mounts. I'd rather use an Amira if I'm going to build up the body into this massive shoulder cam thing. One of the things that draws me to Canon is the small form factor coupled with the ability to use it right out of the box. I like how small and compact the Cinema Series has gotten. The original C300 and C300 II were much too tall and I disliked the clamshell design. They absolutely nailed it with the C200 in my opinion.
I also think the S35 4K Canon Raw Light is the sweet spot for footage quality vs file size. I am not having any issues dealing with the C200's 4k raw anymore. When I first got the camera back in 2017, editing kind of sucked. But now that all the editing programs support Canon Raw Light, coupled with me moving to an iMac Pro and a 16" MacBook Pro, everything works great. I feel like I just caught up to editing really high quality 4k and we've already moved to 2.1Gbps 6k, lol. Last night I converted 4 days of 4K raw to both ProRes 422HQ and ProRes 444 just to see how everything compares when editing on my new system. The ProRes 422HQ and the 444 is larger in file size than the CRL. In the end, I was able to throw 4 full days of mixed codec footage (CRL, ProRes 444, 422HQ and MP4) into my timeline and edit everything with no problems at all, without proxies. Moving to 6k Canon Raw Light doesn't sound apealing to me at all. I'm aware you can always just shoot S35 mode with the C500 II, but then why not stick with the C200?
I'm really starting to think I may not upgrade. I have my name in a couple order lists, but the more I think about it, the more I think I'll just get some more 512GB Cfast cards and just continue shooting S35 raw for everything. Cfast cards are finally getting cheap now. And if clients want smaller footage files, then I'll just transcode to regular ProRes 422, which is a friendlier codec than XFAVC anyway.
Last edited:
I certainly hear all that. Probably all I would add, is that the xf-avc off the c500ii is really nice, and other than post white balance, gives you almost everything the 6kraw file would if downrezzed to 4K. Given your machines, the xfavc should be just about as friendly as the pro-res. It feels really light weight on my iMac Pro. As for the battery thing. In practice it really doesn’t bug me that much. Nice place to set a drink, and actually is well placed for chest point of contact. That said, this camera isn’t for everyone. I’m really pleased with it, but I totally see folks being perfectly happy with the c200, which, still is a steal given its capabilities.
rob norton
Veteran
By "no problems at all", does that mean you get completely smooth playback with the c200 raw files on your MBP 16"? Or more that you can do it without issue but it's still not that fast?
In both Final Cut Pro X and Resolve I get completely smooth playback with 4k Canon Raw Light. And this is even running on battery power and with the graphics card switched to energy saving mode! Once you start adding nodes and FX in Resolve, things can slow down, but so far, I am impressed. Final Cut Pro is the clear winner as it is even playing back some 6K test files from my friend's C500 II just fine. We did not expect that at all and it surprised us both when we tried it. I haven't loaded up the timeline with a ton of 6K footage yet though and I suspect that once you do that and add transitions and stuff, it will slow things down a bit. But it really is impressing how fast that program is. And it just goes to show you what can happen if software companies really focus on optimizing their products to run efficiently, something Adobe has yet to learn. I still despise the language and the interface of FCP, and I'm not sure I'll ever truly love it, but once I saw how blazing fast it is, it made me want to get over my crotchety, old man tendencies and learn it.
On my 16", CRL in Premiere requires rendering everything or it is choppy, which kind of sucks because some of my biggest clients want me to edit with Premiere. It does playback all flavors of ProRes smoothly though, including 444 with no issues at all. I used to not even be able to edit 4k ProRes 444 without stutters, so I'm at least happy it does that now.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Rob:
Here's another thing to think about if you already own the C200. If to update to the C500 MKII is $9,500.00, I am seeing lots of really nice condition, a few even pristine slightly used C300 MKIIs in the $5,800.00-$7,000.00 area. For me personally, I think I would consider adding a C300 MKII to the stable over buying a C500 MKII for the simple
reason of being able to have two high quality cameras instead of one slightly higher quality camera. I've done several shoots for Sony, Lionsgate and YouTube for their series, Step Up: Highwater, combining the C200 with the C300 MKII. The footage cut together and color matched pretty nicely and if you own both, you are going to get double the
camera rental rate of the C500 MKII, which I think most of us have agreed, isn't going to get much higher, if any day rate over the C200/C300 MKII, even though it should based upon cost.
The C300 MKII, especially if you get rid of the clamshell and add the audio box and the C200 touchscreen, is still a solid, desired camera in most markets. That way, when you get the call for a broadcast kind of camera with the XF-AVC 410Mbps and TC/Genlock, you're covered and when you get the call for a job that needs 4K 60p or RAW (especially for green screen)
you have the right camera. This, to me, thinking as a business person, not a gear nerd, is a smarter business move.
To throw another thing into the mix, I spent all day yesterday at Sony, learning about the menus, design, structure and capability of the FX9. I have the FX9 now, sitting here in my office. It's quite an impressive camera. I don't think the images look filmic, we watched FX9 footage on Sony's OLED 24' x 9' two million dollar monitor and the footage was really quite
beautiful, but it doesn't look "filmic" to me at all, it kind of reminded of RED footage in a way, which to me, unless it has a lot done in post to it, doesn't look nearly as film-like as the Arris. It has beautiful color, is really clean and clear, like a RED. I think the C200 looks more filmic than the FX9, but in the upcoming week, I am going to shoot some things side by side with my C200 and the FX9 to compare.
It was also impressive that for a small class with just half a dozen of us, Sony had the product engineer head here from Japan, the product manager in the from the east coast and a ton of trainers and other Sony staff. They were all eager to hear what we liked and what we didn't and were actually taking notes on suggestions that they are talking to Japan about
to see if some of these things can be in the next firmware update. It was impressive as a writer and potential buyer to see how eager Sony is to make the FX9 a success and I think it will be a huge success in the market.
My point is, once again, thinking like a business person and depending on who your clients are and what types of things you shoot, the FX9 costs significantly less than the C500 MKII and honestly, I think it will be in far more demand than the C500 MKII from customers, at least in my client base. I truly think, at least here in LA, that having the FX9 will get you more work, especially from corporate and broadcast type clients, than the C500 MKII will. I'm going to be shooting with the FX9 all week and hope have the 100-400 Sony G Master lens in hand next week to go shoot some surfers and windsailers in 120 fps 4K. I am also going to be getting the C500 MKII to play with soon so I look forward to it, but it does seem that if I had the C500 MKII,
I would mostly shoot S35 4K RAW, and I already have a camera that can do that. The whole mid-range XF-AVC codec, honestly, I only get asked for once in a while. More of our clients are getting into RAW now that they've used it on a few shoots and had their editor push it around. The FX9, will have the RAW output, but you'll have to use an Atomos and it will be external which is a hassle. Actually having the C200 and the FX9 would be a pretty good strategy too, you'd have RAW capability and Canon and Sony capability, that could also cover a huge portion of the market.
Just some food for thought for you and for Chris and other C200 owners to think about.
Here's another thing to think about if you already own the C200. If to update to the C500 MKII is $9,500.00, I am seeing lots of really nice condition, a few even pristine slightly used C300 MKIIs in the $5,800.00-$7,000.00 area. For me personally, I think I would consider adding a C300 MKII to the stable over buying a C500 MKII for the simple
reason of being able to have two high quality cameras instead of one slightly higher quality camera. I've done several shoots for Sony, Lionsgate and YouTube for their series, Step Up: Highwater, combining the C200 with the C300 MKII. The footage cut together and color matched pretty nicely and if you own both, you are going to get double the
camera rental rate of the C500 MKII, which I think most of us have agreed, isn't going to get much higher, if any day rate over the C200/C300 MKII, even though it should based upon cost.
The C300 MKII, especially if you get rid of the clamshell and add the audio box and the C200 touchscreen, is still a solid, desired camera in most markets. That way, when you get the call for a broadcast kind of camera with the XF-AVC 410Mbps and TC/Genlock, you're covered and when you get the call for a job that needs 4K 60p or RAW (especially for green screen)
you have the right camera. This, to me, thinking as a business person, not a gear nerd, is a smarter business move.
To throw another thing into the mix, I spent all day yesterday at Sony, learning about the menus, design, structure and capability of the FX9. I have the FX9 now, sitting here in my office. It's quite an impressive camera. I don't think the images look filmic, we watched FX9 footage on Sony's OLED 24' x 9' two million dollar monitor and the footage was really quite
beautiful, but it doesn't look "filmic" to me at all, it kind of reminded of RED footage in a way, which to me, unless it has a lot done in post to it, doesn't look nearly as film-like as the Arris. It has beautiful color, is really clean and clear, like a RED. I think the C200 looks more filmic than the FX9, but in the upcoming week, I am going to shoot some things side by side with my C200 and the FX9 to compare.
It was also impressive that for a small class with just half a dozen of us, Sony had the product engineer head here from Japan, the product manager in the from the east coast and a ton of trainers and other Sony staff. They were all eager to hear what we liked and what we didn't and were actually taking notes on suggestions that they are talking to Japan about
to see if some of these things can be in the next firmware update. It was impressive as a writer and potential buyer to see how eager Sony is to make the FX9 a success and I think it will be a huge success in the market.
My point is, once again, thinking like a business person and depending on who your clients are and what types of things you shoot, the FX9 costs significantly less than the C500 MKII and honestly, I think it will be in far more demand than the C500 MKII from customers, at least in my client base. I truly think, at least here in LA, that having the FX9 will get you more work, especially from corporate and broadcast type clients, than the C500 MKII will. I'm going to be shooting with the FX9 all week and hope have the 100-400 Sony G Master lens in hand next week to go shoot some surfers and windsailers in 120 fps 4K. I am also going to be getting the C500 MKII to play with soon so I look forward to it, but it does seem that if I had the C500 MKII,
I would mostly shoot S35 4K RAW, and I already have a camera that can do that. The whole mid-range XF-AVC codec, honestly, I only get asked for once in a while. More of our clients are getting into RAW now that they've used it on a few shoots and had their editor push it around. The FX9, will have the RAW output, but you'll have to use an Atomos and it will be external which is a hassle. Actually having the C200 and the FX9 would be a pretty good strategy too, you'd have RAW capability and Canon and Sony capability, that could also cover a huge portion of the market.
Just some food for thought for you and for Chris and other C200 owners to think about.
Last edited:
rob norton
Veteran
Thanks. This is more helfpul than 30 Max Yuryev videos.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Just wondering, did you have the setting set to 'Better Quality' or 'Better Performance' in the 'View' drop-down menu?
By default it's set to 'Better Performance', which indeed is very impressive, but playback slows down quickly when you switch it over to the higher quality option.
rob norton
Veteran
Thanks Dan, it's great to take a step back and revisit the bigger picture.
That's so cool you got to see footage on a screen like that. Plus like you said pretty impressive having their head of engineering there.
At this point I'm not considering the camera. Ideally, I'd own a pair of c200s and a solid mirorless camera from canon as a c cam, sometimes b cam, easier motion control, timelapse, use on a small gimbal and photos.
Currently I think I could make more money with three cameras vs. the single c500 ii.
Re: FX9 not looking filmic: perhaps try a diffusion filter e.g. Black ProMist etc. and add grain in post. If you shoot side by side with another camera that you consider filmic, I think you'll find that you won't have much trouble making the FX9 match it (including doing diffusion + grain in post if necessary).
Here's the FX9 vs. Alexa (near end): the Alexa looks much softer, like it has a diffusion filter:
Here's the FX9 vs. Alexa (near end): the Alexa looks much softer, like it has a diffusion filter:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I can see the differences immediately in the clip you posted above. To me, the FX9 looks really sharp and detailed and the Arri looks more natural to me,
more film like I will say for lack of a better term?
For me, with the FX9 yesterday, it had something to do with the cadence, not the sharpness. Something with motion was just too clean and fluid for 24p.
Something that reminded me of how a RED looks if you've ever shot with one? And is is typical with Sony, the images are REALLY clean.
When I was shooting with the HPX-170, the production company I was at had a few EX-1 laying around so I shot a TON of HPX170 footage
and a TON of EX1 footage. The HPX170 had much better colors and lot more grain. The EX1 had noticeably higher, sharper, cleaner resolution.
Coming from a BG of shooting S16 for years with occasional forays into 35mm, I always much preferred the HPX170. It looked like film to me,
quite a bit. Better skin tones, I kind of liked the grain too and the overall color science on the HPX170 I found superior. The EX1 with good lighting
always looked good too but very sterile, clinically clean image. The FX9, from looking at footage, I didn't get a
chance to shoot with it today, seems sort of like that updated by a decade or so. Of course, I need to go out and shoot my own footage to arrive at
my own conclusion and I will try to shoot a few things on the C200 and the FX9 where I can.
My observations so far are just from the sample footage they showed. I would say that overall, the lines are blurring where there are cameras that
look really, really good, but not that filmlike to me and there are cameras that look pretty filmic and also look good to me. For a lot of what I do, I am
beginning to realize that it doesn't have to look all that filmic, but for other things, I want to push my Canon Cinema RAW Light to look as Arri-like as I can
get it to. I've learned from shooting Canons though, I am not like so many are today who freak out over a little grain. That comes from shooting film for twenty years,
film has a lot of grain and I love it. Ultra clean to me, is just not exciting.
I've shot and edited Red (+ edited ARRI) and have noticed that super smooth, super clean, and super sharp tend to invoke 'non-filmic'. It's possible that ARRI and perhaps Canon and other 'filmic' cameras are doing some form of temporal dithering. Making the shutter not super precise and instead apply some random jitter to make behavior more like an old mechanical film camera. This could be done in post but would probably be very expensive to compute and do correctly (perhaps cost the same as high quality optical flow interpolation). Or perhaps it's related to sensor integration/sampling and motion blur: you could experiment with higher shutter and slightly lower frame rates to de-smoothify things. All modern display systems are 60Hz (or higher, though sometimes only updated 24 or 30Hz), so that also has an effect on perceived motion (image tearing and non-aligned updates with V-SYNC etc.).
If the C200 is working for you, then there's probably no reason to consider the C500 II or FX9, where the primary upgrade is a ~6K sensor and true 4K (compressed) + full frame. I've never had an issue with more real detail / resolution. Use a diffusion filter on camera, which can also add some organic halation, or do in post to taste. Same with noise grain- with a clean image you can add any kind of grain you see fit in post. Maybe someday Sony etc. will offer in camera diffusion and grain (adjustable)? I'll bet many people would love to be able to tune the look just they way they like in camera and have little to no post work. I was able to get very close to my preferred look with the EOS R, 1DX II etc. using Canon's Picture Style editor (CLog level performance but with colors tuned for skintones: little to no post needed).
If the FX9 is looking too detailed and clean, diffusion + grain are easy, tunable options. To get less smooth motion, perhaps try a slightly faster shutter (that's the low hanging fruit)? There's plugins that can jitter the frame around too (movie/film effects etc. or with AE).
If the C200 is working for you, then there's probably no reason to consider the C500 II or FX9, where the primary upgrade is a ~6K sensor and true 4K (compressed) + full frame. I've never had an issue with more real detail / resolution. Use a diffusion filter on camera, which can also add some organic halation, or do in post to taste. Same with noise grain- with a clean image you can add any kind of grain you see fit in post. Maybe someday Sony etc. will offer in camera diffusion and grain (adjustable)? I'll bet many people would love to be able to tune the look just they way they like in camera and have little to no post work. I was able to get very close to my preferred look with the EOS R, 1DX II etc. using Canon's Picture Style editor (CLog level performance but with colors tuned for skintones: little to no post needed).
If the FX9 is looking too detailed and clean, diffusion + grain are easy, tunable options. To get less smooth motion, perhaps try a slightly faster shutter (that's the low hanging fruit)? There's plugins that can jitter the frame around too (movie/film effects etc. or with AE).
Stills2HDConvert
Well-known member
Actually the C200B also doesn't include the LCD or the Handle or the Grip. B&H has the C200B with the handle, the LCD and the Grip at a cool price of...wait for it...$6499
(I won't mention that the c500 comes with a $600 memory card, a bigger battery, and a faulty card reader (actually mine was fine).
Last edited:
Stills2HDConvert
Well-known member
Somebody's got G.A.S and it's about to pass.