C200: C70 — What are your thoughts?

[Clermond]

+1

The one exception is being able to put a diopter on the flip out screen, which gives the operator an EVF. I did that on the Canon 60D, and I never broke off the LCD. So, it can be done.

However, I will say, that I enjoy how compact a camera becomes with a built in EVF. Also, I haven't seen any evidence that a built in EVF has negative effects on a camera build, yet, and there is no evidence that the bill in EVF demands higher cost.... yet, the built in EVF has many advantages for compact shooters, and people who want to be less obtrusive.

The C70 users should be able to do most anything with their built in floppy screen. But a built in EVF seems like a nice bonus, with little drawbacks.

The EVF can even make the top stage more functional, like putting the SDI out up top

I use the EVF on the R5 a lot. Much more than I expected. I appreciate that it is solidly connected to the camera body. You get a very stable hold of the camera and with the stabilizer it's a dream come true. btw I just purchased the second R5 on a dealer market place. Official Canon supply no grey market.

 

[c0rpse]

Has anybody run across anybody talking about how this thing doesn't have a removable grip? This camera checks all my boxes, except that. But I'm trying to figure out if there's a work around or maybe I don't even need it. I've gotten so used to shooting with the hand grip in a shoulder mount situation. I like having access to the record button but I feel like I NEED a button to turn auto focus on and off.

I could attach a non cabled hand grip to my current shoulder mount system, sure. But id love at least one button. But maybe I don't need it? Maybe I can handle without it? I dunno.

Thoughts?

 

[NorBro]

The camera has a 2.5mm LANC so maybe their grip can be used with it. IDK though.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1340810-REG/canon_cagrv1_gr_v1_camera_grip.html

 

[Tom Roper]

To me, this new C70 is a camera I would buy simply for the sensor. You are getting a $11k sensor in a $5k camera, that is amazing. The CVP YouTube video comparing the C300 MKIII, C70 prototype and the C200 convinced me.
I love the images I get with our C200 when shooting CRL and even when shooting it's sub par XF-AVC. The C70 is all of that and more. I could live without RAW on a camera like this, the C300 MKII level XF-AVC paired with that
sensor is badass.

My philosophy is different. It's the debate between impressionist art versus realism. If you want a boring scene to look pretty without any work, you choose a camera with mojo. But what if you want to go the other way? Will it be more work to undo mojo, or undo reality? I would venture that it takes no special skill to screw up realism, and that it's a lot easier to start with something realistic and give it mojo than to take mojo back to reality. Many people would agree that BMD cameras have mojo, and that Sony cams have a video-ish presentation. When I put them next to each other on the timeline, I have a much easier time matching the malleable Sony look to BMD than trying to make the BMD look like Sony. This is because the best cameras are best at accurately copying scenes than producing art and originality; art and originality being the talent of the artist, not the copier.

When I watch the Masters on CBS, the expectation is that I'm seeing the Augusta National Golf Club manifest in its own natural beauty; needs no push or enhancement or impressionistic interpretation, it's nature on display at its most beautiful in its own presentation just as if I was using my own eyes. CBS have been broadcasting this tournament with Sony for years. Sony broadcast color is accurate. Sony color is accurate. Sony is the definition of accurate. I understand that people hate this look, reality isn't always entertainment, is sometimes ugly. But what impressionist artist ever got to see the subject matter of his renderings through the lens of rose color? Van Gogh had only his eyes to copy a memory, the impressionistic interpretation of his renderings was the talent of his mind's work, it did not come from the brushes, paint or canvas.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind or even agree with me.

 

[ahalpert]

I basically agree with you, Tom. But a lot of people - myself included - are happy to use a camera that puts a bit of love on the image straight out of the box. That much the faster and more consistent to edit with, or to impress the client you hand the footage to without fail. You may sacrifice malleability and choice or realism, but as long as you're happy with the look you're getting, it can be a worthwhile tradeoff.

 

[Gary T]

Many people would agree that BMD cameras have mojo, and that Sony cams have a video-ish presentation. When I put them next to each other on the timeline, I have a much easier time matching the malleable Sony look to BMD than trying to make the BMD look like Sony.

Are you talking about your F55 or one of Sony's mirrorless cameras when you say that the Sony is more malleable than the BlackMagic RAW from you BMD? If it's the F55 is it the XAVC or 16-bit RAW you are comparing?

 

[cyvideo]

My philosophy is different. It's the debate between impressionist art versus realism. If you want a boring scene to look pretty without any work, you choose a camera with mojo. But what if you want to go the other way? Will it be more work to undo mojo, or undo reality? I would venture that it takes no special skill to screw up realism, and that it's a lot easier to start with something realistic and give it mojo than to take mojo back to reality. Many people would agree that BMD cameras have mojo, and that Sony cams have a video-ish presentation. When I put them next to each other on the timeline, I have a much easier time matching the malleable Sony look to BMD than trying to make the BMD look like Sony. This is because the best cameras are best at accurately copying scenes than producing art and originality; art and originality being the talent of the artist, not the copier.

When I watch the Masters on CBS, the expectation is that I'm seeing the Augusta National Golf Club manifest in its own natural beauty; needs no push or enhancement or impressionistic interpretation, it's nature on display at its most beautiful in its own presentation just as if I was using my own eyes. CBS have been broadcasting this tournament with Sony for years. Sony broadcast color is accurate. Sony color is accurate. Sony is the definition of accurate. I understand that people hate this look, reality isn't always entertainment, is sometimes ugly. But what impressionist artist ever got to see the subject matter of his renderings through the lens of rose color? Van Gogh had only his eyes to copy a memory, the impressionistic interpretation of his renderings was the talent of his mind's work, it did not come from the brushes, paint or canvas.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind or even agree with me.

Agree with the whole statement. So true, so true. As with art do you appreciate the school of Realism (Sony) or the school of Impressionism (Canon.)
Watch this statement start a discussion!

Chris Young

https://www.thoughtco.com/art-styles-explained-realism-to-abstract-2578625

 

[Tom Roper]

Are you talking about your F55 or one of Sony's mirrorless cameras when you say that the Sony is more malleable than the BlackMagic RAW from you BMD? If it's the F55 is it the XAVC or 16-bit RAW you are comparing?

I'm a bit on the defensive about this question because the implication I made was a generalization about Sony and Sony broadcast color whereas the actual observation from the timeline was with my F55 shooting 16 bit raw. How that translates to previous Sony 8 bit mirrorless I have no experience. With Sony broadcast cams I have owned a few. And the F55 especially with 16 bit raw is a chameleon. So I have to frame the context as having some origins in the remarks of others, vis-a-vis "Sony look, video-ish, reality" etc., even if they *don't* all share an exact look, people still say they do.

So it began with some clips I shot from a familiar place with the Pocket 6K. When I saw the clips play in 4K HDR, I was extremely excited but found myself wanting a few more of them. So I looked for b-roll from my F55 library and immediately thought, this will never work. The Sony clips will be plain and boring. But with some adjustments from the raw tab the embellished Sony footage maintained its grip on lifelike scene copy and the BMD started to look more and more like the photo realism painting, one of the 7 major painting styles noted in the article linked by Chris. (Thanks Chris!). The more time I spent comparing them, the more it felt like the BMD mojo was faux. The F55 is an everyday look we're used to seeing in life. It could be ugly as in not all things in life are pretty. But it's real and it places you there. When it's faux, what you take partly depends on what your imagination gives.

Again, this is not about Canon or BMD. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. It's just how I view the concept of camera mojo, that the most true to life camera is a copy machine with no color of its own. Don't we say something similar about loudspeakers, that the most true to life sound is not colored?

 

[puredrifting]

Thanks for pointing out the CVP review. I agree it is quite impressive and I can see why it persuaded you. To my eye, it looks like C70 footage underexposed by 4 stops would clean up wonderfully in FXPX's built in noise reducer and footage shot at 6 stops under exposed could potentially be rescued by Neat Video. I think this camera will be a beast for documentary work where filmmakers have very limited control of lighting. I posted a link cued to relevant portion of the video below.

Having said that I am still think of getting the S1H or S5 for several personal narrative projects if life ever gets back to normal. Panasonic's implementation of ProRes RAW looks to be first rate and would make secondary color correction a breeze. Of course I realize I am probably an outlier, which explains why the S1H barely cracks the top 20 on B&H's best seller list.

For those who absolutely need to buy soon, it a great time to purchase a cameras. There are so many great options in the sub $12,000 range.

I do feel for the camera companies. They must pine for the good old days when a camera model could sell well for years. These days it seems like most cameras barely get a year of good sales before they get supplanted by a competitors product. That isn't very long to recoup R&D, marketing and other costs.

https://youtu.be/_qM6U--chGg?t=2121

I like the Pansonics but their sub par AF performance rules them out for my needs, I really rely quite heavily on Canon's DPAF.
I shoot a lot where I don't have a big monitor and often cannot easily access the EVF so DPAF makes life much better and my
end results with far fewer out of focus shots. I was looking at some BTS stuff I shot in Africa on my C100 MKI a few years back the other day, raw footage.
I was using Nikon manual focus Ai lenses on that shoot and I missed a lot of shots hunting for sharp focus. All moving camera with moving subjects,
DPAF literally makes my footage better because I can concentrate on exposure and framing a lot more.

 

[puredrifting]

My philosophy is different. It's the debate between impressionist art versus realism. If you want a boring scene to look pretty without any work, you choose a camera with mojo. But what if you want to go the other way? Will it be more work to undo mojo, or undo reality? I would venture that it takes no special skill to screw up realism, and that it's a lot easier to start with something realistic and give it mojo than to take mojo back to reality. Many people would agree that BMD cameras have mojo, and that Sony cams have a video-ish presentation. When I put them next to each other on the timeline, I have a much easier time matching the malleable Sony look to BMD than trying to make the BMD look like Sony. This is because the best cameras are best at accurately copying scenes than producing art and originality; art and originality being the talent of the artist, not the copier.

When I watch the Masters on CBS, the expectation is that I'm seeing the Augusta National Golf Club manifest in its own natural beauty; needs no push or enhancement or impressionistic interpretation, it's nature on display at its most beautiful in its own presentation just as if I was using my own eyes. CBS have been broadcasting this tournament with Sony for years. Sony broadcast color is accurate. Sony color is accurate. Sony is the definition of accurate. I understand that people hate this look, reality isn't always entertainment, is sometimes ugly. But what impressionist artist ever got to see the subject matter of his renderings through the lens of rose color? Van Gogh had only his eyes to copy a memory, the impressionistic interpretation of his renderings was the talent of his mind's work, it did not come from the brushes, paint or canvas.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind or even agree with me.

I'm not clear what you think of the C70 sensor from your post though? Is it impressionist or realism?

 

[Stills2HDConvert]

I'm getting the "impression" he thinks only Sony is real.

 

[Stills2HDConvert]

...the malleable Sony look to BMD than trying to make the BMD look like....

I've known people with 2-3 BM cameras of the exact same model who got rid of them because even matching them to themselves was too much work. And these were people with years of experience with boxes like Red and Arri.

 

[Tom Roper]

I'm not clear what you think of the C70 sensor from your post though? Is it impressionist or realism?

I don't know. I assume if it is in some way affecting the image, it would be impressionist. If it's a straight scene copy then realism. My appreciation for the Sony was that by starting with a neutral image, it was easier to move it toward the cinematic look of the Pocket 6K than it was to make the BMD more like the Sony.

 

[ahalpert]

Incidentally, I think I get more of the feeling I get from being in nature when I look at BM footage of forests and landscapes than when I look at typical Sony footage. Isn't that what impressionism is about? Communicating the impression of a place?

I'm not even sure impressionistic is the right adjective to put in opposition to realist, though. I usually think of impressionism as sort of defocused. Looking at some paintings now, sometimes it's focused looking but with an emphasis on the brush strokes/texture of the painting itself.

Maybe stylized, colored, filtered, or imbued with a particular palette is Canon/BM vs Sony?

 

[Tom Roper]

Incidentally, I think I get more of the feeling I get from being in nature when I look at BM footage of forests and landscapes than when I look at typical Sony footage. Isn't that what impressionism is about? Communicating the impression of a place?

I'm not even sure impressionistic is the right adjective to put in opposition to realist, though. I usually think of impressionism as sort of defocused. Looking at some paintings now, sometimes it's focused looking but with an emphasis on the brush strokes/texture of the painting itself.

Maybe stylized, colored, filtered, or imbued with a particular palette is Canon/BM vs Sony?

Agree "impressionistic" not the best adjective, of the 7 styles more like photo realism, where a photo is painted over, or an image is projected onto a canvas and painted.

Disagree about the feeling one gets from being in nature when looking at forests and landscapes. It's one of the reasons I like the BMD image so much, sooc it slightly embellishes it into being something more remarkable than it was, makes my video pop. More specifically, reds seem a bit warmer while greens a bit colder, more contrast overall then what my eyes saw. Ponderosa pine has brown bark and this looks good on BMD, but with lodgepole pine, juniper and pinion the bark and branches should be gray/neutral but these too have a slightly warm, brownish hue that is a bit off. The Sony doesn't embellish, it just copies. This can seem more boring and plain but the neutrality of it is also more malleable in post where the artist can add the desired style, a unique look that he will own because it doesn't belong to the camera. These are subtle things, not necessarily criticisms although for me embellishment even if pretty is a bit of a criticism if it wasn't in the scene to begin with.

The danger in my remarks on the Sony, is that I am talking about my personal F55 and 16 bit raw recording. It's easy to lump all Sony together as people have coined "the sony look," and generally not favorable. But Venice, EX3, PMW-350, F900, F55, F35, FS7, FX9 A7SIII for better or worse all have a look that is more unique than just one common "Sony Look." And my path of discovery and learning I found it easier to adjust the Sony look of neutrality/scene copy toward BMD style than going the other way with it. But I do think Sony background in broadcast field is responsible for this, and I appreciate that focus. For cinema, it's a completely different landscape but I don't think it should be. Instead start with 100% neutral and accurate input, add your own style for the output.

 

[ahalpert]

I didn't say looks like nature, I said feels like how I feel when I look at nature. And that's part of the rub - the medium itself shapes the viewing experience. There is no such thing as directly translating what the camera sees in reality. I'm not sure of all of the reasons, but the neurological adjustments and compositing that humans make when viewing (and listening to) a scene in real life are not engaged when looking at a screen.

Part of the question of stylizing footage is also just does one have the time to do it. Some of the stuff I shoot is not going to be graded (for time and budget purposes), so I have to be happy with the camera recording. Of course, you can paint Sony in-camera. But one of the things I always appreciated about my OG C300 was the healthy-looking skin tones under even the most adverse lighting colorations and conditions.

 

[jb.]

I've got a pre-order in on the C70. I've been using my Z-Cam E2 and/or 5D Mark IV as a b-cam on interviews for a while now and I think this will let me sell off the E2 and Speed Booster and relegate the 5D Mark IV to stills-mostly use where it shines. The 4K 120fps was the primary reason I held onto the Z-Cam and put up with color-matching the shots between that and my C200.

The C200 is going to stick around because I need SDI output and CRL for a number of things.

 

[bosindy]

My philosophy is different. It's the debate between impressionist art versus realism. If you want a boring scene to look pretty without any work, you choose a camera with mojo. But what if you want to go the other way? Will it be more work to undo mojo, or undo reality? I would venture that it takes no special skill to screw up realism, and that it's a lot easier to start with something realistic and give it mojo than to take mojo back to reality. Many people would agree that BMD cameras have mojo, and that Sony cams have a video-ish presentation. When I put them next to each other on the timeline, I have a much easier time matching the malleable Sony look to BMD than trying to make the BMD look like Sony. This is because the best cameras are best at accurately copying scenes than producing art and originality; art and originality being the talent of the artist, not the copier.

When I watch the Masters on CBS, the expectation is that I'm seeing the Augusta National Golf Club manifest in its own natural beauty; needs no push or enhancement or impressionistic interpretation, it's nature on display at its most beautiful in its own presentation just as if I was using my own eyes. CBS have been broadcasting this tournament with Sony for years. Sony broadcast color is accurate. Sony color is accurate. Sony is the definition of accurate. I understand that people hate this look, reality isn't always entertainment, is sometimes ugly. But what impressionist artist ever got to see the subject matter of his renderings through the lens of rose color? Van Gogh had only his eyes to copy a memory, the impressionistic interpretation of his renderings was the talent of his mind's work, it did not come from the brushes, paint or canvas.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind or even agree with me.

I know a few impressionists using the Sony FS7 going through their "Magenta Period."

 

[ozmorphasis]

Agree "impressionistic" not the best adjective, of the 7 styles more like photo realism, where a photo is painted over, or an image is projected onto a canvas and painted.

Disagree about the feeling one gets from being in nature when looking at forests and landscapes. It's one of the reasons I like the BMD image so much, sooc it slightly embellishes it into being something more remarkable than it was, makes my video pop. More specifically, reds seem a bit warmer while greens a bit colder, more contrast overall then what my eyes saw. Ponderosa pine has brown bark and this looks good on BMD, but with lodgepole pine, juniper and pinion the bark and branches should be gray/neutral but these too have a slightly warm, brownish hue that is a bit off. The Sony doesn't embellish, it just copies. This can seem more boring and plain but the neutrality of it is also more malleable in post where the artist can add the desired style, a unique look that he will own because it doesn't belong to the camera. These are subtle things, not necessarily criticisms although for me embellishment even if pretty is a bit of a criticism if it wasn't in the scene to begin with.

The danger in my remarks on the Sony, is that I am talking about my personal F55 and 16 bit raw recording. It's easy to lump all Sony together as people have coined "the sony look," and generally not favorable. But Venice, EX3, PMW-350, F900, F55, F35, FS7, FX9 A7SIII for better or worse all have a look that is more unique than just one common "Sony Look." And my path of discovery and learning I found it easier to adjust the Sony look of neutrality/scene copy toward BMD style than going the other way with it. But I do think Sony background in broadcast field is responsible for this, and I appreciate that focus. For cinema, it's a completely different landscape but I don't think it should be. Instead start with 100% neutral and accurate input, add your own style for the output.

A guy is riding in the first-class cabin of a train in Spain and to his delight, he notices that he’s sitting next to Pablo Picasso. Gathering up his courage, he turns to the master and says, “Señor Picasso, you are a great artist, but why is all your art, all modern art, so screwed up? Why don’t you paint reality instead of these distortions?”

Picasso hesitates for a moment and asks, “So what do you think reality looks like?”

The man grabs his wallet and pulls out a picture of his wife. “Here, like this. It’s my wife.”

Picasso takes the photograph, looks at it, and grins. “Really? She’s very small. And flat, too.”

 

[DM_R]

The most popular thought after the C70 announcement is "That's a half-priced C300iii!". Cannot agree because you wouldn't have same DR in highlights with the 410 Mbps AVC vs 1 Gbps raw lite. Just look at the difference on youtube tests (C300iii owners'll approving, i guess). It's an dslr in the cinema camera body.

In other way it looks like a perfect concept of the future C70 mk ii with the onboard raw. Loving it's erginomics, size, screen and design at all. But for today a7s iii is no brainer as universal b-cam with it's 600 Mbps delivery and 12bit output.

As always: love canon's design but still buying sony(