C300: Comparing the Panasonic EVA1 to the Canon C300II

D

dave12781

Well-known member
In every review that I have seen of the Panasonic EVA1, it’s being directly compared to the Canon C200 which doesn’t seem like a reasonable comparison for 2 reasons.

1. The Panasonic EVA1 is targeting the broadcast market with it’s 10bit internal codec, and the C200 is not.

2. With the lack of an internal viewfinder, the proper price point comparable to the EVA1 is the Canon C200B - which is $1,400 less than the Panasonic.

I’d like to do a PRO/CON only spec-based comparison between both the C300II and the EVA1 to give everyone a clear picture of how these 2 cameras compare, so I ask that people only respond with PROs or CONs for either camera only.

EVA-1
PRO - Weight
- EVA1 (body only) weighs 2.6lbs / C300II (body only) weighs 4lbs

C300II
PRO - Dual Pixel Autofocus
- C300II has continuous dual-pixel autofocus with face & object tracking / EVA1 has push autofocus (center only)

EVA-1
PRO - 60fps
- EVA1 shoots internally at 4k 60fps (4:2:0 150mbps only) / C300ii no 4k 60fps

EVA-1 = C300II
TIE - Price
- EVA1 costs ~$7,400; some early reviews claim the monitor isn’t useable outdoors and would require a 3rd party solution and external power / C300II costs $9,999; however, it has been around long enough to be purchased used for less. Calling this a tie.

EVA-1
PRO - External 5.7K Raw
- EVA1 has 5.7K external 10bit RAW at 30fps / C300ii has external 12bit RAW at 4k 30fps

C300II
PRO - Low Light
- C300II Standard: 160 to 25,600 Expanded: 100 to 102,400 has a superior low-light capability / EVA1 ISO: 200-2000 (base 800), 1000-25,600 (base 2500) apparently gets noisy above 3200ISO according to some reviews and 6400ISO in others.

C300II
PRO - EVF
- C300II has a great built in EVF / EVA1 doesn’t have an EVF

EVA-1
PRO - EIS (Electronic Image Stabilization
- EVA1 has EIS / Canon lacks internal stabilization *but similar performance can be found by using an IS lens.

C300II
PRO - Established
- C300II was introduced in 2015 and is widely used in the broadcast space / EVA1 is new and although it’s spec’d well, it has yet to be adopted by broadcasters.

C300II
PRO - Internal Codecs
- C300II has more internal codec options (HD & 2K @ 12bit) / EVA1 can only record up to 10bit internally

C300II
PRO - Built-In ND levels
- C300II has 2,4,6,8,10 stops of built-in ND / EVA1 has 2,4,6

EVA-1
PRO - Media
- EVA1 uses SD cards / C300II uses Cfast cards

C300II
Pro - Audio Channels
- C300II has 4 channels / EVA1 has 2 channels

For the sake of getting a clear analysis of the pros/cons between these 2 comparable, please only list pros and cons below if you wish to participate and feel free to PM me with any errors so I can update them.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
dave12781 said:
In every review that I have seen of the Panasonic EVA1, it’s being directly compared to the Canon C200 which doesn’t seem like a reasonable comparison for 2 reasons.

1. The Panasonic EVA1 is targeting the broadcast market with it’s 10bit internal codec, and the C200 is not.

2. With the lack of an internal viewfinder, the proper price point comparable to the EVA1 is the Canon C200B - which is $1,400 less than the Panasonic.
TIE - Price
- EVA1 costs ~$7,400; some early reviews claim the monitor isn’t useable outdoors and would require a 3rd party solution and external power / C300II costs $9,999; however, it has been around long enough to be purchased used for less. Calling this a tie.
Click to expand...

I don't want to pick a fight with you Dave. I was looking at the EVA1 and was holding off between it and the C200 until a week ago. I know you want only comparisons of the specs of the EVA-1 and the C300 II but I'm going to be brutally honest. It just looks like you're being an ittsy bitsy disengenous here. You start off by flipping between the C200 and C300 and settle with the C300. It's being compared with the C200 because of price point. It's that simple.

Comparing the price of an EVA-1 with a USED C300 Mark II, just sounds like bait and switch to me. Compare them based on their current new price at some store like B&H. $7345 - $9,999. There is no tie here.

C300 Mark II introduced in 2015. It might be getting a little long in the tooth.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Stills2HDConvert said:
I don't want to pick a fight with you Dave. I was looking at the EVA1 and was holding off between it and the C200 until a week ago. I know you want only comparisons of the specs of the EVA-1 and the C300 II but I'm going to be brutally honest. It just looks like you're being an ittsy bitsy disengenous here. You start off by flipping between the C200 and C300 and settle with the C300. It's being compared with the C200 because of price point. It's that simple.

Comparing the price of an EVA-1 with a USED C300 Mark II, just sounds like bait and switch to me. Compare them based on their current new price at some store like B&H. $7345 - $9,999. There is no tie here.

C300 Mark II introduced in 2015. It might be getting a little long in the tooth.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Please only reply with pros and cons if you wish to participate. I'm only interested in comparing the C300II to the EVA1 since they are both 10bit 422. As I pointed out, the proper comparable to the c200 is the c200b which is at a lower price point. A tie in price is reasonable and though it has been out for a while I don't consider that a negative since the specs are still equal - that might even be a negative more for the EVA1.
 
From what I can tell, the EVA1 doesn't have timecode or gensync. It really isn't targeted at the "broadcast" market.
 
cpreston said:
From what I can tell, the EVA1 doesn't have timecode or gensync. It really isn't targeted at the "broadcast" market.
Click to expand...

EVA1 does have TC in/out. Something the C200 doesn't in the price range.

Seems clear the EVA1 sensor will be a bit better than Canon's.

Also seems like in a few months the "Codec" and "Established" PROs the C300ii has may essentially disappear.
 
You can get a Blackmagic Design Sync Generator for the c200 for about $200.00. Just like you can get an EVF for the EVA-1 for a few bucks also.

On another note: I always sent UFC, showtime boxing, hbo boxing 24/7 show, NBC sports, CBS sports 8 bit files and they don't seem to mind. So for me 10 bit is not really required , but I'm really interested in the EVA-1's dual iso. If it turns out not as good as I expected, I might pass on my future purchase or delay it till they work it out. I'm very interested if the eva can do 12bit raw in the future.
I'm not sure what to think about the LCD if it's as bad as some people are stating. They didn't include an EVF so one would think they would have included an LCD to make up for the times you would use an EVF.
I like to think I'm brand agnostic owning arri, sony, canon, and panasonic. They all have something to offer for me as tools.
 
I never noticed any problems with the LCD the two times I spent some time with the camera, but they were indoors so any reflectivity didn't seem to be a problem. My only takeaway was that the LCD body and mount looked identical to my FS5 LCD right down to the switch but the panel and the image itself looked sharper and info layout better. Seems like my $80 Kinotehnik BMPCC Loupe will work just as well on the EVA1 as it does on my FS5, which is great. No need for an poorly placed soft rear EVF with low magnification that requires you to shoot like a shaky bolex/handycam...

BM Sync Generator? What would that do? Isn't that just a tri-level sync generator? Doesn't seem like that would help add TC or genlock to a camera, would it?
 
nyvz said:
No need for an poorly placed soft rear EVF with low magnification that requires you to shoot like a shaky bolex/handycam...
Click to expand...
Are you speaking of the FS5s EVF or that of the C200?
The C300/C100II/C200s is very usable and shooting in "cradle style" looking through the EVF with the Canon C Series cameras isn't shaky (three contact points..)
with a much smaller footprint than a shoulder rig set up.
It may not fit your way of shooting though.
 
Stills2HDConvert said:
I don't want to pick a fight with you Dave. I was looking at the EVA1 and was holding off between it and the C200 until a week ago. I know you want only comparisons of the specs of the EVA-1 and the C300 II but I'm going to be brutally honest. It just looks like you're being an ittsy bitsy disengenous here. You start off by flipping between the C200 and C300 and settle with the C300. It's being compared with the C200 because of price point. It's that simple.

Comparing the price of an EVA-1 with a USED C300 Mark II, just sounds like bait and switch to me. Compare them based on their current new price at some store like B&H. $7345 - $9,999. There is no tie here.

C300 Mark II introduced in 2015. It might be getting a little long in the tooth.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

+1; exactly.

This comparison is silly. A new EVA1 versus a used C300 Mark II? Most people aren't going to think the two cameras are even on price. Yes, it's a bonus that if you have to you can get a used C300 Mark II but assuming they are the same price as the basis for your comparison is just wrong. Also, practically no one is just buying the camera; they are buying into a system that includes other components like memory cards (CFast vs SD is a big difference in price).

Saying that the EVA1 should be compared with the C200B is inaccurate. The C200B is unusable without additional accessories; the EVA1 is not. The Newsshooter review said the LCD wasn't good. So, go buy a loupe for it and you've mitigated what seems to be the big downside of the EVA1.

"The Panasonic EVA1 is targeting the broadcast market with it’s 10bit internal codec, and the C200 is not."

I don't understand the definition of "broadcast market". Perhaps I'm just ignorant but I would think that the percentage of people who can't use the C200 because they are shooting for TV would be pretty small. Is that the issue; that in some regions, there are rules about what quality can be used for broadcast? Given how often I see iPhone footage on the TV in the US, I don't think those rules apply here!

Also, in a few months, all the major NLEs are going to be able to handle Canon's raw format natively at which point the issue just becomes the cost of CFast media (which is already coming down). I think the idea that the C200 isn't useable for the broadcast market has been blown way out of proportion.
 
Isn't it more fair to compare Eva1 to Sony FS5? Panasonic basically copied the design of the FS5 and made their version better in some respects and worse in some respects.
 
Osslund said:
Isn't it more fair to compare Eva1 to Sony FS5? Panasonic basically copied the design of the FS5 and made their version better in some respects and worse in some respects.
Click to expand...

That's a good question and, in a way, it shows how pointless it is to create a comparison chart for anyone but yourself. The FS5 has a much weaker internal codec than the EVA1: 100 Mbit 8bit 4:2:0 for UHD compared to the EVA1's 400 Mbit 10 bit 4:2:0 for 4K. But perhaps you don't care. Perhaps you're happy shooting HD at 10bit 4:2:2. Perhaps you know that for anything better than HD, you're going to be using an external ProRes or raw recorder. And perhaps the fact that a new FS5 is $4500 is the kicker for you.

Reviews like Matt Allard's are useful because they provide insight into how well a particular feature works. But a comparison chart of all those features with just a pro or con rating isn't useful because everyone's weighting is going to be different. Autofocus is super important to me, so the C300 Mark II and C200 were high on my list. But I also wanted easy access to high frame rates, so the Amira was high on the list too...but I also wanted to be able to strip the camera down to avoid attention, so the Amira lost a lot of points. No generic pro/con comparison list is going to cover that and I bet a lot of other people are in the same boat.

I think a pro/con list is mostly useful for arguing on the Internet and making a camera you didn't buy look bad ;-)
 
I am curious to see how the EVA1's logarithmic 10-bit RAW compares with the C300 12-bit linear RAW ? ( I suspect the difference will be non-existent )
 
As all cameras has both hit and misses it's next to impossible to weight in all aspects. One can just twist and turn as much as one want but it's just a futile task.
 
Stills2HDConvert said:
...
C300 Mark II introduced in 2015. It might be getting a little long in the tooth.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...


I just sold my C300 II last month, and yes I wholeheartedly agree.

2015 is a long time ago in todays camera market, I really wanted the C300 II to work for me in the long term but it's already over and I have to say, the C200 "RAW" image smokes the C300 II as well as the CMOS smear problem that was inherent in back lit or in the shadows. I would see it quite frequently on other vimeo clips also.

I now have the RED SW as my A-cam and the C200 as my B-cam or fast cam.

The C200 is a great camera right now, forward thinking and ahead of the curve, but, apart from the extra step in post of transcoding to get it edit ready, it is hands down a much stronger, sharper and cinematic image then both the C300 II and from what i've seen online so far, the EVA1.

EVA1 may need some time yet to find it's place in the market but, I think it might just be a bit too late and Sony will be next in the onslaught on these sub 10K cams.

I'd say it's definitely winter season for the C300 II though and about time for Canon to start hinting at the C400 or whatever c-cams are next.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I am shocked. 4 downvotes on him? Read through Dave's post and found it helpful and thought through, and also a very poignant question. Was excited to read more only to find a bunch of hostility. His question is also the *biggest* question for me also as they are the top 2 cameras I'd be looking at and are very similar in many ways. The FS5/FS7 are also similar comparisons and perfectly valid.

I understand that perhaps comes with the baggage of reputation for being a fanboy or what not, but keeping it objective, I think this is a perfectly fair and reasonable thread and everyone is entitled to their opinions and preferences. We're all biased to some degree.

Anyway, I think it's perfectly reasonable to compare to either a new or used C300. Maybe I'm less income sensitive but when you're dealing with total gear payouts with lenses, accessories, etc. in this range, a difference of a couple thousand is negligible (I realize that may just be me) - it's more about the ballpark range. Once you factor in accessories, media, batteries, etc. plus the perfectly reasonable solution of buying used when a camera has been on market for a few years, that all starts to blur into a general "about the same" pool.

I'd be curious to see some more pro/cons comparisons here as well.

The EVA-1 has *almost* double the photosites of a 4K camera. This gives it more resolution and a detailed image but that's a lot of engineering going on to achieve similar DR and lowlight. Honestly it's pretty impressive. Does make me wonder how awesome it could have been with a 4.6k sensor as we'd probably be seeing more DR and better lowlight, but it's hard to deny the future is "more resolution" in terms of all clients having 4K screens. So I think, given that all else is ballpark equal, I will cell this one a "pro" of the EVA-1 since the only con is a hypothetical "what could have been" if they had opted to engineer with less photosites.

Slow Motion: Eva-1 gets the edge here I believe. 120p is non-cropped IIRC (just lower sensor read out) and is performed at 10-bit 4:2:2. C300 mkII is 120p cropped, and I'm not sure what codec - 8-bit?? In addition, EVA-1 can hit 240p (albeit with reduced quality/sensitivity) - but still a nicety.

One other thing to consider: EVA-1 pairs really well with b-cameras like the GH5, which is a far more capable b-camera for video than canon's DSLR with video. So, Sony and Panasonic still have an edge here if you are using an EVA-1 as your a-camera.

Personally leaning EVA-1 because as cane pointed out, C300 is in winter and I do believe Canon will have something new right around the corner. Unless more footage from users proves the EVA-1 footage disappointing, I think all else being equal, the EVA-1 is the probably the overall better buy today, though YMMV.
 
People that down voted, Filmguy, are people that first hate Canon for any reason. Mostly because it's out of their price range and they feel the camera lacks certain attributes (usually folks that like to watch and film everything at 120-240 FPS, in which I personally skip 3/4s of their video because it's like watching paint dry). They hate Canon because they struggle to get that Canon color right out of the box and because the camera is so darn popular. SO they are just gonna down vote because it's hip to hate Canon. They hate even thinking about Canon. But yet don't realize just how much Canon content they watch on a daily basis sitting in front of the boob tube.

Every camera has it's pros and cons. And that will never change. Things I look for in a camera are ease of operation, build, and obviously final image. And being that I would assume that 8/10 people here are small production single operators of cameras. And thus far, 9/10 people are judging the Eva-1 off of paper specs. "Camera will do X,Y, and Z and cost so much" but without actually seeing the camera perform in various conditions. Honestly, thus far the Eva-1 footage we've seen thus far has not impressed me. I've seen maybe 30secs of footage that looks good (not great, but good). That will probably change. We see great to poor footage from every camera. But as of yet, I haven't seen any "great" footage from the Eva-1. Let's hope that changes. We shall see.

Yep, on paper the Eva-1 sounds spectacular. What concerns me is the hush hush keep all pre-shipping footage very controlled and there wasn't much to look at. And what there was of it, especially the official launch footage, looked well....subpar. For such a camera on paper and theory. So...We await the camera to get in peoples hands without corporate looking over their shoulders and see some footage and use in real situations of various content. Then and only than can we make final judgement of the camera.

Whereas, the C300 and C300II has already proved itself time and time again in LOTS of use and different content.
 
Chris is right on point! I didn't care about the marketing aspects of the EVA1 rollout either. Camera's now arriving, so we can REALLY see what it can do (in the hands of an average forum user). Some footage is good (better than average), so far. I'm not seeing the Mini Varicam look (as of today)........But I'm sure some of the DP's here on the forum will do well with the EVA1.
 
Last edited:
ntouched said:
Chris is right on point! I didn't care about the marketing aspects of the EVA1 rollout either. Camera's now arriving, so we can REALLY see what it can do (in the hands of an average forum user). Some footage is good (better than average), so far. I'm not seeing the Mini Varicam look (as of today)........But I'm sure some of the DP's here on the forum will do well with the EVA1.
Click to expand...

That, and I swore to NEVER again preorder ANY camera for ANY reason. Especially cameras that ship with the promise of future update features. "The camera will ship with a Honda engine and get a Porsche engine next year" crap marketing.
 
dustylense said:
That, and I swore to NEVER again preorder ANY camera for ANY reason. Especially cameras that ship with the promise of future update features. "The camera will ship with a Honda engine and get a Porsche engine next year" crap marketing.
Click to expand...

Yep. F>>K that.
I'm tired of the disingenuous attitudes.
Saying that a camera cannot have an intermediate codec until next year is like saying you can't have chocolate ice cream yet, only vanilla, because we havent quite figured out what ingredients we need in order to make it work. Chocolate ice cream is very complex, you know.
Yeah, right.

All these camera manufacturers can just wait for my money then too. Check is in the mail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top