C200: From Canon: XFAVC support in 2018 will be 8 bit

[puredrifting]

Another update from Newsshooter.com:

http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/08/29/canon-c200-xf-avc-420-8bit-codec-update/

45Mbps in FHD and 160Mbps in UHD? Why? So utterly random that they are jumping through these hoops, spending time and money engineering these new codecs when they are barely any different than the .MP4 codecs, when the 50Mbps codec from the C300 has existed for years as has the 4:2:2 305 Mbps codec from the XC-15. This is just plain bizarre by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[NorBro]

Can't really chalk it up to anything else, but business at this point...absolutely not necessary or practical by any means.

 

[Amira-user]

look i get the fact that they won't include a 10bit codec, that is 'business' as you say. but by not including a 8bit 4:2:2 codec, how is that business? are they trying to protect the sales of XC-15? its a joke to be honest! i rather the engineers fail to implement this update to be honest, so they can go back to the old drawing board of using the XC-15 codec for UHD and 50mbs 8 bit for the HD, no point in protecting 8 bit sales of cheaper cameras!

 

[DLD]

It's not personal. It's only business.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

look i get the fact that they won't include a 10bit codec, that is 'business' as you say. but by not including a 8bit 4:2:2 codec, how is that business? are they trying to protect the sales of XC-15? its a joke to be honest! i rather the engineers fail to implement this update to be honest, so they can go back to the old drawing board of using the XC-15 codec for UHD and 50mbs 8 bit for the HD, no point in protecting 8 bit sales of cheaper cameras!

They're protecting both the C300 Mark I and the C300 Mark II. The Mark I still sells new for $5k. You want an internal 1080p broadcast codec but don't want to spend $10k on a Mark II? Mark I is still there. Different cameras with different feature sets and codecs. So if you want different feature sets, you have to buy different models instead of just one do it all camera. More money for Canon that way.

Look at Dan (puredrifting), C100 Mark I, C300 Mark I, and C200 owner. Canon loves Dan. Next Dan is planning to buy a Panasonic EV-1, maybe he'll miss auto-focus too much, sell it, and buy a C300 Mark II, so Canon will love him more.

 

[StMad]

Of course it's "business", every decision made by these companies is a business decision. But this appears to be a bad one. Will there be any difference between the two 8 bit codecs? If not, why market this as an added feature? Why string the market along if there's no pay off?

 

[Fahnon]

My guess is Canon did want to make this codec 10-bit initially (hence the different information Newsshooter was given at different times), but they decided against it and have already said something new is coming. They can't exactly cancel the update, so it's now an update in name only.

 

[Gary T]

45Mbps in FHD and 160Mbps in UHD? Why? So utterly random that they are jumping through these hoops, spending time and money engineering these new codecs when they are barely any different than the .MP4 codecs, when the 50Mbps codec from the C300 has existed for years as has the 4:2:2 305 Mbps codec from the XC-15. This is just plain bizarre by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed! Some market segmentation is to be expected but Canon is spending money to make sure their customers don't get the camera they want. I doubt many C200 early adopters were expecting their promised update would take them back to 2012 with a 45Mbit 4:2:0 HD codec. At least Sony and Panasonic are upgrading their cameras to leverage what the hardware can do instead of spending money to ensure that their new camera is inferior to a 5 year C300 MK I.

Canon probably waited to see how strong the sales of the C200 were before they announced the details of these anemic codec upgrades and sales for the their competitors is probably the only thing that will pressure them to offer more in the update. This decision isannoying enough that I am going to wait until after IBC to see how the EVA1 and whatever Sony comes up with as an answer perform. I am particularly hopeful about the Panasonic EVA1. It looks like it will be a great little camera at launch with even greater potential after its meaningful update next year.

I know t's just business but that doesn't mean we have to let them take ours for granted.

 

[Bassman2003]

This industry is pretty strange. I am so over Canon. Segmenting $5,000-$10,000 products like they accessories is just insane. The fact that they did not even make the 1080p 4:2:2 just shows how lame they are. The C200 is basically a RAW camera that Canon bestowed upon the public. But so many have already stated that RAW will not be used for a fair amount of their work. So Canon, happy to disappoint, leaves the other half of the camera back in 2011... All for $8,000

Then the other alternative at this price is a camera without a viewfinder or autofocus. While none of this stuff is a dealbreaker on its own, they represent horrible value for money for owner operators who work in many different situations. These camera companies have to know the state of the working stiff these days don't they?

 

[TheDingo]

These camera companies have to know the state of the working stiff these days don't they?

There really are no competitors to Canon's DP AF, so another brand adding mediocre AF to it's new camera is not going to earn it any brownie points. It's better to leave the AF out of the mix for now. ( eventually some new AF tech will dethrone Canon, but that's not today )

As for viewfinder, it could easily add another $1,000 - $2,500 to the cost of the camera depending on the quality of it's image. So leaving it out of the mix is the cost effective way to go. ( remember the first Canon C100 with it's crappy EVF that people only used if they absolutely had to )

 

[DLD]

This industry is pretty strange...

People are just beginning to get really ticked off about it. If you check a site like Canon Rumors, they're quite happy to accept whatever Canon decides to release. No 4K on a $2,000 camera? No big deal. They love it. No Log on 5D MKIV? They still love it. Give them a shiny new box with Canon logo embroidered on it? They love it. It's a $2,000 shiny new box? And it has Canon logo? Wow. They can hardly contain themselves.

 

[NorBro]

People are just beginning to get really ticked off about it. If you check a site like Canon Rumors, they're quite happy to accept whatever Canon decides to release. No 4K on a $2,000 camera? No big deal. They love it. No Log on 5D MKIV? They still love it. Give them a shiny new box with Canon logo embroidered on it? They love it. It's a $2,000 shiny new box? And it has Canon logo? Wow. They can hardly contain themselves.

Those are the photographers you are describing on CR, which is mostly filled with them. The video people have been losing their minds with Canon for a while now.

The C200 won back many, but I'm not sure how long that will last.

 

[DLD]

Those are the photographers you are describing on CR, which is mostly filled with them...

But even at photography, they defend Canon at any cost vs. Sony and Nikon, who have a superior (Sony designed and manufactured) sensor technology. And it makes little sense for a primarily video shooter to even participate over there. The CR video forums are in exile.

 

[fhammond]

But even at photography, they defend Canon at any cost vs. Sony and Nikon, who have a superior (Sony designed and manufactured) sensor technology. And it makes little sense for a primarily video shooter to even participate over there. The CR video forums are in exile.

I think everyone wants more for less, to a degree that isn't reasonable, and everyone wants exactly the feature set they need (or say they need) without much regard for reality. The no 4K on a $2000 camera thing (I assume you're talking about the 6D Mark II)? I know a lot of still photographers who could care less about video and wouldn't want to pay a single dollar for 4K. If Canon had put 4K on the 6D, people would complain about the codec, or the crop mode, or the lack of log, or focus peaking or.... Honestly, it all gets a bit tiresome.

 

[NorBro]

I think everyone wants more for less, to a degree that isn't reasonable, and everyone wants exactly the feature set they need (or say they need) without much regard for reality. The no 4K on a $2000 camera thing (I assume you're talking about the 6D Mark II)? I know a lot of still photographers who could care less about video and wouldn't want to pay a single dollar for 4K. If Canon had put 4K on the 6D, people would complain about the codec, or the crop mode, or the lack of log, or focus peaking or.... Honestly, it all gets a bit tiresome.

Absolutely. I'm drained from it, ha.

I don't like this business anymore.

 

[DLD]

I think everyone wants more for less, to a degree that isn't reasonable, and everyone wants exactly the feature set they need (or say they need) without much regard for reality. The no 4K on a $2000 camera thing (I assume you're talking about the 6D Mark II)? I know a lot of still photographers who could care less about video and wouldn't want to pay a single dollar for 4K. If Canon had put 4K on the 6D, people would complain about the codec, or the crop mode, or the lack of log, or focus peaking or.... Honestly, it all gets a bit tiresome.

People should complain about it. My problem is with the unreasonable requests on all sides. A current generation DSLR that leans heavily into the stills world will have some video shortcomings - likely moire, severe cropping, poor/er low light performance, etc. - but this doesn't mean it can't have Log, a decent codec (Samsung had 80 Mbps H265 in 2014, FFS) and bit rate and a 'clean" 10-bit HDMI out. And while some stills shooters couldn't care less about video, some video shooters couldn't care less about the stills. That's what makes it a "hybrid" camera. And here's a bigger problem - instead of trying to, at least, compete on the level of a $500 Panasonic camera, Canon works hard to convince consumers that they should pay more for less. And a ton of people doesn't seem to mind that at all. And that's why you get 8-bit instead of 10-bit. Plain and simple.

Absolutely. I'm drained from it, ha.

I don't like this business anymore.

So, you're that lady that won the $750M Powerball???

 

[fhammond]

People should complain about it. My problem is with the unreasonable requests on all sides. A current generation DSLR that leans heavily into the stills world will have some video shortcomings - likely moire, severe cropping, poor/er low light performance, etc. - but this doesn't mean it can't have Log, a decent codec (Samsung had 80 Mbps H265 in 2014, FFS) and bit rate and a 'clean" 10-bit HDMI out. And while some stills shooters couldn't care less about video, some video shooters couldn't care less about the stills. That's what makes it a "hybrid" camera. And here's a bigger problem - instead of trying to, at least, compete on the level of a $500 Panasonic camera, Canon works hard to convince consumers that they should pay more for less. And a ton of people doesn't seem to mind that at all. And that's why you get 8-bit instead of 10-bit. Plain and simple.

The fact that someone wants 4K video in the 6DII doesn't make it a "hybrid" camera; that's a term that Canon doesn't use at all to describe the 6DII (or, I think, any camera). You're right that it doesn't mean it can't have a good codec and all the other items but you could apply the same argument to the $45,000 Amira not having internal raw like the $100,000 Alexa.

One of the things the Internet has done is to magnify the voices of those people who don't like something. I am the guy who doesn't want video in the 6DII - I'm 100% happy with good auto-focus for video and 1080p - and I'm the guy who could care less about XFAVC in the C200. But 99.9% of the time, I'm either not going to be posting to a forum or I'm going to be asking some technical question. So what we read is the people who don't like the 6DII or the C200...and that's fine: don't buy it. But people that seem to get personally upset and angry, as if a company like Canon owes them something, just have me scratching my head. Canon seems like a smart company and I'm sure they have better methods of gauging customer demand and success than reading the echo-chamber of Internet forums. If they succeed, we reward them by buying gear; if not, they fail and try again.

 

[DLD]

The fact that someone wants 4K video in the 6DII doesn't make it a "hybrid" camera; that's a term that Canon doesn't use at all to describe the 6DII (or, I think, any camera). You're right that it doesn't mean it can't have a good codec and all the other items but you could apply the same argument to the $45,000 Amira not having internal raw like the $100,000 Alexa...

Canon can put whatever features it desires into whatever camera it decides to make. The problem is that C200 has worse internal codec than GH5, which is five and a half grand cheaper. ARRI is a FerARRI. It can charge higher prices on performance. 6D MKII is an equivalent of a $50,000 sports car with a Yugo engine. At least, insofar as video goes.

PS. The new firmware update on GH5 looks pretty awesome. 400 Mbps IPB, none of that 160 Mbps crap.

 

[chris f]

The angrier people get about prices and lack of specs, the less professional I assume they are. When you're a hobbiest or early in your career it's totally understandable, however the more you work the more you'll know what features/specs are more important for how you like to work and the jobs you normally do & you'll make your camera purchasing decisions based on that (instead of what's the absolute best bang for your buck).

It's like picking a good wife: pick someone who is great for you and enjoy your life with her & don't waste your time drooling over magazines that feature every latest and greatest model that isn't your wife. (this is actually making me think of a couple of my single guy friends and the comical things they say in all seriousness about what they're looking for in a girl and the factors they consider)

 

[dave12781]

The problem is that C200 has worse internal codec than GH5

Last I looked, the GH5 didn't have raw. Has that changed?

The c200 is the most compact, ergonomic raw camera out there. In fact, dual pixel might make it the most advanced raw camera currently on the market. It also has better low light than the best current Red.

There is nothing about the c200 that is inferior to the GH5.