C200: I'm Sold On the C200...

Tim Nitsch said:
My clients tend to fit one of two categories.

They either want very high quality, for things like music videos, commercials or narrative projects.

And for me, C-RAW Light is going to fit that perfectly.

Or they don't necessarily care about 8bit vs 10bit vs 12bit, or 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2.

They just want the wedding, or discussion panel, or sporting event filmed.

They still want it to look good obviously, but 8bit 4:2:0 is going to work just fine, or if I need a little bit more (sometimes sports can benefit with a little more data as fine grass detail can be hard on low bit rate codes), the XF-AVC option will fill that gap.


For me, the C200 is a clear winner, even over a C300 mk2.

In my eyes the C200 combines what I love about my C100 and what I wanted from a RED Raven/Scarlet.

I get the efficient long format recording capability, XLRs, built in NDs, and the user friendliness of a C100 with the raw flexibility, higher frame rates, and overall higher image quality of a RED (with much nicer color though ;D), in one camera.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel. 8-bit 4:2:0 MP4 in 4K pays the bills, raw for indie narrative film and music videos. It's a C100 + RED all in one.
 
Tim Nitsch said:
My clients tend to fit one of two categories.

They either want very high quality, for things like music videos, commercials or narrative projects.

And for me, C-RAW Light is going to fit that perfectly.

Or they don't necessarily care about 8bit vs 10bit vs 12bit, or 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2.

They just want the wedding, or discussion panel, or sporting event filmed.

They still want it to look good obviously, but 8bit 4:2:0 is going to work just fine, or if I need a little bit more (sometimes sports can benefit with a little more data as fine grass detail can be hard on low bit rate codes), the XF-AVC option will fill that gap.


For me, the C200 is a clear winner, even over a C300 mk2.

In my eyes the C200 combines what I love about my C100 and what I wanted from a RED Raven/Scarlet.

I get the efficient long format recording capability, XLRs, built in NDs, and the user friendliness of a C100 with the raw flexibility, higher frame rates, and overall higher image quality of a RED (with much nicer color though ;D), in one camera.
Click to expand...
Which is pretty much what I was saying in terms of the C200 catering to those two types of client bases, both of which may not be willing to pay for the C200's full rental rate. The wedding, discussion panel, and sporting events are probably fine with 1080 8 bit 4:2:0, so I'm saying they may not want to pay any more for a camera which can also shoot RAW on $3,000 worth of memory cards that aren't even needed for those shoots, and don't even need the 8 bit 4k. So, instead of a $3000-$4000 C100, you're paying $7500, plus $1300 for batteries, and $3000 for media, so around $12,000 for a camera that for that client base, you may not even be able to charge more for.

Okay, so then there's the commercial, narrative, and music video clients. They want the RAW, but particularly the music video and narrative clients, their budgets are likely paying even less than the wedding and panel discussion clients. Now commercial clients can have big budgets, but as I said, if they have a really big budget they'll probably want an Alexa or something else that is considered higher end. So, you may get lucky and land the commercial clients who don't have the budget for an Alexa, want something better than a C100, so the C200 is the perfect fit for them, but from the sounds of it commercial clients are just a small percentage of your client base, which still leaves you with most of your clients not necessarily paying more for the C200.

Whereas what I was saying is that the C300 Mark II hits the mid-range/higher end corporate, broadcast TV, documentary, and reality TV, which all often have the budget to pay for the extra rental rate of the C300 Mark II.

I'm not saying the C200 is a bad camera, I'm just saying that its client base may be more difficult to charge appropriate rates for it in relation to the cost of the camera. I think Red suffers from the same problem. When I quote $500 as a rental rate for a C300 Mark II, sometimes I hear, "I can get a Red for less." Because Reds often rent out for a lower percentage of their buying cost than say a Canon, Sony, or Arri camera, which to me often makes Reds a bad investment, even if you can get nice images from them, and I see the C200 as having potential to suffer from the same problem. I often get the $500 rental rate for my C300 Mark IIs, while I know a guy locally who charges $100-$150 for his $20,000 Red Scarlet W package as his regular rate for it.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
I was actually very tempted to make an offer for yours either here or on Ebay but I think I've decided instead to save up for the Amira before getting a third C300 Mark II.
Click to expand...

Lovely camera, I don't blame you.

Out of interest how much do you think you could pick one up for on the used market?
 
cane141 said:
Out of interest how much do you think you could pick one up for on the used market?
Click to expand...
Saw a used one recently for $30k from Adorama. I put a low offer on it and they countered by offering about $1500 off, putting it at $28,500. I believe it's $40k new, not including various accessories, media, etc., which you'd probably add another $5k-$10k for, so $30k was $10k off of buying new. Various used models come with various accessories. The one for $30k was pretty bare bones.

A guy I work with a lot here and I are considering splitting the camera 50/50 so then it'd be about $17k each (which would enable us to buy it sooner rather than later), which isn't that much more than getting a third C300 Mark II, media, and batteries. If we both get hired with and/or rent the camera out a lot, we'd likely get a second one so then we'd each fully own one and have two between us for multi-cam shoots. And if we don't get much business with it, then fortunately we got it used and could sell it without too much loss, though I doubt we'd sell it before it's outdated. Plus if we split it that's less up front cost as well and less risk if we don't get a lot of business with it.

But things aren't fully decided yet. Still have to save up some money, as well as wait for another good used deal.
 
The Amira's 'premium' license costs more than a C200, lol.

(Although most get by with the 'advanced' license.)
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I'm not saying the C200 is a bad camera, I'm just saying that its client base may be more difficult to charge appropriate rates for it in relation to the cost of the camera. I think Red suffers from the same problem. When I quote $500 as a rental rate for a C300 Mark II, sometimes I hear, "I can get a Red for less." Because Reds often rent out for a lower percentage of their buying cost than say a Canon, Sony, or Arri camera, which to me often makes Reds a bad investment, even if you can get nice images from them, and I see the C200 as having potential to suffer from the same problem. I often get the $500 rental rate for my C300 Mark IIs, while I know a guy locally who charges $100-$150 for his $20,000 Red Scarlet W package as his regular rate for it.
Click to expand...

My theory on the RED rates: Business people(guys that actually want to make a living shooting) buy Canon's, Sony's and Arri's. The "artistic", "creative" indie guys that are in it for the "art" and "love of making their movies" are buying the RED's. The money is just a bonus to them.
 
Both Arri and RED owners can say that this and that feature was shot on a camera just like theirs. Which is difficult to say about a Canon, Sony or Panasonic camera. And some clients rely on this knowing such a camera in the production will never reflect badly upon them if the end product isn't up to par just because they didn't pick the best camera.

Then there's the middle ground where cameras such as a C300 or FS7 dominate and the clients pick these because they are affordable and gets the job done and such a camera decision won't reflect badly upon them.

Below that are lesser cameras like C100, FS5, EVA1, Ursa, etc that have lower specs, limitations and are not well known. Then again this suits clients well because they don't give rats arse about what camera is used and they trust the production firm or shooter to make it good.
 
Considering that a (hacked) GH2 won the (pre-4K) Zacuto Shootout, it is, technically speaking, a sufficiently worthy model.

Of course, while Francis Coppola gave it his vote, he is probably not going to shoot a feature with it. But others have.

And C200 is going to be a lot better than GH2.
 
Tim Nitsch said:
My clients tend to fit one of two categories.

They either want very high quality, for things like music videos, commercials or narrative projects.

And for me, C-RAW Light is going to fit that perfectly.

Or they don't necessarily care about 8bit vs 10bit vs 12bit, or 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2.

They just want the wedding, or discussion panel, or sporting event filmed.

They still want it to look good obviously, but 8bit 4:2:0 is going to work just fine, or if I need a little bit more (sometimes sports can benefit with a little more data as fine grass detail can be hard on low bit rate codes), the XF-AVC option will fill that gap.


For me, the C200 is a clear winner, even over a C300 mk2.

In my eyes the C200 combines what I love about my C100 and what I wanted from a RED Raven/Scarlet.

I get the efficient long format recording capability, XLRs, built in NDs, and the user friendliness of a C100 with the raw flexibility, higher frame rates, and overall higher image quality of a RED (with much nicer color though ;D), in one camera.
Click to expand...

I'm in a somewhat similar boat here. The irony is that other than projects that I produce, I doubt I'll be able to charge more for bringing a C200 on set. If someone is hiring me just to shoot for them and it's a bigger shoot they either pay the extra rate for me to bring my C500 + Odyssey7q or they provide their own high end camera (RED, etc.) or if it's a smaller shoot they're just fine with my C100mk2 and likely won't be asking for the increased quality (4K) of the C200 and therefor won't want to pay extra for the rental.

Unless it's a single cam commercial shoot that I'm producing, I can't see any of my clients (or producers who hire me) requesting the C200. If the budget is there, I'm sure they'll be aiming for a higher camera.

That all said, I still want to get it because it would be awesome to use and to have two 4K camera packages, especially for my own multicam stuff. Probably won't make me any extra money, so this upgrade would just be for the love of the game. :love4:
 
Guys.... you don't bring a camera to the shoot—you bring yourself (if you're a shooter). Be the brand.

If you think the C200 offers a toolset that allows your vision and talent to be seen better, then go for it.

But the main point is always: be the brand. Build on that.
 
I agree...I actually never understood charging a client for the camera, but I know it's a thing and especially was back in the day.

Today, I think a new breed of clients (not all) don't understand that concept and get turned-off by it, especially at a time when you're competing with dozens of others who are also including audio and lighting in their shooting day rate.

I would never buy a camera thinking if I can charge a client for it. But I also don't really work for people who demand a certain system.

I'm more interested in working for those who don't care which camera I use, and only want it to look great and will pay whatever it costs.
 
I come from the network/broadcast world where the day rate included a broadcast camera, broadcast ENG zoom lens, lights and audio. Some things are/were a la carte, but for the most part, it was a package rate for gear and labor. As a matter of fact, I have a network client, that at the bottom of their rate card says, "Regardless of camera used".

Your rates are your business, the only thing that makes me take exception to that is when guys go too low and start to hurt the overall market, which we have been seeing happen for the last 5-8 years. Some guys are saying, "well I can't charge extra for this or that...". Maybe your rates are too low to begin with. Back in the late 90's to early 2000's a typical broadcast camera package would be a $50k-$60K Betacam(prob 400A or D600) with a $20k+ lens(at least one if not a wide and long), so some guys were $70K-$100K in before other gear. Rates for one man crew were ~$1,000(this was still pretty much the going rate until SD "died"). Fast forward to today and you can have an F55 with a 17-120 for less than $60K and the rate is 60%-90% higher(maybe more depending on client). The same client that was paying me $1,000/day for a Betacam pays me 90% more today and I could show up with $15K C300 with a few $K in still lenses, if I chose and the shoot allowed.

Some of you guys are equating too much of your rate to the cost of equipment. I've even see guys on here say that if a camera goes down in price(after they've bought it), they'll drop their rate on it/with it. What?! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. Does the mechanic at the dealership drop his rates if Snap-On has a sale on wrenches?! I still get the same rate with my tape VariCam that is over 10 years old that can be bought on eBay for a little over $700.
 
AndreeOnline said:
Guys.... you don't bring a camera to the shoot—you bring yourself (if you're a shooter). Be the brand.

If you think the C200 offers a toolset that allows your vision and talent to be seen better, then go for it.

But the main point is always: be the brand. Build on that.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more!
Never a client asked me to bring a specific camera. They want what I can do for them, not what I bring.
 
I don't know. I've discovered that I can screw myself if I just charge an day rate with open ended equipment. Since equipment is relatively cheap, I find it easier to just own equipment rather than rent it. So if a client finds out what equipment I own and I don't put an extra price on it then I can find myself spending an extra day just trying to prep everything for the next day's shoot. I go from being a camera op with a camera, two the guy bringing three cameras, a jib, a drone, slider, audio, etc. The equipment rate is to protect myself. If the client knows they need to pay a bit more for the extra equipment, it makes them decided whether they have the time and desire to actually use the equipment on the shoot.
 
There are essentially two types of clients, company clients and freelance clients. Company clients are generally companies and organizations which hire you to produce, shoot, and edit videos. These clients typically don't know much about gear, so you wouldn't charge them based on gear. Instead, you give them a quote for the entire project, say, $5,000-$10,000, and base that quote on their budget, your quality of work, your experience, how much your other clients pay you, how much your equipment costs, how much time it will take, etc.

So for these clients you can basically buy whatever gear you want that will give the client a quality they are happy with and that you are happy with, and is within the budget for you to make a profit off of the equipment purchases in relation to how much these clients are paying you.


Now freelance clients are generally video producers, who's job involves hiring camera crew with gear. They generally know the difference between one camera and another, and often have preferences. Most producers who hire me want a Canon C-series or Sony FS7 type of camera, and would not be okay with say a GH4, A7s, Blackmagic, or Red (most of my clients are Red haters). As a producer myself I also hire mostly other C100 owners and operators. As I'd said, "So from a profit standpoint, I'm having trouble justifying a C200 purchase, particularly as a freelancer." For the company clients, the C200 could make more sense. Some people here are mostly company clients, while others are mostly freelance, so that needs to be taken into account when making camera purchases and whether or not to charge clients based on what camera you're bringing to a shoot. Lately I've been about 90% freelance and 10% company clients, and most of my clients want a specific camera.


If you just have one or two cameras, a basic lighting kit, not much specialty equipment, etc., then it can make sense to charge an all-in day rate on a regular basis, which I used to do. But if you own several cameras of different levels, higher end specialty equipment (cinema lenses, Steadicam, etc.), then charging a flat rate doesn't work that well.

My rates these days tend to vary from $850-$2500 per day depending on what gear I'm hired with. At the low end it's a C100, lenses, and tripod, and at the higher end it's two C300 Mark IIs, maybe Steadicam, lighting, and audio (or more if they're wanting the cinema zooms, though I haven't rented them out much yet as they're more recent purchases, and additional C100s). Now I suppose I could just choose a standard day rate that is somewhere in-between there, say, $1800 per day. But then I'd loose all of the $850 per day C100 clients who would never want to pay $1800 for just a C100, still lenses, and tripod, and I'd be undercharging for the clients who want the kitchen sink.

Another option is to just charge all of my clients the kitchen sink rate, which for all of my gear with me would be around $4,000 per day, but none of my clients need all of my gear, so they wouldn't want to be paying for equipment they're not using just because I happen to own it. I still make good money from my lower end C100 clients so it doesn't make sense to drop those clients as long as the higher end C300 Mark II clients (or perhaps later, Arri Amira clients) are not keeping me so busy that $850 per day isn't worth my time anymore.

The way I see it, when you own a lot of gear and none of your clients need all of that gear, then you're really more of a rental house that provides camera operating and crewing services as well. A one stop shop. You never hear about a rental house that owns a million dollars of equipment and charges a flat $20,000 for the rental, with no a la carte options.

And rental house rates are heavily based on the current cost of a camera, and older cameras such as say an AF-100 rent for a lot less now than when they first became available. If your clients are ignorant of the current rental rates of cameras (such as Run&Gun's broadcast clients, apparently), then I suppose you can get away with still charging the camera's original rate from when the camera sold and rented for two to three times as much, but, my clients tend to not be that ignorant of camera rental rates. Sometimes a client will question my rental rate, and I'll point them over to LensRentals.com where the same gear is going to cost them more money (since I typically under-quote LensRentals by a bit). If I'm quoting more then LensRentals, particularly if it's significantly more, then they may question why they're paying more when they could just rent it from there themselves (convenience, I suppose, but convenience is only worth so much).

As a producer myself, if I was hiring Run&Gun, and he said it would be $600 for a C300 Mark I (around the camera's original rental rate), and let's say he was also willing to work at labor rate without gear (or I could hire someone else at labor rate), then as a producer I'd likely say, "I'd just like to hire you without gear as I can get the C300 Mark I from LensRentals for $268, or about $350 with media, batteries, and shipping, and the convenience of you showing up with gear vs. me renting it from LensRentals (or elsewhere) is not worth $250 to me." Some producers may still prefer to pay an extra $250 for the convenience of not needing to rent it themselves, but chances are they could also easily find a different own/operator who will rent the camera for closer to the going LensRentals rate. I think in Run&Gun's case it's a matter of both client ignorance of current going rates, as well as them simply having enough budget to not worry about those things. So, that works fine for his client base, but not for mine who are a bit more tech savvy and up-to-date.

I'm also finding when you own a lot of gear, that booking out crew with your gear can be quite profitable. I used to turn down well paid gigs because I was already booked, often referring them to someone I know, but if you own multiple camera and lighting packages, then it can be pretty profitable to hire camera crew without gear, have them use your gear, while you then work one job and they work the other job, so you make twice as much money for those days instead of turning down work.

If you're always giving clients (reduced) kitchen sink rates then it would be more difficult to double book since they may expect you to bring everything. I could imagine a scenario where a client who has booked me with two C300 Mark II's at a kitchen sink rate says, "Oh, by the way, can you bring a C100 too? We may want a third angle." Now if my C100s are booked on another shoot, since it's a kitchen sink rate and I can't charge more, then I'd need to rent another C100 which comes out of my pocket. But if it's not a kitchen sink rate, I would say, "Sure, for an extra $200, I can bring another C100," and if my other ones are already booked, then I'm not loosing money by renting one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top