C200: I'm Sold On the C200...

[Eric Coughlin]

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.

Someone else said it on here, but I'll repeat it. The Zacuto shootout was a marketing ploy by Zacuto in which they setup several cameras in a way that would make them all appear pretty equal, to encourage people to be okay with buying cheaper cameras (such as a GH2), which would not coincidentally also need a lot of rigging to make them work, rigging which Zacuto would be happy to provide, for money.

To follow those shootouts and conclude a GH2 is a good camera for a feature is to conclude Zacuto is a good investment. Don't fall for their schemes.

I own a GH2. It has pretty nice image quality, can match up with a C100 pretty well in sit down interview situations. But I don't think it's a "sufficiently worthy model" for professional shooting when you can afford something better. It really doesn't compare to an Arri Alexa, even if the image can be made to look similar in a controlled test by a company hoping to sell more rigging gear to you.

 

[Jaime Valles]

Excellent write-up, Eric. In my case, most of my clients are the "company client" types that don't know anything about cameras. They have a budget, and they know what they want the finished product to be. I give them a quote within their budget, shoot, edit and deliver the final piece, and that's that.

In my case, something like a C200 would make it much easier for me to get the results my clients want (DPAF is a massive help for one-man-crew gigs, and 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 is perfectly fine for them). I worked a lot with multiple GH4/3/2 cameras for a few years, and delivered footage my clients liked. But using those cameras was a royal pain compared to my current C100 cameras. Now I'm thinking the advantages of shooting on a C200 at 4K with DPAF will make it even easier for me. Perfect, easy focus via touchscreen, plus 4K files on SD cards that I can easily crop in post for better framing and stabilization.

My clients don't need raw. They aren't even requesting 4K yet. Heck, some of my regular clients still ask me to deliver in DVD! But the C200 will make my life easier, and that's worth a lot. And then, when needed, I'd have 4K internal raw recording, for when I'm shooting indie narative films which are my passion. For me, that makes the C200 the perfect camera, and I'm already saving up for one.

However, in your case, I agree it doesn't seem to make much sense to get the C200. You've thought it through carefully, and determined it doesn't fit your current business model, and that's cool.

 

[DLD]

... I own a GH2. It has pretty nice image quality, can match up with a C100 pretty well in sit down interview situations. But I don't think it's a "sufficiently worthy model" for professional shooting when you can afford something better. It really doesn't compare to an Arri Alexa, even if the image can be made to look similar in a controlled test by a company hoping to sell more rigging gear to you.

Well, of course, if one can afford something better, he should use whatever he can afford both in terms of quality and the workflow. And, the GH2 DP had a pro colorist and a nice lens also.

Nonetheless - http://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/panasonic-gh2-shane-carruth-upstream-color-musgo

Plus, there are other GH2 made titles.

In any case, people aren't using GH2 to make movies now. They're moving onto GH-yet-to-be-released.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Well, of course, if one can afford something better, he should use whatever he can afford both in terms of quality and the workflow. And, the GH2 DP had a pro colorist and a nice lens also.

Nonetheless - http://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/panasonic-gh2-shane-carruth-upstream-color-musgo

Plus, there are other GH2 made titles.

In any case, people aren't using GH2 to make movies now. They're moving onto GH-yet-to-be-released.

Yeah, I saw Upstream Color. Good movie. It was only a $50,000 budget, so at that budget level it probably wasn't a bad choice for a camera at the time. If a GH2 is the best a feature can afford, then go for it. It's a decent camera.

But the whole, "That one episode of House" argument to support using a low end camera on a decent budgeted production argument is what I take issue with. There will always be exceptions of a big budget production using some low end camera, which doesn't make the camera any more suited for other productions. It just means someone made an exception, and heck, their reason could have been the camera company paid them to do so (which I've heard of Red doing). Or, they may have had a better reason, like Shane Hurlbert using a 5D on Act of Valor to have a smaller footprint when working with non-professional actors (which I'm not entirely convinced of that argument, plus I believe Shane Hurlbert is a sellout).

I worked with a couple producers who let their DP on a film they did (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2598580/) convince them to use a 5D with their twelve million dollar budget movie and they regretted it, as it caused various issues in post, etc. At twelve million dollars, they could have easily afforded an Alexa, and the movie wasn't shot in a way that needed a small camera. And who knows, to convince them to use the 5D, their DP may have said, "That one episode of House..."

And aside from the House argument, you have the Zacuto shootout type of argument, where someone sees a shootout comparing different cameras, the results appear similar, but the shootout fails to take into account many, many other factors that make a camera more suited for a shoot, and then they conclude (in part because of their budget, but they like to pretend not) that a $500 camera is as good or almost as good as an $80,000 camera.

These are often the same type of people who see something like a GH5 come out with 10 bit 4:2:2 and say things like, "C300 Mark II killer," which is silly, because the C300 Mark II still has so many advantages over the GH5, so you can't just look at specs, a camera shootout, and that one episode of House to determine what makes a good camera. And most people who fall prey to this can't afford to shoot Alexa, have never shot Alexa, have never edited Alexa, often don't even know simple things like why SDI is important on a camera, etc., and since they don't understand the benefits that high end cameras have, they conclude that low end cameras are just as good, but they're wrong.

 

[laverdir]

That episode of House was post-production nightmare, screaming 'Help me' to an army of compositors that were called in to the rescue.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

That episode of House was post-production nightmare, screaming 'Help me' to an army of compositors that were called in to the rescue.

That's not what people remember, though. People just remember that one episode of House was shot on a 5D, so if the 5D was good enough for a big TV show, then cheap camera such and such which is better than the 5D must be good enough too, so why waste money on a high end camera.

 

[Matt Turner]

Possibly people also forget the compelling characters, seasons of back story, writing, directing, acting, lighting and most importantly catering that also went into making that episode. All of which cost more per minute than an entire Canon 5D, and which almost no Canon 5D owners have access to.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Possibly people also forget the compelling characters, seasons of back story, writing, directing, acting, lighting and most importantly catering that also went into making that episode. All of which cost more per minute than an entire Canon 5D.

A 5D is around $3,000. Say a 10 hour shoot day, so 600 minutes. 600 minutes times $3,000 is 1.8 million dollars per day. Don't think they spent that much on that one episode of House.

 

[Matt Turner]

A 5D is around $3,000. Say a 10 hour shoot day, so 600 minutes. 600 minutes times $3,000 is 1.8 million dollars per day. Don't think they spent that much on that one episode of House.

It was $99 on the shoot and the rest in post to fix the 5D audio.

 

[laverdir]

That's not what people remember, though. People just remember that one episode of House was shot on a 5D, so if the 5D was good enough for a big TV show, then cheap camera such and such which is better than the 5D must be good enough too, so why waste money on a high end camera.

Yeah, don't waste money on high end camera, waste it in post!

 

[Razz16mm]

That's not what people remember, though. People just remember that one episode of House was shot on a 5D, so if the 5D was good enough for a big TV show, then cheap camera such and such which is better than the 5D must be good enough too, so why waste money on a high end camera.

It was an interesting experiment on an episode shot in very confined spaces. But if you are working on a $50k a day set with expensive actors crew and support, dealing with the inefficient short comings of low end camera rigs wastes a lot of time and money. Camera cost, especially rental costs, are a very small part of dramatic production budgets.

 

[klk]

what's the point of the direction of this thread?
almost all cameras now are pretty darn good- it is entirely up to the user to deliver images clients (audience) will be happy with, or at least accept.

To me the question is speed and ability on set- which becomes the right tool for the job.

For example, if you are one man banding it, the Alexa STX Studio is absolutely the wrong tool for the job. The amount of batteries alone you need to carry and constantly keep on charge is overwhelming. Not to mention the thing is a beast, and if you're shooting outside you will be adding NDs etc etc etc. That is why we have two camera assistants, camera PA and maybe an intern.

On the other hand, some directors absolutely LOVE the idea of shooting on the cheapest, crappiest gear because it makes them feel innovative- an artist. IF you are the dp it's the biggest pain in the ass working under these conditions- but it's part of the job.

The problem on set is time. At least for me- we are always working fast on TV shows and indie features. I don't want to jump through hoops to do something simple- and this is where DSLRs fall flat- with the menus and the rigging we tend to do with consumer gear, or repurposed gear.

The point is, even the cheap DSLRs have become phenomenal image making tools. It comes down to efficiency on set. So C200, EVA1, C300M2, FS7, UrsaMini Pro- these are all viable cameras targeted for certain budget productions. They do, or all will perform well.

As they say it's not the paint brush guys...

 

[Spartacus]

In the high end where 4K RAW is viable, they'll want a better camera than the C200. In the mid range, they want at least 4:2:2, perhaps at 10 bit, but not RAW, so the C200 looses the C300's client base, leaving the C200 with no good paying client base.

In the lower end corporate where 4:2:0 is good enough, the C200 can get clients, but they may not have the budget to pay for the rental rate of the C200 which is 2-4 times the cost of a C100, which is good enough for most of those shoots. So, some may buy the C200 for that client base, hoping to up charge for it, but not being able to, so then they eat the costs, and can still use RAW on their occasional unpaid/low paid indie shoots.

So from a profit standpoint, I'm having trouble justifying a C200 purchase, particularly as a freelancer.

Seeing how the FS7 became the go-to camera for all those "mixed-clientbase-midlevel" productions, I don't share your judgement.
Everything you said about the C200 and "Planet Canon" could be said about the FS7 and "Planet Sony".
You had the F3 and FS700 and the F5/55, still the FS7 filled a big need and sold like hot cake and is a high volume rental item.
Price, 4K and SloMo were the main reasons many opted for Sony, at a time Canon was still milking its (very successful, albeit technically aging) HD C-Series.
The C300 dominated midlevel became FS7 dominated (at least in Europe).
So the C200 finally catches up on the FS7's USP's and ads - as mentioned before - internal RAW, giving you the option for RED/BM like workflows.
Things might change, if Canon decides to release a C100MIII with 4K and touchscreen AF, but until then the C200 will be the better long term investment IMHO.

 

[cpreston]

The problem on set is time. At least for me- we are always working fast on TV shows and indie features. I don't want to jump through hoops to do something simple- and this is where DSLRs fall flat- with the menus and the rigging we tend to do with consumer gear, or repurposed gear.

I work primarily in low budget corporate promos and interviews. I have found that set-up time is the most important issue. The only real consideration I have for specs and IQ is how much easier it will be for me to get the shot in the moment and then match and color correct with the minimal amount of effort in post. Everything from my tripod choice to my lighting kit to the way I pack my equipment is based on attempting to get it setup as quick as possible onsite. When I hear people comparing specs between a DSLR/mirrorless and a video camera, I know they don't work in the same industry as I do.

 

[DLD]

what's the point of the direction of this thread? ...

It's the swerving discussion on what this camera will be good for and whom it will be demanded by. I hear through my sources that, if there's a "House" reunion, C200 would top their wish list.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Seeing how the FS7 became the go-to camera for all those "mixed-clientbase-midlevel" productions, I don't share your judgement.
Everything you said about the C200 and "Planet Canon" could be said about the FS7 and "Planet Sony".
You had the F3 and FS700 and the F5/55, still the FS7 filled a big need and sold like hot cake and is a high volume rental item.
Price, 4K and SloMo were the main reasons many opted for Sony, at a time Canon was still milking its (very successful, albeit technically aging) HD C-Series.
The C300 dominated midlevel became FS7 dominated (at least in Europe).
So the C200 finally catches up on the FS7's USP's and ads - as mentioned before - internal RAW, giving you the option for RED/BM like workflows.
Things might change, if Canon decides to release a C100MIII with 4K and touchscreen AF, but until then the C200 will be the better long term investment IMHO.

My primary point was that the C200 doesn't have 10 bit 4:2:2 internal without shooting RAW and a lot of mid range clients want 10 bit 4:2:2 internal. The FS7 has that, hence the FS7's popularity for its target market. The F3 was only up to 35 mbps at 4:2:0 internally which was perhaps the main reason the C300 Mark I at 8 bit 4:2:2 at 50 mbps sold way better than the F3 did.

The C200 is said to be getting 8 bit 4:2:2 internally, but not until next year, which could open it up to more possibilities, as some (or perhaps most, since the C300 Mark I at 8 bit is still pretty popular) clients may be okay with it not being 10 bit if it's 4:2:2.

 

[Run&Gun]

My primary point was that the C200 doesn't have 10 bit 4:2:2 internal without shooting RAW and a lot of mid range clients want 10 bit 4:2:2 internal. The FS7 has that, hence the FS7's popularity for its target market. The F3 was only up to 35 mbps at 4:2:0 internally which was perhaps the main reason the C300 Mark I at 8 bit 4:2:2 at 50 mbps sold way better than the F3 did.

The C200 is said to be getting 8 bit 4:2:2 internally, but not until next year, which could open it up to more possibilities, as some (or perhaps most, since the C300 Mark I at 8 bit is still pretty popular) clients may be okay with it not being 10 bit if it's 4:2:2.

8 bit 4:2:2 hasn't seemed to hurt the original 300's demand. Shooting with mine on Wed and if I wasn't, it would have been going out on a two day rental for another company.

 

[klk]

8 bit 4:2:2 hasn't seemed to hurt the original 300's demand. Shooting with mine on Wed and if I wasn't, it would have been going out on a two day rental for another company.

That's the point. If the image is good enough for the client (most everything is for the web these days anyhow) the tech specs are secondary.

The C200 should do fine in the marketplace. Corporate, marketing/branding, events, live production, narratives. On paper it seems to be quite capable and fills many shoes with the "good enough" internal codec.

And then you have RAW Lite...

 

[DLD]

My primary point was that the C200 doesn't have 10 bit 4:2:2 internal without shooting RAW and a lot of mid range clients want 10 bit 4:2:2 internal. The FS7 has that, hence the FS7's popularity for its target market. The F3 was only up to 35 mbps at 4:2:0 internally which was perhaps the main reason the C300 Mark I at 8 bit 4:2:2 at 50 mbps sold way better than the F3 did...

But look at the timeline. Then project technology forward. 8-bit 4:2:0 was good enough yesterday. 10-bit 4:2:2 is good enough today. Compressed Raw might/should become the standard tomorrow.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

8 bit 4:2:2 hasn't seemed to hurt the original 300's demand. Shooting with mine on Wed and if I wasn't, it would have been going out on a two day rental for another company.

Right. So like I said, once the C200 has the internal 8 bit 4:2:2 codec, it should be more marketable, assuming they don't mess that up. Then I guess the main thing it's missing is gen-lock and an extra SDI out. And the C300 brand name.