C200: PSA: C200 early adopters be prepared for your camera to drop in price in a year.

F

Fahnon

Well-known member
I'm buying one, so this is not a dig on the camera, but Canon's MO has been to charge a premium for their C-line and drop the price by a few thousand in (I want to say) a year. Make sure your camera will pay for itself or that you're ok with taking a loss...

That is all.
 
If it's as hot a seller as expected, it "might" drop a grand in a year. The problem with C100 MKI and II and C300 were that they were 1080p models facing the onslaught of the various 4K models. C300 MKII and C500, given their competition, were overpriced from the get-go. I don't think anyone thinks that C200 is overpriced.
 
DLD said:
If it's as hot a seller as expected, it "might" drop a grand in a year. The problem with C100 MKI and II and C300 were that they were 1080p models facing the onslaught of the various 4K models. C300 MKII and C500, given their competition, were overpriced from the get-go. I don't think anyone thinks that C200 is overpriced.
Click to expand...

The camera alone might be a fair price but there's more to it. Upgrading my computer is the very last thing I want to do. I haven't done my homework but if I need to spend money on post-production requirements, it may very well be over-priced, as a complete system.
 
rob norton said:
The camera alone might be a fair price but there's more to it. Upgrading my computer is the very last thing I want to do. I haven't done my homework but if I need to spend money on post-production requirements, it may very well be over-priced, as a complete system.
Click to expand...

That's what the built in 2k proxies are for :)

You'll still have export times, but still. It should be workable.
 
DLD said:
If it's as hot a seller as expected, it "might" drop a grand in a year. The problem with C100 MKI and II and C300 were that they were 1080p models facing the onslaught of the various 4K models. C300 MKII and C500, given their competition, were overpriced from the get-go. I don't think anyone thinks that C200 is overpriced.
Click to expand...

It is over priced by the compitition if it doesn't have 10 bit 422.
 
Fahnon said:
Well you know how it goes... If you intend to use the raw feature primarily, compare the price to a RED Raven or Scarlet W. The more I think about it, the more I'm sure this is intended to be a RAW camera first and foremost, and the broadcast spec'd camera is the C300 mk2.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is a 4K 12 bit raw camera, that also happens to have 4K 8 bit 4:2:0 MP4 as well. But the main reason to buy it is to shoot raw. The competition is the RED Raven and Scarlet, and this seems to offer much more than those for less money.

For broadcast, there's the C300mk2. It only costs $2500 more than the C200. Choice is good.

Personally, I don't need the 10 bit 4:2:2 at this time. None of my clients request it right now. I want 4K raw for shooting indie film projects, and MP4 for fast turnaround no-color-grading jobs, which pays the bills.

EDIT: Fixed the price difference between C200 and C300mk2.
 
Last edited:
Fahnon said:
Well you know how it goes... If you intend to use the raw feature primarily, compare the price to a RED Raven or Scarlet W. The more I think about it, the more I'm sure this is intended to be a RAW camera first and foremost, and the broadcast spec'd camera is the C300 mk2.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I think if it was "intended to be a raw camera first and foremost" they'd have put more than one CFast slot in there rather than 2 SD cards for the low-bitrate MP4 and one CFast for the Cinema Raw Light.
 
Fahnon said:
Well you know how it goes... If you intend to use the raw feature primarily, compare the price to a RED Raven or Scarlet W. The more I think about it, the more I'm sure this is intended to be a RAW camera first and foremost, and the broadcast spec'd camera is the C300 mk2.
Click to expand...

This is a great way to look at it and to determine if it is a good value for how you would use it.
 
Jaime Valles said:
The competition is the RED Raven and Scarlet, and this seems to offer much more than those for less money.
Click to expand...

I think they vary with what they offer...

The C200 has the very useful ND filters and XLRs on the body and probably pretty good battery life, whereas the Raven and S-W might edge it out with higher dynamic range and certain specs like offering 8-10 different resolutions with a choice of 1-300 frames per second (in certain resolutions) along with 2K-4K ProRes (based on the model).

Canon's AF is super useful and I've always liked the buttons on the body (especially if they lit up, but they don't), but then there are some things you can do with the RED side handle that are very nifty like controlling focus with electronic lenses or programing the buttons to lower or raise audio levels, the focus edge feature is the best I have ever seen in any camera, REDCODE RAW (and even FLUT control) is just wonderful.

There are also features and settings that many people probably don't really know about unless you're a RED shooter like HDRx shooting, rack focusing, the speed ramp mode, pre-recording...lots of little things. The menus and control can get pretty advanced.

The RED GUI and having immediate user-friendly access to all of your main settings in the upper status row is extremely useful. (Blackmagics have always done this well too in their own way.)

The biggest issue is the price, per usual, and what the C200 offers is plenty, but it's just a different camera than the REDs.

Edit: Grammatical Error
 
Last edited:
Jaime Valles said:
Exactly. This is a 4K 12 bit raw camera, that also happens to have 4K 8 bit 4:2:0 MP4 as well. But the main reason to buy it is to shoot raw. The competition is the RED Raven and Scarlet, and this seems to offer much more than those for less money.

For broadcast, there's the C300mk2. It only costs $1500 more than the C200. Choice is good.
Click to expand...

Canon has given .mp4 for proxy. It should be used as main files if it suits the purpose. Else, the primary purpose is to use the 8 bit files as proxy for RAW files during grading and for safety. This is a camera targeted at the RED lovers and the indie guys. It may not be suitable for everybody. However, the price of this camera will be stable unlike the C300 Mark II.
 
Last edited:
jbregar said:
I dunno. I think if it was "intended to be a raw camera first and foremost" they'd have put more than one CFast slot in there rather than 2 SD cards for the low-bitrate MP4 and one CFast for the Cinema Raw Light.
Click to expand...

None of the REDs have dual slots. As far as I know only Blackmagic makes RAW Cinema cameras with dual slots. I think the reason they have 2x SD card slots is because for event/wedding/interviews you would be using those two slots for redundancy or for uninterrupted recording. For narrative you'd usually only be running for a few minutes per take in RAW, and can build in time to offload into your schedule.
 
Jaime Valles said:
Exactly. This is a 4K 12 bit raw camera, that also happens to have 4K 8 bit 4:2:0 MP4 as well. But the main reason to buy it is to shoot raw. The competition is the RED Raven and Scarlet, and this seems to offer much more than those for less money.

For broadcast, there's the C300mk2. It only costs $1500 more than the C200. Choice is good.

Personally, I don't need the 10 bit 4:2:2 at this time. None of my clients request it right now. I want 4K raw for shooting indie film projects, and MP4 for fast turnaround no-color-grading jobs, which pays the bills.
Click to expand...

You and I are in exactly the same boat, and I'd bet there are enough of us to make this camera a hit.
 
Fahnon said:
Well you know how it goes... If you intend to use the raw feature primarily, compare the price to a RED Raven or Scarlet W. The more I think about it, the more I'm sure this is intended to be a RAW camera first and foremost, and the broadcast spec'd camera is the C300 mk2.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I mean Canon makes you buy 2 very expensive cameras for the price of one, when other cameras have 10 bit 422. The idea of a raw only camera is ridiculous to me, maybe not to others but to me a semi-hobby guy. When I shoot I usually have 3 or 4 cameras going. Raw on one will stick out like a sore thumb compared to my other c100's and 5D3's. I need to March and color grade more than I need raw.

According to another post looks like the Raw- light, ain't so light..... and a MacBook or IMac will have a hard time dealing with it. I would rather just get an external recorder for raw. I will not buy this C200 after coming off the initial high when it was announced. I will buy a used C300 mkii.
 
indiawilds said:
Canon has given .mp4 for proxy. It should be used as main files if it suits the purpose. Else, the primary purpose is to use the 8 bit files as proxy for RAW files during grading and for safety. This is a camera targeted at the RED lovers and the indie guys. It may not be suitable for everybody. However, the price of this camera will be stable unlike the C300 Mark II.
Click to expand...

According to another poster who has seen the camera in person, the mp4s have a different naming scheme, which makes the proxy workflow quite unworkable ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
mrtreve said:
According to another poster who has seen the camera in person, the mp4s have a different naming scheme, which makes the proxy workflow quite unworkable ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...

That would be me, and Loren Simons from Canon Burbank confirmed this in his presentation the other night. Very frustrating. Canon is not referring to the recording as a proxy, they refer to it as a "Sub-recording".
 
The C200 seems to be getting far more interest from the filmmaking community than the C300 II or the C100 II got. There just seems to be more talk about it and more preorders from what I am seeing. I am guessing it has to do with the RAW Lite. Honestly, I only see the RAW Lite being useful for product shots and low budget narrative. It's a great niche, though, and it inspires enthusiasm among comment boards who tend to be made up of people dreaming of making their narrative short or feature. The C300 II is still a better camera for doc and corporate work. And the C100 II is more cost effective for event work unless you need 4K which generally isn't a requirement. I think Canon has most of the market covered right now, they just don't have a camera that does it all in one package.
 
DLD said:
If it's as hot a seller as expected, it "might" drop a grand in a year. The problem with C100 MKI and II and C300 were that they were 1080p models facing the onslaught of the various 4K models. C300 MKII and C500, given their competition, were overpriced from the get-go. I don't think anyone thinks that C200 is overpriced.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The C200 won't be as popular as the C100 mk1 or C300 mk1 were.

There is a heck of lot of competition out there for a weirdly crippled camera like the C200 to be a runaway success.

Michael Thames said:
It is over priced by the competition if it doesn't have 10 bit 422.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Fahnon said:
Well you know how it goes... If you intend to use the raw feature primarily, compare the price to a RED Raven or Scarlet W. The more I think about it, the more I'm sure this is intended to be a RAW camera first and foremost, and the broadcast spec'd camera is the C300 mk2.
Click to expand...

If you're looking at it from that perspective, then as a raw camera it has extremely strong competition from the URSA Mini Pro 4.6K and Kinefinity Terra 6K (plus eventually the Terra 5K. Plus you could even count in the FS700/FS5/FS7/FS7mk2 and Panasonic EVA1, all of which have raw output. There is also the secondhand camera market, a Sony PMW-F5 secondhand does raw and is not far off in price from a C200 at all. Plus all the various flavors of secondhand RED cameras).

Now the biggest issue I see here, is only a very small niche of people would be looking at cameras in this price segment and ONLY shooting raw all the time.

You need a middle ground codec to shoot all those other jobs which pay you to keep your lights on and food on the table.

All of those other ones I mentioned have that option. The Canon C200 doesn't. Like I said, the C200 is a weirdly crippled camera (to protect the Canon C300mk2 of course!).

And that is totally ignoring the question if the C200 can even beat the other competitors when it comes to just raw! (highly debatable indeed, I know I'd prefer many of those over a C200 if I was to pick a camera to shoot raw in)

jbregar said:
I dunno. I think if it was "intended to be a raw camera first and foremost" they'd have put more than one CFast slot in there rather than 2 SD cards for the low-bitrate MP4 and one CFast for the Cinema Raw Light.
Click to expand...

Ha! Spot on, that probably gives away what Canon was really thinking when they designed the C200.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top