C200: Rumor: Internal 4:2:2 recording coming to C200 via FW update
- Thread starter Fahnon
- Start date
Dustin Svehlak
Well-known member
chris f
Veteran
puredrifting
Major Contributor
According to Wikipedia, C300 was announced in November, 2011 and MKII in September , 2015, a four year cycle indeed. In fairness, MKII was pretty much a different camera altogether.
C200 was announced in May, 2017 and, IIRC, you got yours around September (along with $2K worth of CFast 2.0 cards). So, Canon has a marketing choice and they had typically gone with a massive price drop option, while releasing a different camera somewhere else in their lineup.
So, C400 around September it is.
With C200 falling down to $5,000.
And CFast 2.0 cards given away for free.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Come visit the "FS-7 successor" thread. Kind of ledge worthy.
Which makes me think that something will be shown or announced at Cinegear ... like a new Battery Grip/EVF combo or something in that vein.
mraaron895
Well-known member
I'm trading in my C300 MK II for a C200. After using it for 4 years I'm tired of externally recording 4k. I'm putting my money into an Alienware to beef up transcoding.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Interesting aside, I shot three days of BTS on a TV Movie this week with my C200. I didn't shoot CRL, client requested 1080 Prores HQ so I shot to my Atomos Ninja Blade. On the feature, the A and B cameras were C300 MKIIs, both used with some nice Leica Primes and the pair of Angenieux EZ1 and 2 zooms, which looked nice. Both cameras were shooting internal XF-AVC, but of course, being a feature, they had enough crew and a proper amount of G&L to make the images sing, good DP and crew. I just found it funny as most features I shoot BTS on are using Alexa SXTs, Minis or occasionally REDs and this one was using our good old C300 MKIIs. For the subject matter (Rom Com) and the audience (popular cable channel), they chose the right camera.
I love shooting RAW on my own films because I shoot documentaries in the most challenging lighting situations. If I was able to light and control light in a feature situation, the C300 MKII is excellent. But internal RAW sure is more convenient.
I love shooting RAW on my own films because I shoot documentaries in the most challenging lighting situations. If I was able to light and control light in a feature situation, the C300 MKII is excellent. But internal RAW sure is more convenient.
Dustin Svehlak
Well-known member
This is severely off topic but The EZ zooms seems to have a love / hate thing going on with a lot of DPs but, man, we have not been able to keep them on the shelf at my rental house. Angenieux makes BY FAR the easiest EF to PL conversion process and even switching the optics to cover large format is simple enough. I really like these lenses.
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
If I could afford them, I'd buy them. I used to use Angenieux lenses quite a bit on my Arri SR2 back in the day, great glass
This is very generic but, just scanning all the features available already on the "consumer" cameras and not on C200 ought to point toward the direction of possible improvement on a possible replacement. Additionally, one can scan for features/quality available on the higher end product - and even beyond that, on smartphones and audio recorders, such as embedded memory - that ought to migrate to the more affordable niche. What remains then is an expectation of a given value at a given price point at a given point in time.
And, as the times moves forward, so do the expectations.
And this is why I wouldn't be surprised to see Canon eventually bring an in-between codec to the C200 once the C300 mk III is announced. Depending on what your needs are, the C200 may be superior to the C300 MK II. I mean 4k/60, internal raw and lighter weight might be more important than a broadcast codec and timecode (both of which can be added to the C200 externally).
But I'd bet everything that a new C300 mk III would be a clear step up to C200 and that's when Canon may give the masses what they want because they won't have to protect the more expensive camera.
Last edited:
Remember what we expected when this site launched and we were all shooting with or, in my case, couldn't afford a DVX100B? That camera cost $4k back then, which would be a little under $5,700 in today's money. One of it's biggest features was shooting in 23.976 in 16x9. Now for roughly that money you get a C200B/Ursa Mini.
We should probably keep that in mind when we (myself included) ***** about a camera lacking one feature that keeps it from being "perfect".
Last edited:
I was thinking full video bodies, but yeah you're right that the DSLR revolution changed everything for the better in a big way. I think a lot of us who were around then may have opted for something like an X-T3 and MixPre combo over a full body.
Last edited: