C200: The Canon C200 Petition

So I'm thinking it played out in one of two ways...

Canon spoke with hundreds (or just listened) and the majority of the feedback was to NOT include a solid spec'd middle ground recording option...or Canon spoke with hundreds and the majority recommended various specs, but they still did what they wanted.

But compromises always need to be made...camera still looks awesome.
 
Arri currently dominates china, as for mid level productions my guess is that sony is the go to... kinefinity too for indie jobs and since they have pro res internal in their kine models, post houses are happy!

while we are doing the canon petition, who wants false color incorporated into the C200 monitor? i for one find it useful and that is something that can be done via firmware, i don't believe the EVA-1 will have false color either...
 
Mitch Gross said:
It is amazing that a few individualson a forum feel that they know everything about how multinational corporations work ...
Click to expand...
There is a plethora of books on the Japanese management techniques and general info on careers with the various Japanese companies.

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Panasonic-RVW10476653.htm

http://www.panasonic.com/global/corporate/history/konosuke-matsus*%ta/story4-05.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/technology/09iht-panasonic09.html

NorBro said:
So I'm thinking it played out in one of two ways...

Canon spoke with hundreds (or just listened) and the majority of the feedback was to NOT include a solid spec'd middle ground recording option...or Canon spoke with hundreds and the majority recommended various specs, but they still did what they wanted.

But compromises always need to be made...camera still looks awesome.
Click to expand...
Or more like,

"Hello, Mr. Sony. These are the specs for our upcoming camera".

"Uhm, how about you cripple something? Anything?"

"Fine. We can screw up codec, monitor, EVF. Take your pick".

"Innie, minnie - codec it is".

"You got it".
 
Last edited:
DLD said:
Or more like,

"Hello, Mr. Sony. These are the specs for our upcoming camera".

"Uhm, how about you cripple something? Anything?"

"Fine. We can screw up codec, monitor, EVF. Take your pick".

"Innie, minnie - codec it is".

"You got it".
Click to expand...

Well, no one should be accusing Sony of protectionism since the release of the FS7 which must've cannibalised quite a few F5 sales. The FS7, F5 and F55 all have slightly different target markets for e.g the F5 is a far better choice for multi camera broadcast work than the FS7 and there's similar arguments to make in choosing the F55 over the F5 for higher end productions.

The difference between Sony and Canon is that I think Sony has accepted a degree of overlap and inevitable cannibalisation that Canon won't accept thus Canon produce cameras like the C200. The choices Sony makes with market segmentation seems far more in line with usage cases than Canon, this hasn't always been the case though.

I just have no idea who would want the C200, it doesn't appear to be aimed at the same people buy FS7s like they're going out of fashion? There's no doubt RAW Light will make some pretty pictures but currently the data load is not insignificant, there's only a single slot and the affordable CFast cards are relatively small making RAW Light useless for most real world production work, the buggeration factor is just too high for day in day out usage. So the C200 is effectively an 8 bit camera for the most part and who the heck wants an 8 bit camera in 2017 in this market segment?

I'm not sure Canon see the C200 as being crippled, they see it as an enhanced C100 with RAW Light and worthy of the C200 moniker, the issue is actually them missing what the market actually wants, forget RAW Light I want my 10 bit H264 pragmatic codec! The C200 could've been a better camera if Canon could accept it would cannibalise some C300 mkII (& mkIII) sales yet offered bona fide reasons for cameras to exist in particular price points.

The Camera manufacturers are obviously concerned by the approaching 'Camera Singularity' where the next camera we buy is the last one because who needs more than 4k, 200fps 16 stops of DR in a really nice codec? They'll be stringing out small evolutionary enhancements or doing what Canon have done and bolting on shiny features that really aren't that useful and calling it progress.
 
Nirv said:
I just have no idea who would want the C200…

There's no doubt RAW Light will make some pretty pictures but currently the data load is not insignificant, there's only a single slot and the affordable CFast cards are relatively small making RAW Light useless for most real world production work, the buggeration factor is just too high for day in day out usage. So the C200 is effectively an 8 bit camera for the most part and who the heck wants an 8 bit camera in 2017 in this market segment?.
Click to expand...

You manage to take Canon's highest specced internal recording camera—with 12bit 4k dci raw light—and reduce it to an 8bit camera "for the most part".

You do admit to not "having an idea" as to who would want this camera. Perhaps this struggle with comprehension influences your reasoning? It IS maybe the 3rd or 4th time I read a similar post from you where you highlight the virtues and benefits of Sony cameras in the Canon forum.

You are free to love Sony cameras as much as you want, but why do you keep writing these posts here in the Canon forum where the majority of users can be expected to to already "get" Canon—for one reason or another?

I wouldn't rule out that Canon will find quite a few customers who will be able to either not notice at all, or work around, the severe limitations you underline.
 
Nirv said:
I just have no idea who would want the C200...
Click to expand...

Anybody that was in the market for a RED Raven or Scarlet.

I want the C200 specifically to shoot internal raw to CFast cards. The 8-bit MP4 to SD cards is just the icing on the cake that lets me use the C200 for other jobs that don't require raw.

It doesn't bother me too much that there's only one CFast slot in it. The RED cameras only have one REDMAG slot and few people complain.

I don't see this camera as a competitor for Sony's FS7 at all. That's the C300mkII (now at less than $10K).
 
Nirv said:
I just have no idea who would want the C200...
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple. I currently have a RED Scarlet MX, which only shoots RAW. When I used to have a Blackmagic camera, I almost exclusively shot RAW. I pretty much always want to shoot that way when I have the option. I also have never had a broadcast client (even though I have had footage make it to air) and have never had anyone demand 10-bit. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the middle ground codec too, but it's not even close to a deal breaker. The C200 has literally everything I could possibly want beyond that 10-bit that I'll likely not use nearly as much as the RAW anyway.

PS - I've never had any trouble with banding or grading regular old C300 footage, which was 8-bit...
 
Here: 12bit Raw light, 15 stops DR, best autofocus around, 4k 60p in 10 bit raw. All in a really small light package. Yeah, what nut would want those specs.
 
AndreeOnline said:
I wouldn't rule out that Canon will find quite a few customers who will be able to either not notice at all, or work around, the severe limitations you underline.
Click to expand...

The FS7 was in severe supply constraints due high demand for two years after release, I suspect those who want a C200 will have absolutely no problem getting one immediately and for its entire production run.

Your argument may hold more water if there wasn't this thread calling for a high performance 10 bit pragmatic codec. The OP like me, is a pragmatist and understands the needs of working professionals I'm not convinced you do Andree. I'm sure the 'Camera Fanciers' here love the specs of the C200 but a professional video producer making a good level corporate production would balk at the data demands of RAW Light. With such a small record time on available media shooting RAW Light becomes the exception rather than the rule. You chose to insinuate fanboyism rather than comprehend the point I was making. The size of the CFast2.0 media would force producers to shoot 8bit more than RAW Light, so for the most part this camera should be seen as an 8 bit camera.

Had Canon been serious they'd have incorporated at least 2 CFast slots to allow continuous feeding of media to improve the workflow. But they chose not to and therefore have limited the usefulness of the camera.

Are there enough frustrated lo/no indie filmmakers and back garden flower film producers to make this camera a financial hit? Is this a dentist's holiday camera? I suspect even a dentist will balk at the cost of large CFast cards to cover a day's filming in RAW Light.

All that glitters is not gold. It could be fools' gold.
 
Nirv said:
The FS7 was in severe supply constraints due high demand for two years after release, I suspect those who want a C200 will have absolutely no problem getting one immediately and for its entire production run.

Your argument may hold more water if there wasn't this thread calling for a high performance 10 bit pragmatic codec. The OP like me, is a pragmatist and understands the needs of working professionals I'm not convinced you do Andree. I'm sure the 'Camera Fanciers' here love the specs of the C200 but a professional video producer making a good level corporate production would balk at the data demands of RAW Light. With such a small record time on available media shooting RAW Light becomes the exception rather than the rule. You chose to insinuate fanboyism rather than comprehend the point I was making. The size of the CFast2.0 media would force producers to shoot 8bit more than RAW Light, so for the most part this camera should be seen as an 8 bit camera.

Had Canon been serious they'd have incorporated at least 2 CFast slots to allow continuous feeding of media to improve the workflow. But they chose not to and therefore have limited the usefulness of the camera.

Are there enough frustrated lo/no indie filmmakers and back garden flower film producers to make this camera a financial hit? Is this a dentist's holiday camera? I suspect even a dentist will balk at the cost of large CFast cards to cover a day's filming in RAW Light.

All that glitters is not gold. It could be fools' gold.
Click to expand...

Wow, pedantic much? Almost makes you wonder how any professional work ever got done with film cameras? Yes, 10 minute mags were what we were handicapped with yet somehow, lots of professional quality work got shot on film over the past century. Who would shoot with 128GB CFast cards when there are currently 256GB cards available now and very soon we will have 512GB (available today, just not yet in the approved brands but coming soon) and 1TB CFast cards? I don't think having to change a CFAST card every 30 or 60 minutes will be that much of a handicap, even when shooting interviews. Heck, I was doing that with the HVX200 shooting 1080 with 16GB P2 cards just ten years ago. Sure we had two card slots but I could only afford so many expensive P2 cards, which cost a heck of a lot more than CFast 2.0 cards, even ten years ago. "Hang on interviewer or interviewee, have to change cards for moment." I never had a producer/interviewer melt down or a talent walk out of an interview because we had to take :15 to change a card.

Granted, we all want a 10-bit intermediate codec but for those who that is a dealbreaker, C300 MKII, EVA 1, FS7, etc. Not like there is nowhere to go to get that. The C200 was B&H's number one pre-order item for at least a week. I don't think Canon will have too many sitting in warehouses not selling. Sure, it has limitations, but which camera doesn't? It seems that in your opinion, the C200 is useless and people are stupid for not buying an FS7. Problem is, the FS7 image looks like a Sony. Not that there is anything bad about that but many people cannot/do not want to spend the time and effort needed to grade the FS7 footage into something that looks great. FS7 footage straight from camera is not generally thought of as beautiful. I've been this close to buying one many times over the past two years but I am glad that I held out for a Canon that will work better for me and our clients needs instead. Glad it has the small footprint .MP4 as well as the RAW and I am not holding my breath for anything great from XF-AVC codec update. I agree with a lot of posters, I suspect it will be 8-bit 4:2:0 at not a very high bit rate. Oh well, still doesn't negate the camera for our needs. We may add a Shogun Inferno if our clients need/want that for some shoots, big deal.
 
Sony's been sitting on their CineAlta butts for over six years now. F55 aside, F65 and F5 sales have been very sluggish and F55 has seen a greater popularity in sports and news broadcast (Sony funded productions aside), with Alexa dominating the high budget film and TV narratives. At the very least, Sony could have come out with the F65 sensor based camera in a F55 body and F55 workflow. As it is, with the FS7 release, it had nothing to protect.

Oh and FS-7 sales have long come down. C100 II, C300 II, BMD URSA iterations ship considerably more units in the US*. For a three year old model, it's a gem but it's still a three year old model.

*If one goes off B&H sales rankings.
 
puredrifting said:
Wow, pedantic much? Almost makes you wonder how any professional work ever got done with film cameras? Yes, 10 minute mags were what we were handicapped with yet somehow, lots of professional quality work got shot on film over the past century. Who would shoot with 128GB CFast cards when there are currently 256GB cards available now and very soon we will have 512GB (available today, just not yet in the approved brands but coming soon) and 1TB CFast cards? I don't think having to change a CFAST card every 30 or 60 minutes will be that much of a handicap, even when shooting interviews. Heck, I was doing that with the HVX200 shooting 1080 with 16GB P2 cards just ten years ago. Sure we had two card slots but I could only afford so many expensive P2 cards, which cost a heck of a lot more than CFast 2.0 cards, even ten years ago. "Hang on interviewer or interviewee, have to change cards for moment." I never had a producer/interviewer melt down or a talent walk out of an interview because we had to take :15 to change a card.

Granted, we all want a 10-bit intermediate codec but for those who that is a dealbreaker, C300 MKII, EVA 1, FS7, etc. Not like there is nowhere to go to get that. The C200 was B&H's number one pre-order item for at least a week. I don't think Canon will have too many sitting in warehouses not selling. Sure, it has limitations, but which camera doesn't? It seems that in your opinion, the C200 is useless and people are stupid for not buying an FS7. Problem is, the FS7 image looks like a Sony. Not that there is anything bad about that but many people cannot/do not want to spend the time and effort needed to grade the FS7 footage into something that looks great. FS7 footage straight from camera is not generally thought of as beautiful. I've been this close to buying one many times over the past two years but I am glad that I held out for a Canon that will work better for me and our clients needs instead. Glad it has the small footprint .MP4 as well as the RAW and I am not holding my breath for anything great from XF-AVC codec update. I agree with a lot of posters, I suspect it will be 8-bit 4:2:0 at not a very high bit rate. Oh well, still doesn't negate the camera for our needs. We may add a Shogun Inferno if our clients need/want that for some shoots, big deal.
Click to expand...

I'm not in the market for the 200, but I will say only having one card slot is a major negative in my book, and probably many others, as well. I've never shot film, but I did start out in the Beta days with "only" a 30 minute tape load, so I can vouch, too, that we did good things back in the day with "limited" record times. BUT that doesn't mean that I want to go back to those days, either. I have five slots in my P2 Vari's and two each in my C300 and F55. It's just how we're used to working, now. Hell, I still hold my 2700's as the gold standard with five slots. I can put in five 64GB P2 cards and go and go and go. One of the big drawbacks of the VariCam LT, in my opinion, is it's single primary record slot. I'm all for having a "proxy" media slot, like an SD card, etc., in addition to the primary, but I think a professional imaging device should have at least two record slots that support spanned recording, if not spanned and dual record options.
 
puredrifting said:
Wow, pedantic much? Almost makes you wonder how any professional work ever got done with film cameras? Yes, 10 minute mags were what we were handicapped with yet somehow, lots of professional quality work got shot on film over the past century. Who would shoot with 128GB CFast cards when there are currently 256GB cards available now and very soon we will have 512GB (available today, just not yet in the approved brands but coming soon) and 1TB CFast cards? I don't think having to change a CFAST card every 30 or 60 minutes will be that much of a handicap, even when shooting interviews. Heck, I was doing that with the HVX200 shooting 1080 with 16GB P2 cards just ten years ago. Sure we had two card slots but I could only afford so many expensive P2 cards, which cost a heck of a lot more than CFast 2.0 cards, even ten years ago. "Hang on interviewer or interviewee, have to change cards for moment." I never had a producer/interviewer melt down or a talent walk out of an interview because we had to take :15 to change a card.

Granted, we all want a 10-bit intermediate codec but for those who that is a dealbreaker, C300 MKII, EVA 1, FS7, etc. Not like there is nowhere to go to get that. The C200 was B&H's number one pre-order item for at least a week. I don't think Canon will have too many sitting in warehouses not selling. Sure, it has limitations, but which camera doesn't? It seems that in your opinion, the C200 is useless and people are stupid for not buying an FS7. Problem is, the FS7 image looks like a Sony. Not that there is anything bad about that but many people cannot/do not want to spend the time and effort needed to grade the FS7 footage into something that looks great. FS7 footage straight from camera is not generally thought of as beautiful. I've been this close to buying one many times over the past two years but I am glad that I held out for a Canon that will work better for me and our clients needs instead. Glad it has the small footprint .MP4 as well as the RAW and I am not holding my breath for anything great from XF-AVC codec update. I agree with a lot of posters, I suspect it will be 8-bit 4:2:0 at not a very high bit rate. Oh well, still doesn't negate the camera for our needs. We may add a Shogun Inferno if our clients need/want that for some shoots, big deal.
Click to expand...

128 GB $350, 256 GB $680 and 512 GB $1300 are Sandisk And Lexar media prices off B&H. These media sizes and prices combined with the data rate of RAW Light will limit the usage. You're right a C300 II would be a better choice than to blow a wad on media.

The realities of a typical corporate gig with several takes for interviews and lots of shots of the workplace/factory/product etc you'll need several hours worth of cfast cards and big ones if you don't want to be watching the time remaining hoping the boring suit would get to the point. We would normally shoot about 3-4 hours of footage a day but had enough media to shoot 8 hours which is pretty standard.
 
Run&Gun said:
I'm not in the market for the 200, but I will say only having one card slot is a major negative in my book, and probably many others, as well.
Click to expand...

You probably looked at the specs of the C200 and realised that it wasn't the right camera for you. I can't imagine there were too many bumps in that thought process—or drama for that matter.

Large-ish files and single media slot doesn't lend itself to events that unfold unscripted in front of the camera. It probably isn't a good idea to shoot documentaries in raw light. As many have said before, the C200 is probably a much more interesting choice in situations where someone might have used a RED Raven or Scarlet. Those cameras seem to be popular with smaller creative shoots like music videos or other scripted stuff. I think it's a great choice for corporate image films too.

I can also image the C200 being popular at film schools or educations were they want rich files for the whole post production workflow. This is also a good reason for someone to pick up the camera, even if they only shoot mostly personal projects—but still enjoy the creative process.

With 256GB memory card prices at $399, I don't feel that prices are too extreme. That is what a Transcend CFX650 costs now. I haven't had a single issue recording 4k60 on my 1Dx mkII which is at 800Mbit/s and the card is certified by Blackmagic for the URSA Mini Pro for ProRes HQ 4k60 which is 1.886 Gbit/s. And prices will only go down.

I guess the only thing to look out for at this point is not stepping on toes of all the people out there who used to peddle their 10bit recordings as "high end" (air quotes). If you do so—they might lash out. It's as if the idea itself of another camera wedging its way in between them and RED/Arri/Blackmagic and knocks them another notch down the proverbial ladder doesn't go over all that well.
 
Good point Andree, if you think about it, 10-bit 4:2:2 has now been relegated to "average" from what used to be "almost the best" (RAW's obviously always been the best, but how many of us were shooting RAW previously? A few but not many) but kind of out of reach for the sub $10k crowd. I don't think many of the naysayers realize that a major player like Canon has fired the first shot across the bow and that very soon, almost all cameras will have to migrate to some sort of RAW or RAW Light workflow. All of the editing programs will natively support it and we all know that CFast cards are going to take a big price reduction as capacity goes up. Sure, the cards aren't cheap but it depends on your viewpoint. Compared to P2 Express cards, CFast 2.0 cards are dirt cheap. Compared to RED Mags, they are dirt cheap. Compared to 1,000 feet of Kodak 5219T stock, lab and telecine...

Think about it, if a 128GB card gives you 15 minutes today, that means that a 512GB card is going to give you an hour. A 1TB card, two hours. Do the math what a few hours of P2 Express cards will set you back for your Varicam LT. By the end of next year, it may be possible that many of us will own 3-4 TB of Cfast cards and will not have had to pay an arm and a leg for them. Same with drive space for all of this RAW. Many will have no problem editing with the 2K proxies and just doing the old fashioned conform with the RAW at the end. Not as big of a deal as many of the alarmists would have us believe. The market is ripe for someone to swoop in and take a LOT of Sandisk and Lexar CFast customers at a much lower price point. Like all memory cards and drives, what seems expensive today is always going to become really cheap in the near the future. The difference is that the few Arri, BMD and C300 MKII shooters using Cfast 2.0 cards were not a critical mass, not a huge market for the Cfast manufacturers. But thousands of C200 owners and eventually quite a few thousand more C300 MKIII owners will be. Sure, TODAY, Cinema RAW Light is a bit of a conundrum. But by this time next year, I don't think it will be as much.
 
Last edited:
Run&Gun said:
I'm not in the market for the 200, but I will say only having one card slot is a major negative in my book, and probably many others, as well. I've never shot film, but I did start out in the Beta days with "only" a 30 minute tape load, so I can vouch, too, that we did good things back in the day with "limited" record times. BUT that doesn't mean that I want to go back to those days, either. I have five slots in my P2 Vari's and two each in my C300 and F55. It's just how we're used to working, now. Hell, I still hold my 2700's as the gold standard with five slots. I can put in five 64GB P2 cards and go and go and go. One of the big drawbacks of the VariCam LT, in my opinion, is it's single primary record slot. I'm all for having a "proxy" media slot, like an SD card, etc., in addition to the primary, but I think a professional imaging device should have at least two record slots that support spanned recording, if not spanned and dual record options.
Click to expand...

I get it. I did come from film so when we graduated to Beta SP, 30 minute tapes were a luxury ;-) Today, I shoot a lot with my Atomos Ninja Blade, which gives me over five hours of 10-bit Prores HQ on a $300.00 SSD so I understand the dilemma. Like everything else, it will always boil down to what you are shooting. And I shoot documentaries, I get that many times, you just have to roll and roll, you can't always plan for how much media you will need. For those situations, I would tend to use another Atomos recorder with the C200 today, until we see a reduction of Cfast card prices and an upping of capacity. Then I will ditch the Atomos and shoot most of my own docs on Cinema RAW Light. I guess for me, technology is always fluid and changing so I care about what I need to use today to shoot job X but I also realize that someone may come out with a cool SSD solution for Cinema RAW Light. I know the cards will get bigger and a lot cheaper. So I am taking the leap. Plus I am going to pick up an EVA 1 to at least try for a month or two and then who knows, maybe I'll sell the C200 and keep the EVA 1? Maybe vice-versa? Who knows? It's all fluid at this point. I'm still shooting 1080 today, my drone and Go Pros are 4K but my A and B cameras are only 1080 so waiting for that delivery from B&H.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people have been shooting RAW for the past half decade. I would bet that most Blackmagic and RED people wouldn't understand arguments against the amount of media that's needed and/or the pricing of it. It is such a normal practice for them and just part of owning the camera system.

Although Canon might be the first (between Sony and Panasonic) to offer internal RAW without any add-ons, they are technically the last to offer some sort of RAW recording (besides like Olympus, JVC, and what not).
 
NorBro said:
A lot of people have been shooting RAW for the past half decade. I would bet that most Blackmagic and RED people wouldn't understand arguments against the amount of media that's needed and/or the pricing of it. It is such a normal practice for them and just part of owning the camera system.
Click to expand...
I'd mostly attribute it to the disconnect, in terms of needs and expectations, between folks who work primarily in the videography/broadcast/event world and those who work primarily in cinema (especially narrative cinema). This camera *seems* pretty great for the latter, and is plainly not made with the former in mind as a primary concern.

On another note, anyone think that a CFast --> Breakout --> SSD solution might be at all feasible with this thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top