C200: The new Canon C200 with 4K

NMSK said:
True, but they didn't list what colour gamut was being used and that's what I havent found a lot of information on yet. C300ii lets you select 709/2020/P3/Cinema Gamut for Clog2/3; so far there's no mention of cinema gamut anywhere and I assume there's no Rec2020 support also.

I'm looking forward to some info on the XF-AVC support in 2018 and whether it's going to enable 10bit 4K recording in the same flavours as the C300ii or if it will only offer the 305mbps 8bit 422 XFAVC from the XC10/15, which I think may be the case to protect the C300ii to some degree as it's not really close to the end of its product cycle - so potentially, what could ultimately differentiate the C200 and C300ii could be bit depth and bit rate.

...It's just kind of strange how the C200 is currently either only 8bit 4K 100/150 mbps or 12bit Raw 4K up to 1 gpbs. Catering for very different markets there. Makes me wonder why the 4K MP4 codecs couldn't have made their way into the 1DXii/5DIV and made them bigger hits with their market.
Click to expand...

The two codec options do smack of the classic, "Dammit engineering, we here in marketing are ready to push this out into the world NOW" Engineering replies back, "We told you nitwits in sales that the XF-AVC integration with the new RAW Light needed six more months." Sales and Marketing replies back, "Screw it, we are selling this camera NOW, you guys will have to just firmware that XF-AVC implementation in later. Sony is eating our lunch with the FS7 and FS7 MKII and Panasonic is coming in hot with the new sub $10k digital cinema camera at Cine Gear, it's now or never."

Or so I would imagine...
 
Last edited:
You would really have to have a tremendous reason to buy a C300 Mark II for a specific bit depth or bit rate over the C200 and what it currently offers...
 
Is it too early to say it's a perfect cam? ha

(I still don't like the LCD positioning though.)

I'm all posted-out...I got so excited in the first 20 minutes, I have nothing left to say.

But I will say this...after I started using the 5D Mark IV heavily, I realized I could never use another camera again without DPAF or something as good, and this touchscreen on the C200 is just making it so hard not to want this camera.
 
Unless the new Panasonic offering blows me away, I may get the C200. But honestly, RAW does nothing for me, it's a way to burn through a lot of expensive CFast cards and to generate obscene amounts of data that I don't need. I will definitely want to shoot XF-AVC. But will it be too difficult to have the handicap of only 4:2:0 8-bit while I wait for Canon to deliver the XF-AVC codec to my camera in 2018 sometime? That is the question. I know what you mean, NOT having DPAF scares me, I shoot a lot in bright sunlight and without a good EVF, it's really hard to pull focus accurately when you can barely see the screen. I have the Zacuto EVF Pro, it works pretty well on my C100/C300. But a 4K camera? I don't know. It might mean buying a Zacuto Gratical Eye, which adds $2k to the bottom line.
 
NorBro said:
You would really have to have a tremendous reason to buy a C300 Mark II for a specific bit depth or bit rate over the C200 and what it currently offers...
Click to expand...

Well, with the c200, you're either back to trying to grade 4K 8bit 420 100mbps log footage, or forking out thousands for Cfast cards to record ridiculous amounts of data shooting lite-raw and either transcoding or buying s*%tloads of HDD space to store it all. C200 shooters will be begging for the 410mbps 10bit 4K and 10/12bit 2K 444 modes from the C300ii if they want to do anything easily. Even then you get 41 minutes of 4K per 128gb card at 410mbps, so you still need to invest in Cfast cards if you want to shoot all day. With this said, it will be interesting to see how Canon will handle the XFAVC implementation (ie, whether they will offer 10bit 4K 422 410mbps or just the 8bit UHD 422 305mbps flavour).

So Norbro, I'd say the C300ii's vastly easier/quicker post production workflow, greater internal colour gamut support, onboard CFast recording redunancy, onboard genlock/timecode, 2nd SDI port etc etc would be quite attractive to anyone shooting for broadcast, episodic tv, commercials, or long form cinematic documentaries and the price difference would justify itself easily. Though if you're not shooting log, not wanting to grade heavily, happy with 8 bit or can afford to lose your raw footage if your Cfast card corrupts on the job, then there's no worries with the C200. In a lot of ways the C200 has sexier features on paper than the C300ii, but it's the unsexy stuff I mentioned above is worth its weight in gold to many shooters.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
Unless the new Panasonic offering blows me away, I may get the C200. But honestly, RAW does nothing for me, it's a way to burn through a lot of expensive CFast cards and to generate obscene amounts of data that I don't need. I will definitely want to shoot XF-AVC. But will it be too difficult to have the handicap of only 4:2:0 8-bit while I wait for Canon to deliver the XF-AVC codec to my camera in 2018 sometime?
Click to expand...

Maybe an external recorder could hold you over...
 
For the middle ground between RAW and 8bit 4:2:0, perhaps the Panasonic, once revealed, will be a better choice. Of course you don't get the awesome DPAF of the C200 inherited from the C300 II.
One thing for sure - film schools will love this camera. And enthusiasts who might have purchased a RED Raven or Scarlet W might take a serious look at the C200. The price certainly can't be beat if newsshooter is accurate (7500 US).
 
Naso stated in his blog that the US price point is $7500 with the evf and $6000 without it. I find it interesting they are offering it without an evf but in all honesty I never use the evf on my c100 mki (for obvious reasons) but I seldom use the evf on my c300mki as well.
 
NMSK said:
Well, with the c200, you're either back to trying to grade 4K 8bit 420 100mbps log footage, or forking out thousands for Cfast cards to record ridiculous amounts of data shooting lite-raw and either transcoding or buying shitloads of HDD space to store it all. C200 shooters will be begging for the 410mbps 10bit 4K and 10/12bit 2K 444 modes from the C300ii if they want to do anything easily. Even then you get 41 minutes of 4K per 128gb card at 410mbps, so you still need to invest in Cfast cards if you want to shoot all day. With this said, it will be interesting to see how Canon will handle the XFAVC implementation (ie, whether they will offer 10bit 4K 422 410mbps or just the 8bit UHD 422 305mbps flavour).

So Norbro, I'd say the C300ii's vastly easier/quicker post production workflow, greater internal colour gamut support and onboard CFast recording redunancy would be quite attractive to anyone shooting for broadcast, episodic tv, commercials, or long form cinematic documentaries and the price difference would justify itself.
Click to expand...

We don't know what the post-production workflow will be with Cinema RAW Light yet or what specific options are in the menus...but I hear you.

I've always been one to shoot in the highest-quality that a camera offers, so if the NLE support is painless, I personally will not worry about CFast cards.

It might not be the right tool for every job, but we'll know more soon.
 
NorBro said:
You would really have to have a tremendous reason to buy a C300 Mark II for a specific bit depth or bit rate over the C200 and what it currently offers...
Click to expand...

If you regularly do multi camera shoots, C300 MKII is still better. Genlock and TC I/O are still expected in that world.
 
They certainly have loaded with camera with features at a price that is nice. But I love that they claim this isn't a replacement for future versions of the C100. With this thing sporting 4K 10 bit raw at 60fps or 12bit raw at 30fps, I think they've easily left the door open for a lower priced C100 mkIII with 4K in some form.
 
A nice, pretty aggressive move by Canon—with a few surprises, both good and bad.

Most stuff I see about this camera is overwhelmingly good. But it does come as a surprise that Canon seems to omit the real 'meat and potatoes' codec flavour of XF-AVC 10bit intra. In terms of usability, that is what most people would use with this camera (I'd say more than 70-80% of the time) if given a choice.

Our chances are probably low in this case, but it might still be worth the effort to really hammer Canon with this request: 10bit XF-AVC intra please. Even if Canon would feel they need an extra $500 as a paid upgrade. Whatever.

Still, a smallish Canon camera that shoots 12bit raw internally, with good fps, all the AF features and plenty ND… at $7500-8000… it's not a dud.
 
I'm sure most of you read it, but this is what Newsshooter added about the 2018 XF-AVC firmware update:

"Apparently the delay is due to the complexity of re-engineering a 10bit codec to play nicely in 8bit. So possibly it’s not going to offer a dramatic increase in quality of footage when it arrives. But there is a roadmap, it’s planned as a free update, and once implemented it means footage from the C200 should fit nicely within a C300 Mk II workflow."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top