C200: Thinking about buying one...

macgregor

macgregor

Veteran
Hi all! while I found lots of answer a online there's a few Questions I can't find much info.

Can I record canon log 2 in MP4?
What limitations are there in the c200 that the c300 does not have?
Is the af better on the c200 or the same as c300?
Do they share the same sensor?
Does davinci resolve support c200 raw already?
What's the highest ISO c300 ownsers feel Comfortable Shooting?
 
macgregor said:
Hi all!

1. Can I record canon log 2 in MP4?
2. What limitations are there in the c200 that the c300 does not have?
3. Is the af better on the c200 or the same as c300?
4. Do they share the same sensor?
5. Does davinci resolve support c200 raw already?
6. What's the highest ISO c300 ownsers feel Comfortable Shooting?
Click to expand...

Hi. This is my take on your questions, from the perspective of having followed Canon Cinema EOS for a while. (When you write C300 I'm assuming you mean the C300 mkII.)

1. No. Canon Log and Canon Log 3 only. In this mode Canon rates the camera at 13 stops. With Cinema Raw Lite and Canon Log 2, Canon rates it at 15 stops.
2. See this link for a complete Cinema EOS system comparison Canon's pdf comparing all Cinema EOS cameras
3. Same. 80% focus area (compared to 20x25% box with C100 mkII) and similar tools such as AF guide carets when focusing manually. But the C200 has better (faster) DV6 chips, for what it's worth. But I don't think there is any official statement that it's 'better'.
4. Yes. C200 and C300mkII has a clean 4096x2160 version of Canon's current gen Cinema EOS sensor. The C700 has a different sized sensor at 4.5k, plus an option for a 4.2k global shutter version. But It's my impression that the whole line, including the C700, share the same overall image characteristics and performance.
5. DaVinci 14 plays back .crm effortlessly and they grade very well. But you don't have full access to raw parameters like you have in Canon's own software. You can't change Log settings and so on. Hopefully this gets introduced in an update soon, now that DVR14 is released.
6.
 
Andree answered your technical questions already, I'll just add as a C200 owner...

1. If you like shooting with Canon cameras is general, the C200 will feel like home
2. The Touch Screen focusing is not that big of a deal and not that usable as unless you tap the screen VERY lightly, on medium to long focal lengths, the camera movement from the tap is apparent
3. Cinema RAW Light and the 2K proxy are both only DCI 4K, there is no option to record either in UHD
4. There is no way to record 2K without recording Cinema RAW Light to a CFast 2.0 card at the same time
5. As Andree stated, Canon C-Log 2 recording is not really recording, it is a way to post process the Cinema RAW Light using the Canon RAW Development program only, at this point, although most think FCP X, Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve will ultimately support it eventually.
6. The Touch Screen Mounting Arm is weird and flimsy feeling, it works but feels fragile
7. The EVF is REALLY good and can display HDR
8. So far, honestly, my own footage included, I have seen very little output from the C200 that blows me away. You are a talented DP and can possibly make the camera sing, but I am a decent DP and so far, it's good but doesn't blow me away with it's quality, the images look a bit soft and colors, mostly, so far, are okay but I have not yet hit on the magic picture profile that I love. I modified the Abel Cine PPs for my C100 and C300 and had looks I was very happy with. I realize that you can do all of that in post with the Cinema RAW Light, but I am not that great of a colorist. But the C200 picture profile parameters are all new and some customization may result in better looking images.
9. Overall, I agree with the assesment that the C200 is a 4K capable C100 MKIII that happens to be able to shoot RAW. I shoot the C300 MKII often and I think the C200 is just as capable, even more so when shooting RAW but the C300 MKII has TC I/O if that is important to your work and has that nice mid-range XF-AVC codec that the C200 will never have. So if you can deal with buying a pile of CFast 2.0 cards (The EGo Disk are pretty inexpensive and work great with the C200 so far!) and the post processing, most pixel peepers say that the 1Gbps C200 RAW has more detail and color latitude than the 410Mbps XF-AVC of the C300 MKII, which makes sense. Two different cameras for two different types of users really. If you can wait, the C300 MKIII will probably really hit the sweet spot but will probably cost close to double the price of the C200.
10. I did a shoot for YouTube a few weeks ago for one of their YouTube RED Series and A camera was my C200 and B camera was a rented C300 MKII. I didn't see a huge different between the two either way and I was able to get them to match pretty closely. Shot C-Log 3 on both but I have not seen an edited/graded finished product yet.
 
THanks for all this info.
One qustion though, the C300mkII does record canon log 2 internally, correct?
 
Last edited:
Just curious as to why the C200 cannot record log 2 internally. Is this something that could potentially be given in a firmware update?
 
It's a bit inaccurate to say the C200 doesn't shoot in CLog-2. CLog-2 was designed for 10-bit codecs, which is why you can use it to process RAW shot on a C200, but not use it when you record 8-bit MP4. You can fully make use of CLog-2 when you're shooting RAW, and in fact it's the only way to get the sensor's full DR out of the camera.

So far I'm actually digging CLog-3 over 2, as it's less work in post and 13 stops is still very high.
 
macgregor said:
So I guess if I'm exclusively interested on shooting in CLog2, maybe the C300mkII is a better fit for me?
Click to expand...

If you have no interest in shooting RAW, then yeah I'd say so. But if you had no interest in RAW I'd have said that about more than just CLog-2. The C200's real strength IMO is RAW shooting and it offers nothing but 4k/60p and a touch screen over the C300 II that I can think of.

But RAW is huge for me...
 
Last edited:
macgregor said:
So I guess if I'm exclusively interested on shooting in CLog2, maybe the C300mkII is a better fit for me?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say that. If you're shooting Raw Light then your upping the bit depth from 10 to 12 (for 24-25-30 fps) plus that file can be "whatever Log you like". At THIS time, to get to Canon Log 2 you have to run the files through Canon's software, but I'm expecting most relevant NLE's to be able to support .CRM and allow for that 'in app'. And I don't think you can have too many bits when it comes to a profiles like Canon Log 2. 12 bit sounds great to me.

But… on the flip side: the files are twice the size of 10 bit XFAVC so.... If you say you want Canon Log 2 with the smoothest, least hassle workflow.... then I'd be more inclined to agree.
 
puredrifting said:
If you can wait, the C300 MKIII will probably really hit the sweet spot but will probably cost close to double the price of the C200.
Click to expand...

Knowing Canon, we will have to wait a few years for that. I don't think they are in a rush, having just released the C200.

All the same, it is interesting to speculate what sensor they put in a future C300 III / C500 II: 4.7K or 8K?

When they demoed their 8K camera in Paris (2015), it was using the C300 II body:


I could see them doing an in-camera downsample of 8K to 4K recording and perhaps allowing an option for 8K RAW output to a future recorder that can handle the data rate (it took 4 Odysseys to record 8K in the demo model).
 
Last edited:
Hypothetically speaking, they could just use an APS-C center crop from the 30 MPX 5D MKIV sensor, slightly modded to the pro video standards. A more interesting question is the lineup positioning of their next camera. Is it going to be a ~ $15,000 C300 MKIII, a $25,000 C500 MKII or some sort of a in-between hybrid in the form of C400. The original C500 didn't sell well and C700 is a dud also. On the other hand, C200's are flying off the shelves. Overall, it looks like the $5,000-$15,000 is a good range for Canon. Anything higher than that and they're running into major competition in the form of ARRI, Sony, Panasonic and Red that are accepted as "real" high end pro cameras.
 
I think we're in a time now where most people, the majority of independent cinematographers/videographers will only be buying a camera below $10K and eventually only below $5K. And the 1% in Hollywood will still be using the best of the best over $30K-$40K.

I truly think there is no market anymore for that in-between window. You have 99% of everything you'll ever need in less expensive tools that look amazing.
 
macgregor said:
Hi all! while I found lots of answer a online there's a few Questions I can't find much info.

Can I record canon log 2 in MP4?
What limitations are there in the c200 that the c300 does not have?
Is the af better on the c200 or the same as c300?
Do they share the same sensor?
Does davinci resolve support c200 raw already?
What's the highest ISO c300 ownsers feel Comfortable Shooting?
Click to expand...

Since all your questions have been answered, let me ask you: Why consider the C200? Because it is relatively cheap and gives you 15stops with Log2?
Like Dan and Andree mentioned: Nothing WOW! about the image and more or less the same look as the rest of the Cs.
For me it actually came down to: Internal ND, tracking AF, smallish size, internal RAW and price.
But being used to C300/100/II images, the C200 doesn't feel like a step up in IQ (in a "looks like cinema" way) for me.
Just mentioning, because the whole F35 craze was all about "getting that cinema look" (or was it about hacking heavy old tech?).
But hey, you made the FX1 shine, so please buy a C200 and treat her like a lady...
 
hey dan, since you mentioned you haven't found the right PP, have you tried dropping an arri LUT to 709 picture profile? according to some users, setting it to production camera matrix and cinema gamut seems to hit the sweet spot, that is on the C300ii, but i assume with C200 it will be similar... or is that not the case?

also when you export your choice of codec, let's say prores out of the canon raw software, how long does it take? is it fairly fast? just curious; for the touch screen monitor, if you crank up the brightness to 100, is it useable outdoors?
 
The C700 is DOA and represents a new level of failure for Canon. Even the C500 continues to get use on features and shows and has had a decent life as a rental camera, as it is much more affordable. Here it is in use on the new HBO show The Defiant Ones:


The C700 has a superior image to anything else Canon has made but is badly positioned in a marketplace where Canon has no real foothold ($30K+). I think the experience of the C700 will mean an end to Canon's high-end Cinema EOS cameras. We will not be seeing any more C cameras again in that price range.

The C200, however, is a revelation. It's almost everything we ever wanted in a Cinema EOS and the price is very reasonable. While I agree with everyone that it is not always the most amazing image, if it can match the C300 II "look" (as in this 1DX II demo film shot on the C300 II), then it deserves serious consideration:

 
macgregor said:
So I guess if I'm exclusively interested on shooting in CLog2, maybe the C300mkII is a better fit for me?
Click to expand...

Having worked with CLog 2 in the C300 II proxy recording, I can guarantee you that you would regret ever using it at a low bitrate. It will completely fall apart if you try to push it into a normal exposure range at 8bit 4:2:0.
 
I wouldn't count Canon out yet. I think the C700 is just a flawed camera that never stood a chance in the high end market. In a world where Alexas and Varicams are recording with 12 bit 444 4K codecs the C700 only records 4K in 10 bit 4:2:2.

The only raw option the C700 has is the $6K CDX-36150 which gives you 12 bit 4K/120 which sounds great until you realize one terabyte of media costs over $5K. Renting a Alexa Mini and shooting in ProRes 4444XQ on CFAST starts to look like a pretty good deal.

I would rent a C500 MKII that recorded 12 bit Cinema RAW Light at 4K/120p for that rare HFR shoot. Canon would probably have to use some form of dual card interleaving to make it happen since the C200 can barely do 4K/60P on one card. Likewise if they update the C700 MKII to a 6K sensor and allow it to record Cinema RAW Light internally I would give it try as a rental.

One cool thing about the C700 is that it can be updated without having to replace the whole camera. It will be interesting to see what Canon does next.
 
cpreston said:
Having worked with CLog 2 in the C300 II proxy recording, I can guarantee you that you would regret ever using it at a low bitrate. It will completely fall apart if you try to push it into a normal exposure range at 8bit 4:2:0.
Click to expand...

Would you mind sharing some footage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top