C200: Thinking about buying one...

Did you end up trying the C200? Interested to see what you made of it.

For those who have used one-
I am tentatively considering buying one, I've been using the C300 II a bit lately and when handheld found myself holding the lip with my left hand, is there much difference in the handling of the C200 now it has no lip on the bottom front?
Also I rarely used the EVF, maybe the eye piece lens was a bit worn, but it didn't seem that great to me - Is it improved on the C200?

Also guessing the Dynamic range is the same on the C200, but Raw giving more room for error?
 
puredrifting said:
As a C200 owner, this is just one small annoyance amongst a much larger list of annoyances the camera has. While I don't regret buying it, this camera is the first Canon I have owned where I feel that they shipped it too early, there are too many operational glitches that can really screw you over if you are not aware of them. I came really close to completely blowing a very high profile, once in a lifetime shoot because of the way the C200 comes from the factory. The issue was that the HDMI and SDI output comes from the factory outputting the magnify feature via HDMI and SDI, which if you are relying on delivering the HDMI or SDI feed, recorded with an Atomos or CD recorder as your deliverable, would completely ruin your recording, as it did mine. Everytime I used the magnify feature, my feed to a Ninja Blade was ruined. Luckily I was also recording internal 4K .MP4 which I delivered to the client. But if I hadn't have been dual recording, I would have been completely hosed and lost a very good client. Yes, many just plain stupid setting issues with the C200 so far. The firmware update Terry Nixon just posted dosen't address any of them.

Same with the camera always defaulting back to 4K 60p when switching media shot, like from .MP4 to CFast or vice versa, camera defaults to 60p. If you were shooting 4K 24p dialog and then shot the rest of the day at 4K 60p because you didn't have the right screen overlay turned on to see that the camera defaulted back to 60p, you would be screwed. Almost happened to me, but I caught it. What the hell ever happened to constant state memory settings Canon, WTH?!?!?
Click to expand...

Just been looking into the C200 and the VFR or lack of is definitely one of these annoying things. Once more it seems to me to show why the FS7 has been such a massive hit - whatever niggles and idiosyncrasies it may have, straight up spec-wise it just does what you need - 10 bitt 422 upto 600mb/s across the board at 1-60fps in 4k and 1-180fps in HD in full or centre crop mode. C200 doesn't do 4k slow motion, only 50 or 60P to be conformed in post, plus either too heavy or too weak codecs. EVA-1 does 60fps 4k...but at 8 bit 420. And yet the FS7 is what, 4 years old?

Steve
 
If you definitely need more than 60p in 4K, might as well look at a Raven...even that one does it in 18:1 or so.

I don't think any reasonably priced 4K cameras exist that shoot high-quality 120 frames per second.

Slow-motion has been an Achilles' heel for almost everyone...like literally, almost every company stinks at it (because of technology limitations or corporate).

I think the big URSA (Version 2) might be the only one at 422HQ or RAW via dual-card mode. Version 1 capped off at 4K/80p (eighty).

If 4K/60p is enough, the C200's RAW is worth it for the b-roll (unless you're looking to shoot everything all day long in 4K/60p which would probably be unmanageable at some point).
 
P.S. When I mention slow-motion above, I mean 4K/120p.

So 4K/120p for the Raven at 18:1 or so...and the URSA (Version 2) - I think - at 422HQ or RAW via dual-card.
 
pat1 said:
Did you end up trying the C200? Interested to see what you made of it.

For those who have used one-
I am tentatively considering buying one, I've been using the C300 II a bit lately and when handheld found myself holding the lip with my left hand, is there much difference in the handling of the C200 now it has no lip on the bottom front?
Also I rarely used the EVF, maybe the eye piece lens was a bit worn, but it didn't seem that great to me - Is it improved on the C200?

Also guessing the Dynamic range is the same on the C200, but Raw giving more room for error?
Click to expand...

We've been shooting a long term documentary with the C200 and the C300 MKII side by side. They are both excellent cameras. The C200 is smaller and lighter than the C300 MKII and IMHO, is much better for handheld/cradled shooting. The C300 has a mid-range codec that the C200 lacks, but we've been very happy with the CRL from the C200 mainly anyway. It looks slightly better and sharper than the XF-AVC 410Mbps codec in the C300 MKII. Not enough to notice mostly though but if you compare them side by side, the C200 has more detail and looks sharper to me. FWIW, we've been really happy shooting proxies and the C200 CRL, it's a fantastic way to work for us. Also, for all of the whining and whinging about the C200's "terrible" 8-bit 4:2:0 codec, we have been using it a lot and if you work within it's limitations (mainly not screwing up exposure), it looks MUCH better than you would think.

Some of the downsides of both are that DPAF is not fool proof. It's amazingly good and very handy for a lot of situations but on another documentary I have been shooting, we shoot a lot in a building where the walls are covered with corrugated aluminum sheeting resulting in strong, high contrast vertical lines everywhere. I have already been stung several times by DPAF basically just freaking out and me thinking it's in focus and getting back into edit and discovering that the DPAF was hunting even though it was set for face only, which means it should NEVER hunt. Granted, it is a weird situation and the only one I've shot in that just kicked the cameras butt on focus. I switch to manual but even that gets tricky. I'm not a big fan of the clamshell monitor setup on the C300 MKII and those two AV cables are a nightmare for certain shooting situations as snag points. As far as the C200, it has some firmware issues that once you are aware of them, you can work around them but they can really stick it to you if you aren't aware of them. I had hoped Canon would fix them by now but so far, radio silence on these fixes, which is disappointing. 4K 60p in either CRL or the XF-AVC on the C200 is fine looking. If you want good 4K slow motion greater than 60fps though, have to spend the money on a RED I think? Seriously, I think slow motion is massively overused and I am frankly quite bored with it's overuse so not a big deal. The 120fps on the C200 in 1080 is usable but pretty soft.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
P.S. When I mention slow-motion above, I mean 4K/120p.

So 4K/120p for the Raven at 18:1 or so...and the URSA (Version 2) - I think - at 422HQ or RAW via dual-card.
Click to expand...

Or FS5 with Inferno in bursts.
4k 60fps is ok...but really a pain not to have it in-camera 1-60fps, big negative for C200 for me. And again, Exa1 4k 1-60fps...but onky 8 bit 420.
Steve
 
steve phillipps said:
Just been looking into the C200 and the VFR or lack of is definitely one of these annoying things. Once more it seems to me to show why the FS7 has been such a massive hit - whatever niggles and idiosyncrasies it may have, straight up spec-wise it just does what you need - 10 bitt 422 upto 600mb/s across the board at 1-60fps in 4k and 1-180fps in HD in full or centre crop mode. C200 doesn't do 4k slow motion, only 50 or 60P to be conformed in post, plus either too heavy or too weak codecs. EVA-1 does 60fps 4k...but at 8 bit 420. And yet the FS7 is what, 4 years old?

Steve
Click to expand...

I just wish I didn't dislike the color science of the FS7 so much. Our clients hate it even more, we've actually had the home entertainment and publicity departments of two of studios issue us emails forbidding using the FS7 or FS5 when we rented it once.
The only way I've seen FS7 colors I liked was after much tweaking, grading of S-Log 3. A lot of our work is handed off straight to clients on a deadline, Log doesn't cut it. We shoot WDR for clients exclusively on the Canons and they love it.
 
I have already been stung several times by DPAF basically just freaking out and me thinking it's in focus and getting back into edit and discovering that the DPAF was hunting even though it was set for face only, which means it should NEVER hunt.
Click to expand...

I had this happen on a commercial shoot this past weekend. AF was set to Face Only and during several takes it started hunting and focused on the background that was like 10+ feet behind the actors. I was a little flustered because the whole thing about Face Only is that it's supposed to track a face and if it looses it, it's supposed to stay put wherever it was last until it re-recognizes a face. Because it was a low budget shoot with no autofocus, we just did a few more takes and crossed our fingers hoping it wouldn't happen again. It ended up working like 85% of the takes, but for shoots where there are higher stakes I don't think I would trust it.
 
chris f said:
I had this happen on a commercial shoot this past weekend. AF was set to Face Only and during several takes it started hunting and focused on the background that was like 10+ feet behind the actors. I was a little flustered because the whole thing about Face Only is that it's supposed to track a face and if it looses it, it's supposed to stay put wherever it was last until it re-recognizes a face. Because it was a low budget shoot with no autofocus, we just did a few more takes and crossed our fingers hoping it wouldn't happen again. It ended up working like 85% of the takes, but for shoots where there are higher stakes I don't think I would trust it.
Click to expand...
Don't quote me here but I thought I read in the manual about face detection being more accurate if you select object detection as well and I'm assuming you did that?
 
Stills2HDConvert said:
Don't quote me here but I thought I read in the manual about face detection being more accurate if you select object detection as well and I'm assuming you did that?
Click to expand...

I sent my 70d back to canon a few years ago because of this. They basically said its not a 'pro enough' camera to expect it to work better. Thanks Canon!

I dont really trust if I see the square, I say to my assistant it migt be in focus but it might not.... that said my C100 hasnt really failed me...
 
NorBro said:
If you definitely need more than 60p in 4K, might as well look at a Raven...even that one does it in 18:1 or so.

I don't think any reasonably priced 4K cameras exist that shoot high-quality 120 frames per second.

Slow-motion has been an Achilles' heel for almost everyone...like literally, almost every company stinks at it (because of technology limitations or corporate).

I think the big URSA (Version 2) might be the only one at 422HQ or RAW via dual-card mode. Version 1 capped off at 4K/80p (eighty).

If 4K/60p is enough, the C200's RAW is worth it for the b-roll (unless you're looking to shoot everything all day long in 4K/60p which would probably be unmanageable at some point).
Click to expand...

4K 120fps at the cheapest price would be the Z Cam E2, under two thousand dollars:

http://www.z-cam.com/e2/
 
Not yet! But very soon, later this year. They've already got pre-production models in the hands of testers before they fully launch into it. So getting close!
 
The Z-Cam looks cool. But our recent history is littered with non-starters and vaporware. I agree with NorBro, once B&H has them on the shelf...
 
The Craft camera was a disappointment for me, personally. It looked pretty awesome (with 4K/120p in bursts), but one day they just abruptly put out a release they are done and refunded everyone's money.

Craft.jpg

Craft.jpg
 
I just started planning to build a camera at my factory. It will have 6K at 120 fps, ProRes, internal RAW, 16 stops of dynamic range, is also modular, will have color science to rival Arri, auto-focus, similar size and weight as a C100, built-in wireless (no need for Teradek), and will cost $10,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top