C200: Ultimate image quality: C200 vs C300 Mark II

J

jcs

Veteran
The C200 and C300 II share the same sensor. For internal compressed recording, it's no contest- the C300 II wins with 10- to 12-bit 422 and 444 ALL-I and IPB XFAVC codecs (though the 8-bit C200 IPB MP4 holds up very well, all things considered). What about raw recording? The C200 can record 12-bit RAW Lite internally (1/3 to 1/5 the size of Canon Cinema RAW) while the C300 II records full uncompressed Cinema RAW externally (see https://www.provideocoalition.com/canons-cinema-raw-light-codec/ for more info). We see the same kinds of improved detail with the C300 II recording raw vs. internal compressed as with the C200: http://ntown.at/2017/03/31/atomos-shogun-cinemadng-raw-via-canon-c300-mark-ii-review/ . The external recorders also offer ProRes and DNxHR/HD: I wouldn't expect an improvement in quality vs. XFAVC (newer codecs, more efficient than ProRes), however it's possible the external recorders could be doing a higher quality deBayer. In any case ProRes will be close to 2x bigger files (max quality). The C200 can also record 10-bit externally to ProRes/DNxHR/HD. External recorders have their pros and cons (CFast vs. SSD, uncompressed raw is much bigger, so the SSD cost savings isn't as much, extra complexity, useful larger monitor / HDR support etc.).

Without seeing test results, it would appear the C300 II's uncompressed Cinema RAW would provide higher max quality vs. the C200's compressed RAW Lite. Is that true in practice, and if so how much, and will any improvements be visible beyond test charts? Perhaps someone will perform a test to find out.
 
I don't have either of these cameras currently, but if at my next visit to one the local dealers I could pick one for free and just walk out of there—I would pick the C200.

I have not seen a comparison like the one you mention: .CRM vs uncompressed raw, but it doesn't matter to me. If anything, I would love for Canon to introduce more flavours to .CRM—with increased compression. Not less. If the current one is called 3-5x, I'd love a 7-9x. That would hold up very well I'm sure. And maybe additionally an 11-13x, unless it becomes obvious it's truly compromised.

But my guess is that Canon did some serious testing and that the current 3-5x = uncompressed in all relevant areas.

The C200 internal raw image is AAA to me. I have some mild reservations about some streaking that we've seen, but that applies to both models and I'm not worried. Apart from that there is nothing that stands out to me that could be improved by less compression/larger files/moving to external recording. Meanwhile, the opposite is true. Larger files or going external would be a massive inconvenience to me that I'd never want to make.

It totally comes down to how the camera is used. If I see a V-mount battery I run. I can't think of a more horrendous solution for power. Yet, in another environment I can see how useful that is.

PS. In terms of internal compressed recording, in my eyes the C200 wins with Canon Raw Lite. I can see how you exclude it from being "compressed", and that's fair. But one could also argue that it is compressed, since it is (like RedCode). The main thing to me is that it is INTERNAL.
 
Last edited:
Sure, lots of other factors are important depending on the use cases. The question is which camera has the best ultimate quality (or are they effectively equal). For audio the C300 II provides 24-bit; C200 is 16-bit. I'd guess the C300 III will combine both camera's strengths (and perhaps more).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top