C200: What stops the C200 from being a near perfect camera?

F

Fishflavour

Member
What do you think is stopping this from being a near perfect camera? I'm talking internal here, things we cannot change. Form factor doesn't concern me, as that is something you can change, and we can debate shoulder mount VS small form factor at a later date. There seems to be some hesitation from people with this camera, as it comes so close to being what we all want, but it seams to be missing one or two key features.

What does it need to tick all your boxes?

is it just the lack of 4K 10 bit 4.2.2 internal recording and /or external out via sdi/hdmi?

PS I say "near" perfect, so i don't want to hear "no such thing as a perfect camera", i'm talking things you really need eg. timecode would be nice, but i could live without it, so not a deal breaker.
 
Fishflavour said:
What do you think is stopping this from being a near perfect camera? I'm talking internal here, things we cannot change. Form factor doesn't concern me, as that is something you can change, and we can debate shoulder mount VS small form factor at a later date. There seems to be some hesitation from people with this camera, as it comes so close to being what we all want, but it seams to be missing one or two key features.

What does it need to tick all your boxes?

is it just the lack of 4K 10 bit 4.2.2 internal recording and /or external out via sdi/hdmi?

PS I say "near" perfect, so i don't want to hear "no such thing as a perfect camera", i'm talking things you really need eg. timecode would be nice, but i could live without it, so not a deal breaker.
Click to expand...


It's just missing a couple of bits.
 
these days i think 422/10bit is the minimum i am willing to accept in a new camera.

i also think we need to also consider the format/wrapper.

all the goodness within the c200 might be in the raw-lite settings but the format might also be a pita to work with.

ymmv

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions
 
It's perfect* for 2k since most high-end post-production tools expect 4:4:4 and that is what you get after shrinking.
* - if you have the time for conversion
 
laverdir said:
It's perfect* for 2k since most high-end post-production tools expect 4:4:4 and that is what you get after shrinking.
* - if you have the time for conversion
Click to expand...

why only 2k?? when converting 4k rawlite you'll get 4k 4:4:4
 
combatentropy said:
global shutter
Click to expand...

Every camera should be global shutter, now. I'd gladly "sacrifice" a stop of DR and/or sensitivity on most any camera that has rolling shutter to get global. And timecode should be on any/every camera of at least this class and price range now, too. I won't address the form factor, because I've beaten that horse to death 1,000 times over, now.
 
Liam Hall said:
An Arri sticker.
Click to expand...
With an Arri sensor with Arri image quality.


Run&Gun said:
Every camera should be global shutter, now. I'd gladly "sacrifice" a stop of DR and/or sensitivity on most any camera that has rolling shutter to get global. And timecode should be on any/every camera of at least this class and price range now, too. I won't address the form factor, because I've beaten that horse to death 1,000 times over, now.
Click to expand...
I tend to think dynamic range is more noticeable in a final product than rolling shutter, unless you do a lot of fast action work.
 
A global shutter would be nice, especially if it only costs one stop of DR. But remember the original BMD URSA Minis? IIRC, the global-shutter version was described as having three fewer stops than the non-global version. With a reasonably-fast rolling shutter, I could be good to go. So for me, I'll a global shutter in the nice-to-have but not the must-have category.

RAW isn't such a huge hassle for me. I end up working with it (from RED cameras) a fair amount. To be clear, that's not rolling on a months-long verite doc...but with modern computers (including laptops), and comparatively cheap cards/discs, it's benefits are, um, more beneficial. And heck, let's just flash back to all the file-conversion costs and time we all faced with film and tape. We had to walk five miles each day to the film lab and it was uphill both ways.

In-body image stabilization would be nice, I think. But that's not the Canon way.

And lack of various compressed options, i.e., presumably XF-AVC, is a drag. But Canon says those are coming. Would be nice to have more info about when they're coming and exactly what they'll be...especially before I'd lay money down for a C200. So that's a current issue.

But lack of timecode and genlock in/out (especially in) is a bummer for me. Yes, you can kind of work around the problem by dropping TC onto an audio track. However, that's suboptimal.

But looks like the sub-$10,000 price point will continue to involve accepting a few more compromises than we'd like. But geez, looking at what Canon, Panasonic, Sony, and BMD are offering these days, the cost/benefit ratio is pretty damn acceptable. Good times!
 
60p eliminates a lot of the RS effect and C200 will have 60p.

15 stops allow a gentle highlight roll-off.

C200 may not be perfect but it's hard to get a better buy for $7,500.

PS. Are the external TC generators too much PITA?
 
Run&Gun said:
Every camera should be global shutter, now. I'd gladly "sacrifice" a stop of DR and/or sensitivity on most any camera that has rolling shutter to get global.
Click to expand...

The essential need for global shutter came up a lot at a recent panel discussion here in NYC with leaders in the LED industry. Particularly as it relates to LED backdrops - think like an ultramodern equivalent of a Translight that brings with it all the flexibility/agility of high quality LEDs. A sys admin said that avoiding flicker with non-global shutter is apparently a major nightmare.

Eric Coughlin said:
I tend to think dynamic range is more noticeable in a final product than rolling shutter, unless you do a lot of fast action work.
Click to expand...

This is equally true in my experience. For my personal camera and what I tend to 'film', I'd prefer higher DR, particularly with increasingly capable HDR workflows.

That said, I'd much rather have both - DR and global shutter.
 
C'mon, $8K for raw internal, very good low light and dual AF.

All you need to invest in, is a bunch of C-fast cards and shoot all day.

I'd say it is near perfect if you were about to invest in a Red Raven... possibly the Ursa Mini Pro but it has all the mod cons built ND's, dual af etc etc

Ursa Mini Pro is a very good contender for sure but ISO 1600 and no dual AF and Red is obviously great but it's more $$$ and no built in ND's or AF so take your pick, if you went Red you would be handling the R3D footage in the same way and no one seems to be complaining in the RED camp, it works.

C200 is a great companion to the C300 MKII or C700 for sure, I know if I had to shoot a corporate or doc I would be tempted to use it for b-roll and gimbal shots and use the C300 MKII for interviews as working pair.
 
First and foremost, the RAW workflow really needs to be tested.

The available footage from almost everyone looks like typical, eh, Canon footage...while the Cinema5D RAW video samples look amazing to me. So we really need to get our hands on this footage, process it ourselves, and see if it works for us.

Because if one doesn't like the RAW workflow, it's a $7,500 paper-weight IMO.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
With an Arri sensor with Arri image quality.



I tend to think dynamic range is more noticeable in a final product than rolling shutter, unless you do a lot of fast action work.
Click to expand...

But we're at the point where we're starting to split hairs on DR. Shoot more carefully if a camera that "only" gives you 14 stops instead of 15 is going to make or break the shot. The F55 has global shutter and I don't think you hear a lot of people complaining about its lack of DR or inability to recover highlights. I've seen what can be recovered from its RAW files and it's stupid. I've also seen what I can recover just playing around with Sony's free viewer software with normal xavc files with a custom, "burnt-in" look. You can have PLENTY of DR and global shutter, too. I've also spent my career shooting sports and being around still photogs with flashes. Global shutter is very important to me.
 
Well to further the RAW point, one would need to see how RAW the RAW Lite is. Meaning, how far you can really bend these files and do they offer much more than a solid 10bit codec recording. This is Canon and they are masters and leaving things out and making the less than top end models with that one huge drawback... If the RAW really is great I think this camera is about as close as any camera ever has been to being perfect for its intended use. I am a Panasonic owner and to me the Canon model is a better choice than the new Panasonic model just on flexibility and options. Although they will all make fantastic images.
 
Run&Gun said:
The F55 has global shutter... You can have PLENTY of DR and global shutter, too. I've also spent my career shooting sports and being around still photogs with flashes.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on all that. But the F55 is 3-4 times the price of the C200, right? I look forward to seeing the very-few-compromises sensors showing up in $8000ish cameras. But right now it looks like it's not happening this


DLD said:
PS. Are the external TC generators too much PITA?
Click to expand...

It's not the external TC generators that are a PITA...it's that cameras without TC (and gunlock) in force you to stick the TC onto an audio channel. So pretty much what happens is that you lose an audio channel (not usually the end of the world) and end up with a TC stamp at the head of each file, but the camera's clock isn't controlled by the TC/genlock device, and thus not exactly in sync with the master TC (in my world coming from the sound person's equipment). For very long takes (say, super-long interviews where you don't create a new file every 15min or so...and concerts), things can start to drift. So it's an acceptable but imperfect compromise; not the end of the world.

The thing is, you look at the low-cost devices such as the Zoom F4 audio recorders that have rather decent TC support, and that the C300 and other older Canon cameras do have tc/genlock, it's just a bummer that Canon left out what seems to me would be an inexpensive feature. Feels like an artificial segmentation of their product line.

IIRC, the Panasonic EVA1 has timecode in/out, right?

Still, exciting times with totally useful camera choices. So fun to complain about smallish stuff!
 
Bassman2003 said:
Well to further the RAW point, one would need to see how RAW the RAW Lite is. Meaning, how far you can really bend these files and do they offer much more than a solid 10bit codec recording. This is Canon and they are masters and leaving things out and making the less than top end models with that one huge drawback ...
Click to expand...
Canon strips features that it should have included - and all companies do that - but those that are included usually work pretty well. Raw Light is a 5X compression that uses 1 Gbps bit rate, so plenty should be left for all sort of post work. Quality suffers slightly at 2/2.5X but both Red and Sony go even higher in their codecs.

Jim Feeley said:
The thing is, you look at the low-cost devices such as the Zoom F4 audio recorders that have rather decent TC support, and that the C300 and other older Canon cameras do have tc/genlock, it's just a bummer that Canon left out what seems to me would be an inexpensive feature. Feels like an artificial segmentation of their product line...
Click to expand...
Well, of course, it is. Write your local congressman. Or a local retailer. Whichever is more willing to take your buck.

PS. Panasonic EVA1 does promise TC.
 
Been shooting uncompressed 2k DCI CDNG raw almost exclusively for three years now. Love it, don't want to go back to shooting video. Storage is getting rapidly cheaper. I use 2TB hot swap hard drives for media off load and backup. This year 3TB drives cost what 2TB did last year, less than $100. Currently working on a long form doc that will probably wind up with 20-30TB of original footage.
While log video is useful, it is still nothing like working directly with full linear DR in a raw format. Color always seems a bit thin with log formats.
I like Canon's color science and look forward to grading raw samples from the C200 in a Resolve color managed workflow with proper Canon input luts for conversion like one has with CDNG, Red and Arri.
It's early days and I haven't seen any samples yet that look like anything other than ordinary video color rendition. Want to see some rich snappy deep color and HDR from this puppy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top