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

Liam Hall said:
I think you miss the point; the FS7 was released nearly 3 years ago, it has an excellent 10 bit codec, can shoot HFR, can shoot RAW, is ergonomic, uses lowish cost media and costs less than a C200. Sony didn't hold back features to protect the F5. It amazes me that people are so happy to accept this nonsense, Jim Jannard created Red because he wouldn't accept this nonsense and I don't see why any of us here should be so accepting of it either.
Click to expand...

The FS7 simply isn't in the same category, it's more in line with the C300 MKII and both have 10bit internal and raw external

You mention Jim Jannard and Red was the pioneer for digital cinema for sure but the C200 can be compared to a RED in many ways it's practically identical to the Raven in specs but has the added 8bit codec if needed, if the C200 is nonsense, then from your perspective so is the Red. I don't see why it should be compared to the FS7 when it clearly is in a different category and falls in the raw video camera segment of the market.

Blackmagic production 4K and Ursa Mini and Kinefinity could be compared as they all do raw internal along with Red, not the FS5/7, Arri or Panny Varicam etc which all have external raw, different markets.
 
Liam Hall said:
...but I think most people who buy the C200 will be using 8 bit and 8 bit only.
Click to expand...

Really? You don't think most will even try the Cinema RAW Light workflow? I consider myself a very typical C200 buyer, own a C100 MKI and a C300 MKI, stepping up the next step without going over $10k since I am done buying expensive cameras, I rent them. There will be challenges until the price of CFast comes down and the capacity goes up but that's coming. I am shooting two different documentaries right now and if I had my C200 in hand, I would undoubtedly be shooting it all on Cinema RAW Light, why wouldn't I unless I just could rent or buy enough CFAST cards, all signs point to it being a game changer in quality and flexibility in post. Much better than 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 if not a lot more hassle and expense to shoot and post process.
 
cane141 said:
...Blackmagic production 4K and Ursa Mini and Kinefinity could be compared as they all do raw internal along with Red, not the FS5/7, Arri or Panny Varicam etc which all have external raw, different markets.
Click to expand...

Astute observation, I was discussing this with my producing partner yesterday about a project we are shooting. We discussed the relative merits of the C200 versus the EVA 1. The internal RAW factor for us could be a game changer for this project. We will be shooting handheld and on Tyler Mounts on boats in the ocean in very tight quarters for months. Having to cable an Atomos or CD recorder to the EVA 1 to record RAW would be terrible for that project because space will be at a premium, battery supplies limited, and cable clutter will be a hindrance. While we both think EVA 1 will be a great camera, for shooting RAW, for a project with these parameters, not having internal RAW is a real challenge.
 
Liam Hall said:
Well that's an interesting take on it. I'm sure there are users who will use it that way, but I think most people who buy the C200 will be using 8 bit and 8 bit only.
Click to expand...


Nah, the best part of $8K for 8bit codec? This camera is squarely aimed at shooters who want to shoot raw, who like to bring back the ISO in post, it's blatantly aimed at anyone thinking of buying a Raven or possibly a Scarlet-w and have already been working in a raw environment.

Most FS7/C300 MKII operators don't need to think about raw for day to day projects but there are DP/Videograhers who only shoot on RED, everything from Weddings to long from docs and they make work and it's all raw R3D, its more time consuming and more post and even crew maybe needed but it works fine for their needs as thats all they know, the raw workflow.

Those same RED/BM / Kinefinity punters are already thinking about the possibilities of the C200, maybe as just a gimbal cam or even a b-cam and taking advantage of the ND's, low light and Dual AF. Others like me would to try and use it alongside the C300 MKII and push it on jobs where you have the flexibility to use raw much in the same way Scarlet-W/Raven owners do already.

If a get a corporate conference or an event then you have 10 a penny cameras for those types of shoots, the fact that the C200 has the 8bit codec for that quick turnaround job means it's more useful than you think, try shooting those jobs on a Red and quickly realize how Canon have made a real game changer for owner ops.
 
Last edited:
lol why this camera isn't almost perfect... because a friend is probably going to give me a set of 6 Rokinons to use. But sadly they're Nikon mount (he had a black magic). Wonder how'd they work on the camera for narrative work or will the camera blow up... just kidding...
 
Nikon mount lenses are a good investment (especially if you're using a lot of different cameras) because they can be adapted to pretty much everything.

Obviously no AF, but the other focusing aids could be useful.
 
puredrifting said:
That's the beauty of capitalism, nobody is forced to buy or accept anything, we all have choices about which tools to buy to do our work and we all vote with our wallets. I have yet to see a populist consumer protest change Canon's mind about anything. C100 MKI, no 1080 60p, sub-par EVF, C100 MKII, no 4k when everyone thought/wanted it to have it, C300 MKI, no 10-bit, massively overpriced upon introduction, no 1080 60p, C300 MKII, no 4K 60p, windowed 1080 slow motion FOV. Canon does what Canon wants, period. In my mind, they are not dumb, they very aware of the competition, they know the FS7 has out specced and outsold the C300 MKII for years. The C200 kind of proves that they don't give a poo emoji about that, it's not really a direct reply to the FS7 or FS7 MKII. I just find it illogical when people post "If it only had this" or "why doesn't it do this or that?". Because Canon wants it that way, they don't accidentally mis-interpret the needs and wants of the market, they just stick 100% to their marketing and segmentation strategy, damn the torpoedos.

From a marketing and business execution strategy viewpoint (I worked for a global management consutancy for a few years for Fortune 200s, Canon was never our client but Sony was), I kind of really admire the balls that Canon shows the market, they think they know best. Most of us don't agree with them, but many of us still buy their flawed cameras for a reason. They work, are reliable, have the best color science in their class and have a great lens selection available. Both of my Canons C100/300 are totally flawed yet they have made me a lot of money and I like shooting with them, the C200 will carry on that fine tradition of being frustrating yet ultimately reliable and profitable for me. It must work for Canon fiscally as they are one of the most successful companies in the world. I have to kind of admire their old-school Japanese market hubris and arrogance in a way, even though they frustrate the hell out of me at times.
Click to expand...

Look at your signature. And now, wonder why...
 
cane141 said:
The FS7 simply isn't in the same category, it's more in line with the C300 MKII and both have 10bit internal and raw external
Click to expand...


Um... The C200 costs more than a FS7 mkI.

cane141 said:
if the C200 is nonsense, then from your perspective so is the Red.
Click to expand...

No one said the C200 is nonsense. What is nonsense is the way Canon treat their customers. They rely on fanboys to happily fall in line and suck it up. Year, after year. And I should know, I've probably spent more on Canon products than any other manufacturer over the years.

cane141 said:
Blackmagic production 4K and Ursa Mini and Kinefinity could be compared as they all do raw internal along with Red, not the FS5/7, Arri or Panny Varicam etc which all have external raw, different markets.
Click to expand...

Now that is nonsense. I've used my FS7 on every type of job, it crosses old fashioned market boundaries and can be configured to work on a variety of productions. There's no reason why the C200 can't be the same. None. In fact the C200 should fit a wide variety of productions without the aid of additional backs or recorders. It can do the hard yards but it can't do the easy ones, because it is hobbled.
 
Liam Hall said:
Um... The C200 costs more than a FS7 mkI.



No one said the C200 is nonsense. What is nonsense is the way Canon treat their customers. They rely on fanboys to happily fall in line and suck it up. Year, after year. And I should know, I've probably spent more on Canon products than any other manufacturer over the years.



Now that is nonsense. I've used my FS7 on every type of job, it crosses old fashioned market boundaries and can be configured to work on a variety of productions. There's no reason why the C200 can't be the same. None. In fact the C200 should fit a wide variety of productions without the aid of additional backs or recorders. It can do the hard yards but it can't do the easy ones, because it is hobbled.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point now, that's pretty much exactly why it shouldn't be compared to the FS7, Canon are notioriosly always more expensive than Sony so why look at comparing the price when we all know the C300mkii was overpriced but it still sold pretty well.
No one is complaing about how expensive the Red ecosystem is to buy into? Red is totally unpractical for a lot of shoots but it can be crossed over on smaller jobs also.
I don't see how Canon are delivering nonsense to their customers with the C200, it's pretty unique and really is the only cam to come along as a proper alternative to the lower end of the Red market.
Hobbled meaning they can give you an alternative to Red at a cheaper price point otherwise they might as well just add internal raw to the C700 and then you're looking at higher end Weapon/Alexa etc
Not one Canon rep said this is a camera for all your needs, it's main aim is to launch a raw internal capable camera not replacing the C300mkii which is what you are mistaking it for.
They already have the XC15 for quick turnaround 4k jobs that could match all the other C-Log capable cameras as a c-cam.
Why would punters be stupid enough to buy the C200 for broadcast work when they have better options with C300mkii or C100mkii even as HD is not quite dead yet.
Pretty sure raw will be implemented in a lot more cameras next year as cpus are capable of handling larger data rates these days.
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
Well that's an interesting take on it. I'm sure there are users who will use it that way, but I think most people who buy the C200 will be using 8 bit and 8 bit only.
Click to expand...

I really want internal RAW. Like a LOT. I want to shoot in RAW all the time for my narrative projects in the same way that when I shoot stills I only shoot RAW.

Look, I hope they add 10 bit 422 because why wouldn't I want a codec that is superior? But it's not as big a deal to me as the other, fairly huge advantages this camera seems to offer. in fact 10bit/422 (ideally prores) and global shutter are literally the only two things this camera doesn't have that I'd want. Maybe someone should throw up a poll on how they plan to use their C200s?

If you have no interest in shooting RAW, I'm not sure why you'd want this camera over the competition; but if you're the sort that was frustrated that they couldn't find a Raven or like me are currently on one of the older REDs that don't shoot anything but RAW, well...
 
As I wrote earlier, if Canon's point with this Cam was to be a RED lite, then fine, I could get behind that, but I don't think that is the case. And reading many of the posts in this thread I believe many people will use the 8 bit codec for 99% of what they do. I could be wrong, we will see.

Anyway, the title of this thread is, 'What stops the C200 from being a near perfect camera' I answered that, did you?
 
Liam Hall said:
As I wrote earlier, if Canon's point with this Cam was to be a RED lite, then fine, I could get behind that, but I don't think that is the case. And reading many of the posts in this thread I believe many people will use the 8 bit codec for 99% of what they do. I could be wrong, we will see.

Anyway, the title of this thread is, 'What stops the C200 from being a near perfect camera' I answered that, did you?
Click to expand...

It is near perfect for me. 10 bit 422 would make it perfect and a global shutter with no DR loss (probably impossible) would make me dump my girlfriend and marry it. Happy now? :grin:
 
Fahnon said:
Maybe someone should throw up a poll on how they plan to use their C200s?
Click to expand...

I think that is a very good idea. I can see it will be great for certain things. Not so great for others.

Fahnon said:
If you have no interest in shooting RAW, I'm not sure why you'd want this camera over the competition; but if you're the sort that was frustrated that they couldn't find a Raven or like me are currently on one of the older REDs that don't shoot anything but RAW, well...
Click to expand...

I already own a RAW capable set-up with FS7 and Odyssey, I also use RED at least once a month. What I like about the C200 is it's size - will be great for gimbals etc. But I can't justify buying one for purely for RAW shoots. Most of my shoots are currently XAVC-I.
 
Fahnon said:
It is near perfect for me. 10 bit 422 would make it perfect and a global shutter with no DR loss (probably impossible) would make me dump my girlfriend and marry it. Happy now? :grin:
Click to expand...

Lol. I can't argue with that. Neither can my wife:-)
 
Liam Hall said:
It's not that I think it's a Ferrari, it's not, it's simply that it's been intentionally hobbled, making it less than the sum of its parts. Maybe with a decent 10 bit codec it would be a Ford Focus RS...

Clearly, you see the autofocus feature as more important than a robust 10 bit codec. That's cool, many others see it a different way. I guess, it depends what you shoot. For me, there are some jobs I do where RAW lite would be great but for many others I'd need 8 256GB Cfast cards and be forced to offload a couple of terabytes of footage at the end of an average shoot day, usually in my hotel room, when I should be in the bar - taking away my beer time is a deal breaker!
Click to expand...

Wow this thread heated up quickly! Haha OK ford focus it is. At the moment I don't own a camera and hire either a c300 ii, fs7 ii or BM UMP depending on the shoot.

I'm not talking about whether AF is more important because the 10 bit feature obviously doesn't exist in the c200, which seems like apples/oranges anyway. I'm talking about why the c200 will sell many units. If potential buyers are happy with its recording options, the autofocus is its strongest selling point or has at least as much weight as any of its other attributes.

It would be interesting to know what % of users are after 8bit versus raw. I think it'll also be a case of since they have the camera and initially are happy with 8 bit, raw is right there, begging, and they'll give in to the media/post demands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top