Zacuto Camera Shootout 2018 : Panasonic EVA1 vs Canon C200

Thomas Smet said:
Does anybody really pay attention to this stuff anymore? We long ago reached the point where if you can't create images with the cameras out there then the camera itself is likely no longer the main problem.

99% of the viewing public just cannot see the fine details some of us claim make or break a camera. I'm not talking about a T3i with horribly aliased wannabe 1080p video but once you reach a certain class of camera these shootouts are for the most part 100% worthless and just become a loud pointless talking point for nerds and free publicity for Zacuto or whoever else decides to sensationalize themselves and attempt to look valid or important with such "tests".
Click to expand...

99% might not be able to tell the difference but I thought we were people here who cared deeply about the images. If you look through the tests carefully there are some huge differences between the cameras. We pointed several of them out during the show. You might not care but they are there. You might be able to color correct some of them to match each other, but some you cannot.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Did you watch the discussion?
Click to expand...

No, I couldn't watch it live and didn't go back for the roundtable discussion after I found the high resolution YouTube clips. I understand if you feel that the discussion is "mandatory listening" to fill in the blanks, so thanks for clarifying my question in a few simple paragraphs despite my failure to comply.

Your exposure method seems rational to me, but I interpret you answer to mean that you ended up with small differences in EV? It would have been cool have a few notes accompanying the actual footage.

Mitch Gross said:
The grading method was to get to what Bruce wanted out of the image. He started with the Canon RAW and then graded the others, but sometimes there was a little back & forth
Click to expand...

I see. Looking at the YouTube thumbnail in post #52 from Yoclay, there is a significant difference in black point which in turn has noticeable impact on contrast. I totally agree with you that spoon feeding should not be needed here, but that in turn relies on your faith in the discerning observational powers from the average internet user—you're a braver man than I, Mitch! =D

Regardless… between the Log, the LUT and the Grade I'm sure people will find the info they need.
 
Thanks for participating in the shootout and chiming in here, @Mitch Gross

Question for you: do you know of any future EVA1 demonstration-type events scheduled for the LA area? The Panasonic USA Facebook upcoming event calendar is blank. I see I missed the bulk of the events earlier this year, so if there's nothing planned perhaps you know of a local store with one on the floor for a demo? Abelcine doesn't seem to have them listed for rent yet.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Oh, you mean the camera that required a huge amount of adjustment to the lighting and tons of power windows in post? The one that Francis Coppola liked but a lot of others didn't? The one that didn't have the depth of field characteristics of Super-35 (neither did the iPhone!!)? Of course there was another camera on that same test where the operator walked into the base lighting setup and said, "yeah, our camera can handle that." That camera shot the scene in about 1/10th the time and the grade was super fast as well. So even though it was the most expensive camera on the stage that day it was easily the most affordable given the minimal lighting requirements, the minimal lighting time (zero!) and the short time spent in color correction. But yeah, that little GH2 looked nice when you worked it well.

Tools matter. If you want to cut off your nose in spite of your face then that's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing you're doing yourself any favors in the process.
Click to expand...

Extremely well put Mitch. My sentiments exactly. Could not have stated it better.

As someone who does a lot of grading for others, you have no idea how many times I cringe when I hear "It's a mini-Alexa at a tenth the price".
 
Last edited:
Mitch Gross said:
99% might not be able to tell the difference but I thought we were people here who cared deeply about the images. If you look through the tests carefully there are some huge differences between the cameras. We pointed several of them out during the show. You might not care but they are there. You might be able to color correct some of them to match each other, but some you cannot.
Click to expand...

I agree that this was a valuable set of tests. However, I think what most people are interested in is that the differences are more clearly stated. It doesn't feel like anyone has really dared to do this because of the politics and positions involved. As a matter of fact I would like to hear what you feel the differences are and where they can be seen or examined in the footage. Can you state these things without being at odds with your position as a rep for one of the players ?
 
Had a bit of a watch. Had a feel of old people waffling in a slightly random manner about some fairly uncontrolled shots.

For example Mitch..

You discuss cameras having 'character' (and later 'interpretive') and matching them with 'jinking' (my word) in post. Yes of course there is character at the top and bottom of the exposure range but there should be some simple levellers in the mid tones.

(IMO manufacturers and their reps should consider this as a base spec)

For example a card lit with a good source, camera, manufacturer LUT applied should deliver these values..



gretagCardValues.jpg

It is such a simple test to do. Delivering any other values is just a total pain.

Why a pain? - yesterday I was shooting for a sweets company (NDA) and they know 'their' blue and a 'characterful' camera will not deliver it. Grading is where one should introduce character if one choses to.

Its a test I regularly do. For example here is my Nikon D600 stills camera under my studio lights with the 'proper' colours inserted.. we get a good concept of how it does (or doesnt) perform


nikon.jpg
 
Last edited:
Further the manufacs issued grey numbers should be spot on too - you talk of huge differences until you deviated from those suggestions.. one of those cameras must be off? .. which one.

Of course the operator (camera team?) does not need to adhere to the issued grey value but they need IMO somewhere to start.
 
Last edited:
Mitch Gross said:
Oh, you mean the camera that required a huge amount of adjustment to the lighting and tons of power windows in post? The one that Francis Coppola liked but a lot of others didn't? The one that didn't have the depth of field characteristics of Super-35 (neither did the iPhone!!)? Of course there was another camera on that same test where the operator walked into the base lighting setup and said, "yeah, our camera can handle that." That camera shot the scene in about 1/10th the time and the grade was super fast as well. So even though it was the most expensive camera on the stage that day it was easily the most affordable given the minimal lighting requirements, the minimal lighting time (zero!) and the short time spent in color correction. But yeah, that little GH2 looked nice when you worked it well.

Tools matter. If you want to cut off your nose in spite of your face then that's fine, but don't fool yourself into believing you're doing yourself any favors in the process.
Click to expand...

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

For the record, even without knowing how much "help" it got, I still didn't like the GH2. Here are my "blind" opinions.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?284906-Revenge-of-the-Great-Camera-Shootout-blind-test

I think the main problem with the current shootout is that both options are SO GOOD, you're basically splitting hairs!!
 
Samuel H said:
I haven't tried any cameras beyond $4k, but if that's what you care about, the 5D3+RAW is still the camera with the best colors out of everything I've tried. I would expect the C200+RAW to do just as well, or better.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?307967-Canon-RAW-video-color-accuracy
Click to expand...

As an experienced colorist, I can tell you that I have rarely seen images out of the box which are as spot on as the 5D+RAW, and I have worked with almost all of the cameras out there in recent years. It may have limited dynamic range, rolling shutter, be only FullHD, have a heavy workflow and a siightly unstable platform (ML), however, it really often needs no correction at all for being true to a scene. It is one of the reasons why I still own one.
 
I find that extremely easy to believe. I haven't used it for anything other than tests, and I'm definitely far, far away from being an experienced colorist, but having that kind of accuracy right out of the box on the spydercheckr test was definitely shocking. If it had a couple more stops of DR, it would probably still be my favorite camera, 4k or not.
 
Well, they are too expensive *for me*, but if they're selling in line with the manufacturer's expectations, they are not overpriced. I will happily go on using my tiny mirrorless cameras that sell for less than half as much.
 
People will buy the cameras because they don't know any better (I'm sorry) and because they don't have many other choices in a similar price range if they need a cinema camera body with the other features, which is really what you're paying for IMO.

But I'm strictly-speaking image quality...the FS7s, the URSA Minis, etc. have been pumping out the same quality for years.
 
Yeah, the EVA1 isn't 3x better than the GH5s.

Not at all.

The EVA1 is a powerhouse in a few applications: Camcorder body and features. Challenging DR situations. RAW output for slow motion.

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on how you look at it) the GH5s is very close, can be easily accommodated these days to gain most camcorder body features pretty easily, actually has a number of advantages OVER the EVA1... etc.
 
filmguy123 said:
Yeah, the EVA1 isn't 3x better than the GH5s.

Not at all.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a universally true statement. (I wish it was or I'd just buy 2x GH5s and be done with it!)

I feel the only way you can make this comparison between MSRPs is if the camera isn't going to generate any income. (And even then, you should bump the GH5s price up to reflect equivalencies like ND filters, rigging options, and it's closer to 2x). Personally, I already have EF lenses, so that's a completely different cost equation for me, too.

And I think if you do use it for work, once you start factoring in time saved (for me, shooting with an EVA1 will unquestionably be faster), that price gap begins diminishing and is eventually eliminated over the span of X jobs.

Personally, I look at EVA1 footage and I just find it more inspiring than the GH5s. There's a visual character to it that works better with the stories I'll be trying to tell with it. Hard to put a price on that.
 
filmguy123 said:
Yeah, the EVA1 isn't 3x better than the GH5s.

Not at all.

The EVA1 is a powerhouse in a few applications: Camcorder body and features. Challenging DR situations. RAW output for slow motion.

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on how you look at it) the GH5s is very close, can be easily accommodated these days to gain most camcorder body features pretty easily, actually has a number of advantages OVER the EVA1... etc.
Click to expand...


My number one reason for wanting an FS7/C200/EVA1 is getting better gigs. I've definitely noticed a ton of gigs here that I missed out on because they specify FS7 or similar.

It sucks, because I firmly believe that a GH5 would be perfectly suitable for all of these jobs, but alas..
 
Gh5 is (to me) basically useless as a video camera because so slow to use etc.

Doesn't mean it can't make pretty pictures.

--

C200 Eva - yep everyone bought and fs7 and doesn't feel a need to trade across.

If one of these cams had 500fps or something then they would have become "must have"
 
Generally-speaking, even if you own one of those cameras you still have to face massive competition from really talented individuals/groups with the same equipment, and even from higher-end RED/ARRI operators whom have convinced potential clients to move forward with them for a number of reasons (even though I can't tell you enough how many imbeciles exist with very expensive cameras).

There are also those who market themselves better than others, or have better communication skills [hiring managers see poor communication as a tremendous shortcoming (at least in corporate America)], or own other equipment in which potential clients understand could be more beneficial (like lighting and audio)...plus various other factors.

The best thing you (anyone) can do in this industry if they would like to work for themselves is find niche clients. You make money - hopefully a lot - based on your talent with any camera you choose. (OTOH, if you have relationships with various trusty people who hire you frequently and love your work but really need something different and have addressed their concerns to you then that's different.)

But IMO owning a certain will not guarantee work...especially in 2018 when the industry is about to implode, ha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top