G
Guest
Guest
Isn't there a difference between 400x and 400% zoom?
Zacuto Camera Shootout 2018 : Panasonic EVA1 vs Canon C200
- Thread starter TheDingo
- Start date
filmguy123
Veteran
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh come on guys, talking about two different things here. I am *NOT* saying paying $$ for the EVA1 is a bad investment (I *BOUGHT* one! I own it alongside my GH5 and GH5s).
This is only true that you can make more $$ on the camera if you are hired by agencies or companies for your gear package. I am not. I am hired for what I produce end to end. No one knows what I shoot with. They just see the end result.
Not a diss on the EVA1, just a restatement of what this whole shootout is about and what the history of these shoot outs proves... people couldn't even tell the GH2... that gap has narrowed a lot more.
And like was stated in this post or others, the GH5/GH5s are entirely capable - well, most especially the GH5s which is what I was referring to, which to my eye, looks notably better than the GH5 (it is the S model that brings the EVA1/GH5s gap so much closer).
I have been using both side by side and it can be very hard to strongly (or even mildly) prefer the EVA1 over the GH5s is a number of scenarios... they both look so good... The EVA1 definitely has it's moments (especially when you need that extra DR, absolutely, or I imagine when RAW output for really high quality slow motion comes out) but the point was more that in terms of pure end result in IQ the EVA1 is just simply not 3x better looking than the GH5s. Maybe in the scenarios I listed, but outside of that, no way. If you don't agree with me, ask 1000 people what they think. You can downvote me, but you'll want to PUNCH them if you heard them...
Did I mention? I am an EVA1 owner. I bought one for a reason. I am not saying it's not worth the investment. I am just saying it's very difficult to quantify a 3x better looking IMAGE (not other features). I'm surprised that's even a contentious statement....
Anyway, tangent - I don't find the GH5 or GH5s at all slow to work with vs the EVA1, I find the EVA1 slower. But again that comes down to personal use case. Xume adaptors + variable ND + cage + XLR unit make the DSLR style cameras crazy quick. I find the GH5s menus and switches actually better and quicker than the EVA1 which can be clunky at times. But I guess YMMV, I just think it's a misnomer to say the GH5/DSLR rigs are slower... UNLESS you are on some big set or shoot, hired out by someone else, and expected to fit into their accepted workflows. For solo shooter types like myself, I just don't see it.
Before I start a war...
* I REALLY LIKE MY EVA1 *
First, if this is what you meant, you should have said it! Your post didn't mention IQ once and instead listed features in the two cameras, which sounds a lot more like a general value comparison, so you can't be that surprised at how it was interpreted.
Second, I can't fathom trying to assign a $ value to IQ alone. I either like it and can afford to own it (EVA1/C200) or I like it but cannot afford to own it (Arri) or I don't like it (most of the DSLRs, even though I really want to).
What people don't understand here, is that manufacturer's are targeting market segments not camera users. There has always been an $8K market segment, as well as $15K one for instance. It's not about achieving massive increases in image quality, it's about the kind of swiss army knife you need for your sector. There is a source of revenue which remains relatively stable out there for manufacturers in this sector. Small events, local advertising, docu segments, weddings, small indie projects, etc. Yes, you can use a GH5s for those, but does that really correspond to your clients expectations ? Does the workflow and ergonomics make sense, etc. ? Most DSLR users that have been working in these market sectors for a while have matured beyond the DSLR. They want XLR's and a more consolidated form factor. I daresay that these two cameras correspond well to this market and also represent a step up in image quality. In fact they are providing what a $15K camera provided only a few years ago, at half the price. It may not be 3x the quality of the GH5s, but it is better image quality nonetheless. I personally think they look great, and the truth is that they are even providing images which could easily compete with many higher level cameras today.
Last edited:
One of Mitch's points is more than just valid, which is how much work is involved in achieving a given level of image quality.
For example when I was working with a Cion, I was able to make images that a lot of people have assumed I shot with a Red... but often they required quite a bit of light, since the Cion's sensitivity is fairly low (I usually ended up keeping it at around 200). So... a LOT of light for a small scene...
Now I'm using a camera with a lot more sensitivity and a lot less noise, an Epic-W. I keep it at ISO 800 for film work, but now the same lights that I used to use to light a person I can use to light three of them through a big scrim, so I can get more mileage and more pleasing quality from it both.
And... out of the box the images look great. Most of my color grading these days is matching the lighting conditions that we couldn't control between shots, like clouds in front of the sun or an elk shot that we couldn't control when we got it, because we were beholden to the elk for showing up whenever they felt like it (try sending elk a call sheet... they'd probably just eat it ).
I'm not sure about the Panasonic, but Canon's new clip-based raw light format is a big deal. Just try shooting a film in 4K with CinemaDNG while on a shoestring budget, never mind 6K or 8K. Shooting ProRes 444 in 4K would have netted us around 10TB for our feature, but we shot it in 16-bit, 8K raw using Redcode and it's only around 6 or 7TB, not including proxies and audio.
So yeah, there's more to the equation than ONLY image quality, though I would expect both to deliver a better image than a GH5 under most circumstances, before color grading... which usually also means that they need less color grading work, which further saves money and time.
For example when I was working with a Cion, I was able to make images that a lot of people have assumed I shot with a Red... but often they required quite a bit of light, since the Cion's sensitivity is fairly low (I usually ended up keeping it at around 200). So... a LOT of light for a small scene...
Now I'm using a camera with a lot more sensitivity and a lot less noise, an Epic-W. I keep it at ISO 800 for film work, but now the same lights that I used to use to light a person I can use to light three of them through a big scrim, so I can get more mileage and more pleasing quality from it both.
And... out of the box the images look great. Most of my color grading these days is matching the lighting conditions that we couldn't control between shots, like clouds in front of the sun or an elk shot that we couldn't control when we got it, because we were beholden to the elk for showing up whenever they felt like it (try sending elk a call sheet... they'd probably just eat it
). I'm not sure about the Panasonic, but Canon's new clip-based raw light format is a big deal. Just try shooting a film in 4K with CinemaDNG while on a shoestring budget, never mind 6K or 8K. Shooting ProRes 444 in 4K would have netted us around 10TB for our feature, but we shot it in 16-bit, 8K raw using Redcode and it's only around 6 or 7TB, not including proxies and audio.
So yeah, there's more to the equation than ONLY image quality, though I would expect both to deliver a better image than a GH5 under most circumstances, before color grading... which usually also means that they need less color grading work, which further saves money and time.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I think people understand...it's obvious there have to be cameras on the market which are more than $2,000, but in general the costs keep declining and the segments continue to change as technology does as well.
I'm interested to see these RED/Foxconn 8K cameras at "a 1/3 of the price".
If a RED EPIC-W (HELIUM 8K S35) costs $29,500 (brain only) does that mean we'll see an 8K camera for $9,800?
And then what?
I'm interested to see these RED/Foxconn 8K cameras at "a 1/3 of the price".
If a RED EPIC-W (HELIUM 8K S35) costs $29,500 (brain only) does that mean we'll see an 8K camera for $9,800?
And then what?
The segments themselves haven't changed that much, but the image quality and features available at each has changed drastically.
It's anybody's guess whether that was really part of the plan, or just hyperbole. And of course the "when" part is questionable also.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
The C300 had a great market, but I see the FS7, EVA1 and C200 eating a lot of the potential market of the C300 II. It seems a big chunk has moved to a much lower bracket, getting improved image quality at the same time. As technology advances, this should happen relatively often. Though it's also true that you can find yourself paying a lot more than you used to because the product it's so much better than what you could buy before that in suddenly makes sense (that's me buying the original a7S, at almost three times the price of my previous most expensive camera).
I think the C300MKII missed its niche. It seemed to me to be not enough of an improvement over its predecessor to convince most C300 owners to upgrade, and that's probably why Canon offered a pretty deep discount not long after launch, and it was still in effect when I considered a C300MKII almost a year later.
I'm a bit surprised that CFastII prices haven't come down much yet though.
I'm a bit surprised that CFastII prices haven't come down much yet though.
The storage (and for that matter memory) markets are oddly susceptible to influence, be it component shortages or soft collusion. It's super annoying. My last big storage buy was in 2015, and I just checked prices -- same drives are 30% more today than what I paid 3 years ago. I'm hopeful that cams will eventually adopt some kind of NVME-enclosure slots, but that's probably a few years out...
G
Guest
Guest
Betacam Was the first camera I used. Had to white balance with a BW viewfinder. You have no idea. (true story, but also, hopefully humorous riff)
Run&Gun
Veteran
You kids, get off my lawn!
I cut my teeth on Betacam. Shot it from the beginning of my internship in 1996(bought my first one in '97) until probably at least 2012- nine years after I had started shooting HD and over six after I had bought my first VariCam.
Yep, B&W CRT VF's. You really had to know what your camera would do under different lighting conditions. And we rarely had incorrect white balances and exposure issues. I actually didn't get my first color VF until after I bought my first P2 Vari. Which is why it baffles me today as to why I see so much poorly exposed and white balanced video since almost every camera has a color VF or monitor attached.