Zacuto Camera Shootout 2018 : Panasonic EVA1 vs Canon C200

[IronFilm]

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.

I'd have expected better support of the Panasonic GH2 from a Panasonic rep! ;-) This was a moment of shining glory for the Panasonic, something to be applauded for, what Panasonic was offering the indy filmmaker back then!
(and still does! With the Panasonic GH5S etc)

Where was the product placement? The cameras didn't have any Zacuto accessories on them, short of the custom plate and custom dual-lens follow focus rig used to shoot the two cameras together and pull focus on both lenses simultaneously. There was only one mention of Zacuto accessorizing in the Facebook Live show, and it was a joke by me. Knowing what goes into this thing I really feel Zacuto gets an unfair turn. You would be amazed at how expensive this was to put together and there were no parameters put on anything by anyone. Zacuto honestly didn't care what Bruce did as long as it was informative and entertaining. The manufacturers didn't care as long as it was done fairly. Canon & Panasonic stood back and observed, plus occasionally showed the AC where to find an adjustment in the menu.

But on this I am 100% agreed with you Mitch. And I'm grateful to the time and effort Zucuto has put into these tests, and how awesome it is that they then publicly share them!

They are over. If I am dropping $8K+, I need to clearly see a massive visual improvement, period.

It isn't just about the final image, but how you get to there.

 

[IronFilm]

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).

The C300mk2 was too late, and let the FS7 be entrenched as the #1 choice in the low/mid market, just like the C300mk1 was back before the FS7 came along.

(plus the C300mk2 has the same issue the C300mk1 had: lack of 60p at full resolution!)

I feel the EVA1/C200 have the same issue, they've arrived too late to properly replace the FS7 as "King of the Hill" for this market niche.

Something else needs to arrive which is a bigger leap forward before the FS7 gets properly replaced like it did to the C300mk1.

Was joking with a friend that the Alexa Classic has fallen so much in price that we should buy one cause that would get us so much extra work, which we both knew it would not.

Do it anyway! ;-)

The FS700 RAW signal is compressed, I believe between a 4:1 or 5:1.

Interesting! Never knew this, I learned something today.

 

[Retrospective]

Also whats the score with 150mps surely the EVA is not really (IMO) 'released' until the 400mbs codec is in play?

Based on Panasonic's white paper both LongGOP 150 and All-I 400 are visually comparable. I think raw recording would be more of an upgrade than recording in All-I 400.

https://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/eva1/pdf/EVA1_WP_RecFormats.pdf

 

[Sttratos]

Was joking with a friend that the Alexa Classic has fallen so much in price that we should buy one cause that would get us so much extra work, which we both knew it would not.

Interestingly, I did just that and it worked for me. The Alexa got me jobs my FS7 never did. I felt like I was missing out because of the FS7 and that it was holding me back. It has a prosumer or low end thing attach to it that bigger stuff just didn't care about. Sold it, bought an Alexa and never looked back. Your mileage may vary. But there were some gigs where the FS7 didn't even get you considered but the name Arri opens the doors with golden keys. Funny enough I'm the same guy, many times shooting with the same lights and lenses I shot with the FS7.

 

[Sttratos]

I'd have expected better support of the Panasonic GH2 from a Panasonic rep! ;-) This was a moment of shining glory for the Panasonic, something to be applauded for, what Panasonic was offering the indy filmmaker back then!
(and still does! With the Panasonic GH5S etc)

There is just no winning on DVXuser. If the guy is a rep for a company and hypes his product, he's biased. If he is a rep and tells it how it is, he is not supporting his product. Roll eye inducing and cringe worthy.

Mitch told it like it is. He's right on the money. The GH2 did well after considerable more time, for that one scene. Once you have to change the lighting it could be a totally different story. To pimp and be happy that Coppola chose it, is to be totally oblivious to what work on a real set is, and to be delusional that the result they got has any meaning in the real world or on a real set. Mitch is a Panasonic rep. He's not delusional.

The only reason to choose a DSLR or mirroless photo camera that shoots video over a Varicam, F55, F65, F35, Alexa etc is if you either need the small size for that one shot or can't afford anything else.

 

[Run&Gun]

Interestingly, I did just that and it worked for me. The Alexa got me jobs my FS7 never did. I felt like I was missing out because of the FS7 and that it was holding me back. It has a prosumer or low end thing attach to it that bigger stuff just didn't care about. Sold it, bought an Alexa and never looked back. Your mileage may vary. But there were some gigs where the FS7 didn't even get you considered but the name Arri opens the doors with golden keys. Funny enough I'm the same guy, many times shooting with the same lights and lenses I shot with the FS7.

Yep. I've said this for years, that for better or worse, owning a particular piece of gear can get you calls that you might not have otherwise. A lot of people, and especially a lot of people on here, believe that it doesn't matter what camera you own or that you don't need to own a camera at all. And in some market segments, that's true. But in others, it most certainly can and does.

*Do not attempt to spin what I just said into "talent doesn't matter". I did not say that or try to insinuate that. I live in the "middle", mostly network, broadcast and some production and corporate and the gear that you own is important. For the most part, you're not only "the crew", but you're also the "rental house".

 

[Barry_Green]

There is just no winning on DVXuser. If the guy is a rep for a company and hypes his product, he's biased. If he is a rep and tells it how it is, he is not supporting his product. Roll eye inducing and cringe worthy.

Not to mention that Panasonic Consumer is a different company from Panasonic Broadcast, at least as far as the sales divisions go, so he is in fact not a rep for the GH2 (or GH5 or GH5s for that matter).

Regardless -- I still have a GH2, and Mitch told it exactly like it was.

 

[flinty]

When i watch a lot of tv and all tv news the picture quality from what are mostly huge expensive cameras impresses me little compared to what i get from my GH5 and bridge cameras.

 

[puredrifting]

When i watch a lot of tv and all tv news the picture quality from what are mostly huge expensive cameras impresses me little compared to what i get from my GH5 and bridge cameras.

But you're looking at at a low resolution facsimile of footage that has been compressed and re-compressed multiple times by the time you see it versus first gen master on your GH5 and bridge cameras. ;-)

 

[DBP]

The only reason to choose a DSLR or mirroless photo camera that shoots video over a Varicam, F55, F65, F35, Alexa etc is if you either need the small size for that one shot or can't afford anything else.

At this point, I would absolutely choose a GH5 over any of those, even if I had a budget. The money I'd save on the camera is money I could put toward lighting/grip/sound/production design, which would make a bigger difference than any of those cameras.

But that's me. And I know I'd get laughed at by a lot of people, but I stand by it.

 

[High1ander]

At this point, I would absolutely choose a GH5 over any of those, even if I had a budget. The money I'd save on the camera is money I could put toward lighting/grip/sound/production design, which would make a bigger difference than any of those cameras.

But that's me. And I know I'd get laughed at by a lot of people, but I stand by it.

I don't think your sentiment is wrong, but I would argue that the "best bang for the buck" is different on a 20 000$, 200 000$ and 20 million dollar picture. The other cameras will yield a better result under worse conditions, allowing you to shoot faster and save money/time. That is basically what most of these shoot-outs show - "how off can you be and still get good results".
So the questions are more like:
What does it cost to fiddle with lights too much?
Can I make the red dress blue in post?
Will the set pieces be too dark and can I power window back detail.

If you feel a need to be able to fix that in post because you don't have money or time to do so during production then cameras with better codec, resolution, dynamic range, etc. will be more valuable. But sure, it is diminishing returns on image quality so saving money to be used for other parts of production will give a better overall product.

 

[Fahnon]

At this point, I would absolutely choose a GH5 over any of those, even if I had a budget. The money I'd save on the camera is money I could put toward lighting/grip/sound/production design, which would make a bigger difference than any of those cameras.

But that's me. And I know I'd get laughed at by a lot of people, but I stand by it.

If you had a real budget, and your continued livelihood was based on the current project turning out as well as can be; I don't think you'd risk not just the end result and your reputation, but the perception of your on-set peers by choosing a GH5 over a Varicam. The difference in cost between the two in a real budget isn't that great.

 

[DBP]

I don't think your sentiment is wrong, but I would argue that the "best bang for the buck" is different on a 20 000$, 200 000$ and 20 million dollar picture. The other cameras will yield a better result under worse conditions, allowing you to shoot faster and save money/time. That is basically what most of these shoot-outs show - "how off can you be and still get good results".
So the questions are more like:
What does it cost to fiddle with lights too much?
Can I make the red dress blue in post?
Will the set pieces be too dark and can I power window back detail.

If you feel a need to be able to fix that in post because you don't have money or time to do so during production then cameras with better codec, resolution, dynamic range, etc. will be more valuable. But sure, it is diminishing returns on image quality so saving money to be used for other parts of production will give a better overall product.

In the 20 million example, I could see going for a higher end cam. It's a cheap enough percentage of the budget, at that point.

The 20,000$ or 200,000$ though.... I feel like outright owning a GH5 is still going to be much cheaper than renting a Varicam or Alexa, unless the shoot is very short. That money could then be put into more / a bigger light so you don't need to power window.

I realize there's a lot of variables here, but for many non-FX heavy based movies, I can't see there being that much post difference with a GH5 and an Alexa if you prepare and shoot properly.

 

[DBP]

If you had a real budget, and your continued livelihood was based on the current project turning out as well as can be; I don't think you'd risk not just the end result and your reputation, but the perception of your on-set peers by choosing a GH5 over a Varicam. The difference in cost between the two in a real budget isn't that great.

Is it? What's a Varicam rent for? Surely that rental cost would surpass a GH5 really quickly unless it was a really short shoot.

I agree that the perception of on set peers would be affected, but that very thing makes me mad and I might do it just to rebel against the idea. As far as the end result goes, I don't believe there'd be any risk at all, provided the movie is good and the talent in the key positions is there. I think you're talking practically non existent differences that only camera nerds can notice at that point. I am a camera nerd, so no hate. I just see obsessing over it as an improper allocation of resources in a lot of scenarios that aren't huge budgets.

 

[Run&Gun]

In the 20 million example, I could see going for a higher end cam. It's a cheap enough percentage of the budget, at that point.

The 20,000$ or 200,000$ though.... I feel like outright owning a GH5 is still going to be much cheaper than renting a Varicam or Alexa, unless the shoot is very short. That money could then be put into more / a bigger light so you don't need to power window.

I realize there's a lot of variables here, but for many non-FX heavy based movies, I can't see there being that much post difference with a GH5 and an Alexa if you prepare and shoot properly.

It's not just post and the final image, but just as importantly to me, it's shooting with it. Even in the rare instances I use a still cam(5D) for a lock-off 2nd/3rd shot in an interview, it's a PITA to use.

I don't know your background and I'm not trying to be insulting, but I always wonder/think when I see similar comments on this forum that the person has never used professional gear designed for shooting motion or just can't afford it and just continuously tries to justify why you don't need a "real camera" or "real lens". Can still cameras and lenses produce great images? Yes. But if your job is shooting motion, why would you continuously subject yourself to the torture of doing that with gear not designed to do that, if you could afford it?

 

[DBP]

It's not just post and the final image, but just as importantly to me, it's shooting with it. Even in the rare instances I use a still cam(5D) for a lock-off 2nd/3rd shot in an interview, it's a PITA to use.

I don't know your background and I'm not trying to be insulting, but I always wonder/think when I see similar comments on this forum that the person has never used professional gear designed for shooting motion or just can't afford it and just continuously tries to justify why you don't need a "real camera" or "real lens". Can still cameras and lenses produce great images? Yes. But if your job is shooting motion, why would you continuously subject yourself to the torture of doing that with gear not designed to do that, if you could afford it?

You're right. My work has all been lower end stuff, so I've never actually operated anything beyond a C100. Not insulted though, it's fair that you have those suspicions.

The day I use something better, I could very well realize that current me is being silly.

It's nothing against higher end cameras. I base it solely on watching camera tests, and watching movies or shorts that turn out really well, and doing my best to figure out why that is. The camera just increasingly seems like a *very* small piece of that puzzle, past a certain point.

I do understand that the operation and "getting there" process is important though, and probably something I'm underestimating.

 

[Paul F]

Your sentiments are well placed from where you are. But if you had the experience of a big budget project that can't afford to make mistakes, waste time, or put up with nonsense, you would not put up with a camera that has hdmi connectors, monitor lag, a small battery stuck in the bottom of the camera, weak timecode, no XLR connectors (even if it is just for a reference track; and no, some add-on XLR adapter isn't going to cut it), lacks proper SDI connectors, and all the other things that make a stills camera not a cinema camera.

 

[IronFilm]

Interestingly, I did just that and it worked for me. The Alexa got me jobs my FS7 never did. I felt like I was missing out because of the FS7 and that it was holding me back. It has a prosumer or low end thing attach to it that bigger stuff just didn't care about. Sold it, bought an Alexa and never looked back. Your mileage may vary. But there were some gigs where the FS7 didn't even get you considered but the name Arri opens the doors with golden keys. Funny enough I'm the same guy, many times shooting with the same lights and lenses I shot with the FS7.

When did you buy the Arri Alexa, and may I ask for how much?

The Arri Alexa however occupies quite a different niche to the FS7, which is itself extremely popular as well (the FS7 is another one of those few cameras which producers will request by name), did you find yourself missing out on other jobs due to not owning a FS7?

 

[puredrifting]

Your sentiments are well placed from where you are. But if you had the experience of a big budget project that can't afford to make mistakes, waste time, or put up with nonsense, you would not put up with a camera that has hdmi connectors, monitor lag, a small battery stuck in the bottom of the camera, weak timecode, no XLR connectors (even if it is just for a reference track; and no, some add-on XLR adapter isn't going to cut it), lacks proper SDI connectors, and all the other things that make a stills camera not a cinema camera.

The variable that has been totally ignored here are client concerns. Most clients for projects that are budgeted into the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars would NEVER let their project be shot on a consumer camera. We have a client who even for $50k budget jobs requires us to use the RED Weapon. Commissioned work, which is what typically projects are over about $100k budget, usually has minimum gear requirements and many, like Netflix even get camera specific. They will not fund a project shot primarily on a consumer camera or SmartPhone in most cases. I've only been under one twice but camera used can also be a condition of completion bonds. So that you say you would shoot a project that could or should be shot on an Arri or RED type camera on a consumer camera is probably moot point. It wouldn't matter, in most cases, which camera you choose, your preference would probably be overridden unless you had the clout of a Scorsese, Spielberg or Howard.

 

[yoclay]

Blanket statements about what camera one would use or prefer to use really only reveal the process most related to the work one does regularly.
They do not reflect the reality of how major filmmaking happens. It is naive to think otherwise.

Lets talk about deliverables. Major productions do not choose cameras. They choose processes.
Testing often quite far in advance. Cameras are tested based on a variety of projected circumstances.
Codecs and formats are examined for their relevance to the subject and priorities in post-production.
Makeup tests are done with the same cameras. Motion is tested. Lens choices are compared with various cameras.
Images are shot, conformed and corrected. VFX may be tested. Choices are made and a PROCESS is put into place.
This chain of choices is specific and individualized. It is the chain, not the camera that matters and it confirmed and reconfirmed all along the way.