New Canon Cinema EOS C200 and 200B

[Cliff Totten]

So, this is solidly an 8bit camcorder that shoots to a weak internal video CODEC. It blocks the use of LOG to external recorders, and forces 8bit over HDMI. Canon then turns around and allows very short raw data recordings over small expensive CFast cards??....and has the guts to call it a "raw data" camera??

Do Canon managers sit at boardroom tables and laugh while saying: "lets really screw with our customers and play some serious mind games on them...haha"

Whats next? "We at Canon have decided to give our C200 customers 10bit HDMI......4:2:0, 10bit!....hahaha!"

I mean these guys have bawls to play games like that!

Wow!......this camera is basically useless. The $2000 GH5 seems to be a better overall camera than this C200 Frankenstein.

[Barry Goyette]

Tell us what you really think, Cliff. :-)

So fine...the camera isn't for you. I, for one, think canon has a hit on it's hands, and I think Cinema Raw Light is a true game changer for a lot of people (not you of course). I won't be buying one this year as my c300markII is still humming along fine. But I'm intrigued by comments and tests showing that DPAF face detection seems to be improved yet again on this camera, and like the flexibility of the new RAW format. This camera seems targeted at the future to me, with its PQ signal and RAW --sh$t, this is a $7500 camera with a freakin ACES workflow that involves internal recording. With Professional digital sound. You can do anything with it. I see lots of people comparing it to an Alexa Mini, except you could buy 4 of these for the price of a mini and another for the cost of a basic accessory kit.

Here's a review from Brett Danton
https://www.redsharknews.com/product...ands-on-review

I think it will be interesting to see where canon goes with its XF-AVC format on this camera, only because it would be nice to have the same formats as my c300II. If I was a C100II owner who wanted something that would shoot 4k60p for my daily drudge of weddings and events, and also be flexible enough to shoot a feature or commercial, I'd be all over this camera.

[Cliff Totten]

lol,...you are right. I think I was in this crazy blunt and honest mood when I typed this. (I'm better now) ;-)

I'm sure many people out there will love this camera. Not everybody cares about 10bit HDMI or log, or grading or dynamic range. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are fine with 15min raw data files on small and really expensive CFast cards.

But wait...[scratching head]....do the pros that buy the C200's actually care about these things? Because the C200 deliberately makes it very very hard to get 10bit bit video for color grading. They only give you one crazy way.

So can we say this is an extremely expensive camera for pros with lots of money that DEMAND 8bit files with baked-in "Canon Colors" in rec709 only?

Just cant believe it...

[Christopher Young]

Canon already have a good 10-bit XF-AVC codec as seen in their C300 Mk II plus they have their 8-bit 422 version they use in the XC15. I don't really think it's so much a job of 'writing' a new XF-AVC version but programming the C200 FPGA's to handle whatever flavor of XF-AVC 8 or 10-bit they want to use.

If they go 10-bit 422 I doubt it will go above 30p in UHD as that really does put it up against it's big brother the 300 Mk II. As the C200 offers 50/60p my bet is that the most likely thing to see is a 50Mbps 8-bit 420 50/60p version. I can't see them putting in an XF-AVC codec and limiting to 24/25/30p. To me that would seem counter intuitive in a camera that is very much about 50/60p in an 8-bit environment... outside of its RAW capability that is.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

[Andy Wilkinson]

Christopher,

I think you're spot on with this analysis. I am potentially interested in the C200 but will ONLY consider buying one once I know which way Canon is going to jump on this "middle ground, workhorse UHD" codec in early 2018. We've also got the Eva 1 to think about when it becomes available later this year - could force their hand a bit if it lives up to its potential. And I hope it does, competition is good for all of us!

Meanwhile, I'll happily continue to use my FS5, C100 (has the original, much more simplistic, DPAF feature) and PMW300. Who know's, by September the FS5 will be 2 years old and Sony, who are renown for not standing still too long, may well announce a FS5 MkII with improved 4K/UHD codec options at IBC (where they originally announced the FS5 back in 2015).

[Danilo Del Tufo]

C200: Object Tracking & Face Detection on Vimeo

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

I'm sure there are plenty of people that are fine with 15min raw data files on small and really expensive CFast cards.

SDXC cards with enough bandwidth needed to record Intraframe compressed 4K are $100 cheaper than CFast cards. Red MiniMags are $500 more.

In my opinion, not "really" expensive.

[Danilo Del Tufo]

Kata - filmet med Canon C200 on Vimeo

[Barry Goyette]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Not everybody cares about 10bit HDMI or log, or grading or dynamic range. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are fine with 15min raw data files on small and really expensive CFast cards.

....do the pros that buy the C200's actually care about these things? Because the C200 deliberately makes it very very hard to get 10bit bit video for color grading. They only give you one crazy way.

Just cant believe it...

I don't know about you, but my workflow involves ingesting XF-AVC files into Final Cut Pro, which "optimizes" (in the background) those files into whatever flavor of ProRes I prefer for editing. Canon's "crazy" method involves you ingesting the CRM file into FCPX, which then optimizes that file into ProRes (in the background).

We don't know the details yet, but several people from Canon have told me that the goal is to make RAW as simple as any other file.

For that, we get 12bit video for grading. Do the Pro's care about these things? This pro does. I'll take 12bit over 10 bit any day, and my current C300II only does that in HD/2k. To do it in 4k, in a camera that is half the price I paid for the C300II, is...priceless.

I certainly get your desire for a better recording option, although personally, I prefer the internal options. To be strapped down to a recorder for handheld, stripped down work isn't my cup of tea, and a recorder capable of recording 4kp60 in 444 isn't cheap, nor is the media. -- so investing in Cfast (or a DIT) isn't exactly the end of the world. Doing it in 422 is more economical (and this camera will do 10 bit in HD over SDI) but still costs and weighs something. I bought into the "cinema eos" system because of the card based workflow that was compact, and familiar to me as a photographer. This camera extends that legacy into the RAW workflow. As others have said, there was a time when RAW for stills was considered onerous and even professionals often chose 'jpeg' because it was easier to use. Today that paradigm has completely shifted. Canon Raw Light is a step away from your dirty old 10-bit codec. :-)

Again, you can see by the inclusion of only 1 Cfast slot (the main deficiency of this Cam IMHO), that this camera is really a 4kp60 version of the C100 (an 8bit camera). It's priced accordingly. The addition of RAW internal is really a bonus. If you want a 10 bit camera, either wait to see if the other shoe drops in 2018, or buy a C300II, or wait for the C300III. (interesting, considering the naming, we may be looking at a C400 instead?)

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

For that, we get 12bit video for grading. Do the Pro's care about these things? This pro does. I'll take 12bit over 10 bit any day, and my current C300II only does that in HD/2k. To do it in 4k, in a camera that is half the price I paid for the C300II, is...priceless.

And that's probably due to the bandwidth the camera is processing for 60p. Isn't the C300 Mark II's Cine Raw output only 10-bit?

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

I don't know about you, but my workflow involves ingesting XF-AVC files into Final Cut Pro, which "optimizes" (in the background) those files into whatever flavor of ProRes I prefer for editing. Canon's "crazy" method involves you ingesting the CRM file into FCPX, which then optimizes that file into ProRes (in the background).

We don't know the details yet, but several people from Canon have told me that the goal is to make RAW as simple as any other file.

For that, we get 12bit video for grading. Do the Pro's care about these things? This pro does. I'll take 12bit over 10 bit any day, and my current C300II only does that in HD/2k. To do it in 4k, in a camera that is half the price I paid for the C300II, is...priceless.

I certainly get your desire for a better recording option, although personally, I prefer the internal options. To be strapped down to a recorder for handheld, stripped down work isn't my cup of tea, and a recorder capable of recording 4kp60 in 444 isn't cheap, nor is the media. -- so investing in Cfast (or a DIT) isn't exactly the end of the world. Doing it in 422 is more economical (and this camera will do 10 bit in HD over SDI) but still costs and weighs something. I bought into the "cinema eos" system because of the card based workflow that was compact, and familiar to me as a photographer. This camera extends that legacy into the RAW workflow. As others have said, there was a time when RAW for stills was considered onerous and even professionals often chose 'jpeg' because it was easier to use. Today that paradigm has completely shifted. Canon Raw Light is a step away from your dirty old 10-bit codec. :-)

Again, you can see by the inclusion of only 1 Cfast slot (the main deficiency of this Cam IMHO), that this camera is really a 4kp60 version of the C100 (an 8bit camera). It's priced accordingly. The addition of RAW internal is really a bonus. If you want a 10 bit camera, either wait to see if the other shoe drops in 2018, or buy a C300II, or wait for the C300III. (interesting, considering the naming, we may be looking at a C400 instead?)

Raw data on a single little expensive CFast card ? OK, thats fine. Im not complaining about that option. Low bit rate, 8 bit 4k internal CODEC....uggg....OK, I'll accept that trick. Fine.

My thing is: Canon...stop playing games with your damn HDMI ports! Quit crippling your HDMI and at least allow ot to output all the video your cameras can do. I mean, crap,...recording log internally and converting it to rec709 over HDMI probably actually takes "more" camera processing to do this cripple. All I want is to record 10bit to ProRes on SSD media with a recorder in log. LIKE EVERY OTHER LOG 8BIT/10BIT CAMERA DOES IN THE WORLD. (Im yelling at Canon...not at anybody here on the forum)

Just pass the same gamma curve out of the HDMI that you send to the CODEC.

Wow....if all this turns out to be true, I think Canon has pulled off the industry record for the nastiest most blatant, "in our face" crippling tricks the industry has seen yet.

Is the C200 the only log capable camera on Earth to ever actually block log out of its HDMI? Who else does that?

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

SDXC cards with enough bandwidth needed to record Intraframe compressed 4K are $100 cheaper than CFast cards. Red MiniMags are $500 more.

In my opinion, not "really" expensive.

What are those new SDXC cards called Gary, are those UHS II or III or ? Are they out yet?

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Is the C200 the only log capable camera on Earth to ever actually block log out of its HDMI? Who else does that?

What's your source that verified this is fact? I can't find it.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

What are those new SDXC cards called Gary, are those UHS II or III or ? Are they out yet?

Here they are.

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

What's your source that verified this is fact? I can't find it.

Did I say this is a "fact"? As a matter of fact, I phrased this as a "question" and not a statement at all. I even ended the questions with question marks.

"Is the C200 the only log capable camera on Earth to ever actually block log out of its HDMI? Who else does that?"

My question still stands. Does anybody know or heard of any log capable camera that blocks it's log gamma output over it's HDMI port? I know of none myself. Even Sony little, tiny cheap consumer RX cameras output SLOG over their micro HDMI ports.

It seems that Canon wants to lock you inside the camera and block your attempts at leaving their internal limitations with a high quality ProRes recording.....dirty-style.