Canon's C200 has been on the radar for quite some time as an affordable cinema camera. This review shows if it's really worth buying it because of its advertised key features such as ability to shoot raw footage, dynamic range, build improvements from previous models, and others. The test has been performed by the guys from The Slanted Lens on a sunny day outside in the city. The reviewers mostly shot in Raw Light format although they've got some files in AVCHD, so they could compare the results later.
Dynamic Range
It's not a surprise that the dynamic range of a the Canon C-series cinema cameras is good, but to one of the reviewers it is surprising that the picture on the C200 looked much more three-dimensional than on the C300. A two-stop overexpose test is also made, and even in the compressed AVCHD video they were able to bring the exposure back to normal without much apparent defects. Two stops underexposed also gives pleasant results, but the verdict is that this camera loves light. It holds better when recovering the image from overexposing than underexposing where in the latter, after restoration the noise becomes more visible.
Autofocus
The autofocusing capabilities blew reviewers' minds when they tried it on a 200mm lens at f/4 shooting at the model who was walking towards the camera. The C200 kept the focus locked on the moving subject extremely well.
Raw Footage
Apart from the bigger files that are produced when shooting raw, the workflow is much clumsier than working with compressed AVCHD footage. If you are shooting in Raw Light, you may have to spend an extra $1,000 on CFast cards. A 120 GB card can record up to 15 minutes of raw content.
Rolling Shutter
The effect has been quite minimized as seen on a handheld test footage. Panning tests also confirm that camera's rolling shutter is not that prominent. Although the normal viewer won't see much of it as it's mostly a problem in a camera geek's mind, the reviewers say.
Slow Motion
One of the features Canon shooters may love on this camera is the ability to shoot 4K at 60 fps. It can shoot 120 fps, but at a much lower resolution of full HD.
Noise
The camera seems to produce more noise in the deep shadows when shooting raw than when using the compressed file format. That wasn't expected by the reviewers, but they confirm that after applying a noise reduction it's gone and the image is nice and clean.
ISO Performance
The camera's holding the image well up to 3,200 ISO. Above that the blacks tend to receive a green tint, and of course, the noise grows exponentially.
Colors
The colors on the C200 feel very natural. One of the reviewers admits that he's so pleased with the color output that issues with noise are negligible to him.
Post Processing Performance
The 150 Mbps files the C200 outputs are much easily handled by the modern computers than the 410 Mbps the C300 Mark II produces. While that's obvious, the quality of the C200 files is not noticeably lower.
Side-by-side Quick Cameras Comparison
The reviewers did a non-scientific comparison between the footage from the Sony a7R II and the C200 and, of course, straight off of bat the cinema camera shows its dominance over the mirrorless stills one.
The conclusion is that the C200 seems quite good as a balance between features and price for the professional video shooter.
I don't really understand why people make comparisons between cinema cameras and the Sony A7RII.
The reason is The Slanted Lens (who reviewed the camera) used Sony a7R II for many of their videos so far. They wanted to see if it's worth buying the C200 and replace the Sony.
That's why the need to compare C200 to Sony a7R II comes natural to them.
>> I don't really understand why people make comparisons between cinema cameras and the Sony A7RII.
In this range, it's fairly obvious, surely? Once you add lenses, rigging and lighting, the system costs aren't terribly different for a professional shooter - they're easily the sort of thing that the more expensive camera can pay for by a higher ROR due to less shooting time and less time in post - not to mention not needing a focus puller. Documentary shooters, event shooters and corporate videographers would reasonably look at both cameras.
Or to put it another way, the main question professionals need to ask about the C-series and similar models is how much they can do to save time or produce higher billable quality compared to the A7, DSLRS, the GH5 etc.
In this case they used the C200 without any focus pulling, additional lighting, or anything much different they usually did with the Sony. They used the C200 as a "DSLR", if I can put it that way. The "Standard" picture profile of the C200 didn't differ much from the Sony but once they switch to Wide DR or C-Log, things drastically change. The Wide DR + AVCHD gives the C200 shooter (or any C-series camera shooter) to produce run-and-gun videos even by simply cutting footage without any file conversion or color correction. The AVCHD + C-Log needs 1 extra step, color correcting, but that does not require file conversion either for simple projects. If one needs more quality, they have to pay a higher price for that. In the C200 case this is time for file conversion from RAW format, as well as disk space.
What the C-series are trying to do is to reach both professionals who do run-and-gun style of videos and those who spend more time in the making.
I've been using a C-series camera with AVCHD and a DSLR (as a second camera) for video and the difference is huge even though both output files are compressed.
>> What the C-series are trying to do is to reach both professionals who do run-and-gun style of videos and those who spend more time in the making.
Yes. And of course some people do some of both. This would be an attractive camera to such people even without the amazing focus tech, but with it - wow.
And if you are shooting for a living then in most countries you'll be able to write off all or most of the cost difference via tax allowances. Or you might be able to work out a very tax efficient leasing deal, etc.
I am pleased to see that the 8bit compressed codec holds up as well as it does, given that I was worried that the lack of recording options would make this camera a confusing piece of gear for most shooters.
But it's that Dual Pixel AF makes all the difference. Without it, this is just a watered-down version of any cinema camera currently on the market as it makes any type of tracking shot whether on a gimbal or tripod a lot easier and a lot faster to produce.
Yes, the AVCHD works pretty well even on their first model (C100), especially when shooting in Canon Log format (C Log). The autofocus is remarkable indeed.
Any thoughts as to the Canon 5D Mk IV as a 2nd camera, shooting in C-Log?
Knowing that Canon are selling the C-cameras as a separate product with a different sensor, it's sure there's going to be a difference. Not sure, however, what the difference is. I haven't tried the 5D IV's C-Log update.
That viewfinder placement is asinine! How are you supposed to shoulder-mount this thing? There's no way to look into it!
This is how to do it: you buy a side-mounted viewfinder:
https://www.redsharknews.com/media/k2/items/src/99de8b93c79e51cdc07b0b8d...
Which costs almost as much as the camera. Nonsensical for the target market of this product.
At least there are other options on the market, but again, they are expensive.
The video world is always crazy with their prices.