# Cinema EOS C200 Codec Update Coming in 2018



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 1, 2017)

```
According to Newsshooter, Canon will bring a new codec to the Cinema EOS C200 camera in early 2018 as a free “upgrade”.</p>
<p>The new codec will be XF-AVC YCbCr 4:2:0 8bit and will be recorded to the SD slot, and not the CFast 2.0 slot.</p>

<p>Most of the world likely wanted to see a 10bit 4:2:2 codec in the EOS C200, but Canon does have a history of not wanting to add features to a product you can already get in a higher end product, and in this case, that is the Cinema EOS C300 Mark II. Canon also said that they have no intention of adding an internal 10bit 4:2:2 codec to the EOS C200.</p>
<p>Be sure to <a href="http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/08/24/new-codec-coming-to-the-c200-in-2018-will-only-be-420-8-bit/">head over to Newsshooter</a> for some more in-depth analysis of this decision by Canon.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>
```


----------



## CanonGuy (Sep 1, 2017)

Typical canon.... Thus very same attitude is what irritates me most. Reason why they won't see a dime from me again.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 1, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> Typical canon.... Thus very same attitude is what irritates me most. Reason why they won't see a dime from me again.



Let's be real, you're probably not in the market for this camera.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 1, 2017)

joejohnbear said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Typical canon.... Thus very same attitude is what irritates me most. Reason why they won't see a dime from me again.
> ...


its crazy how people on CR love to talk down to people when a huge Corporation intentionally cripples expensive products that makes like harder for the working stiff that uses their product to make a living. dvxuser forumites were trash talking the people here about how you guys accept anything from Canon. Someone did mention that most people here are mainly photographers and are ignorant to the struggles of professional videographers and cinematographers. It's like a company making a 50 MP DSLR that doesnt shoot L Jpeg Just S and S2. Why do their make their customers spend 10K for a decent codec when everyone else even CANON offers it for hundreds on inferior cameras. If I am spending $7500, the cinema camera has to be up to spec for the next 5 years.


----------



## cinema-dslr (Sep 1, 2017)

It's rather silly that canon intentionally crippled this camera by withholding a solid internal 10bit codec and limiting the 10bit output via hdmi/sdi to 1080p.

the c200 is only 2500,- cheaper as the c300m2 and tc in/out & dual recording slots are reasons enough to justify that markup.

The only mildly sensible reasoning behind this move could be to force the implication of the rawlite with the direct in-portability into NLE's wich would bring the many advantages of raw to the masses.

I'm definitely in the market for this camera but still waiting on how that rawlite workflow will workout.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 1, 2017)

RayValdez360 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > CanonGuy said:
> ...



But you're not, so move on. There's no competing camera with this feature set right now until Sony releases an FS7 Mk.iii.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 2, 2017)

joejohnbear said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > joejohnbear said:
> ...


How do you know what I am spending, shill?


----------



## leGreve (Sep 2, 2017)

Back in july I was talking to our local retailer.... I was looking at buying a new camera. I was going back and forth between Scarlet Raven, FS7 II and EVA-1 from Panasonic. The C200 was still a mystery, but he was trying to pitch that to me as well because I mentioned I liked the images from the C300 II, although it's form factor is rediculous and I didn't want to throw money at CFast media.

When this news broke with the C200 being stuck at 4:2:0 8 bit, this camera lost all reason to me.

Rawlite would force me to push my 6-core machine to the max even for quick turnaround jobs, as well as my storage, making it obvious I would never use it for anything other than highend work. And the 4:2:0 8 bit while decent, would still require you to shoot perfectly everytime, since the image woudl have very little room for editing.

The EVA-1 turns out to be another "we wont make it easy for you" choice, because Pana has great color science, but honestly, I can't do without 10 bit for slow mo.... and the EVA-1 will only do that to a recorder, again forcing me to spend money on additional items than just the camera and cards.

The Scarlet makes pretty damn good images, but lack in camera audio unless you spend money on the overpriced audio unit. And just to get started you can almost buy two cameras for that price.

In the end, all though it's an old camera now, I settled for the FS7 II and a set of Fujinon MK lenses (18-55 and 55-135 T2.9) which we also had at work. And I have zero regrets... in fact, I'm now very relieved that I didn't fall for the "almost there" camera that is the C200.
I would expect their sales to hit rock bottom from day one. I mean honestly, why the hell would anyone buy that camera.......

Having said that... I'm pretty happy with my 5D4 for stills. It does very decent video as well, but man... I'm over the DSLR format which it comes to video.


----------



## swithdrawn (Sep 2, 2017)

joejohnbear said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Typical canon.... Thus very same attitude is what irritates me most. Reason why they won't see a dime from me again.
> ...



I was literally about to buy two of these. Now I am not. There are many people like me. As a videographer the only reason I'm still with Canon is the glass investment, and now I'm one step closer to jumping ship completely. 

This camera is too expensive to have 8bit 4:2:0 for everyday use, and if you are fine only recording to RAW on ridiculously expensive Cfast media you probably looking at a much more expensive camera package anyway. Thus the C200 ends up not making ANYONE happy. I don't understand, but I am not surprised.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 2, 2017)

swithdrawn said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > CanonGuy said:
> ...



You're shooting two 1DXII's and you have an issue with the file sizes from Raw lite? Aren't they the same size as the 1DXII MJPEG?

Just buy the FS7 and adapt your lenses if you don't want to bother with an external recorder and SSD's. You still have to buy XQD cards.


----------



## swithdrawn (Sep 3, 2017)

joejohnbear said:


> Just buy the FS7 and adapt your lenses if you don't want to bother with an external recorder and SSD's. You still have to buy XQD cards.



It's not the file sizes (I dealt with Magic Lantern raw for weddings for two years). To avoid filling up 256gb cfast cards every 20-30 minutes at $600 a pop, with two cameras, I would want to shoot with a lighter codec. But for crying out loud, it's gotta be at least 4:2:2. I would even settle for the same ancient 4:2:2 mjpeg as the 1DXII/5DIV, at least it is high bitrate. Panasonic now have a professional all-I 400Mbit 4:2:2 10 bit codec recording to SD cards in a $1700 camera. There's only so much I can take before the native glass and DPAF are no longer worth it. 

Eventually someone will make a sub-$7000 cinema camera with a large sensor, good AF and reasonable codecs recording to inexpensive media. Canon were SOOOOOO close!


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 3, 2017)

swithdrawn said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Just buy the FS7 and adapt your lenses if you don't want to bother with an external recorder and SSD's. You still have to buy XQD cards.
> ...



Get the Panasonic GH5 and sell your gear then. The 4:2:2 MJPEG is 800 Mbps while the RAWlite is 1000Mbps when comparing 4K 60P which requires CFAST. The Arri Alexa, BlackMagic Ursa Mini and a plethora of other cinema cameras use CFAST. Get the CFAST to ESATA SSD hackaround or and external recorder and SSD's for UHD 4K 4:2:2 and then all your problems are solved, just as on those cameras. Also, 4:2:0 8 bit should be good enough for weddings; you're not shooting for broadcast standards and Canon has put in a surprising amount of dynamic range and information into the lesser codec. You can read some of the thorough reviews of it by the Scandinavian fellow from Cinema5D or whatever the website is.

I agree that the omission is quite a nuisance, but no one even expected raw video at 7.5K pricepoint from Canon. Just use some workarounds or switch your system. There's no such thing as a perfect tool right now or in the future.

See this DVXuser review for reference: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?356437-Tell-me-why-C200-or-AU-EVA1&p=1986720241&viewfull=1#post1986720241


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 3, 2017)

joejohnbear said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > joejohnbear said:
> ...



Username??? What does the guy's username have to do with anything? Or his syntax?


----------



## ranger9913 (Sep 3, 2017)

As someone who owns a C200 and FS7, I can tell you that for 90% of what I need to do, the C200 in MP4 mode is the clear winner. The color science in the C200 is such a relief compared to the FS7, the ISO performance is second to none. For any type of event shooting, I can not imagine picking up the Sony again. I do wish there was a 10bit 4:2:2 option internally, but I think I can easily live without. 

As for the RAW, dropping it straight into Resolve, exporting to ProRes HQ has been very easy. It takes about the same amount of time as FCPX does to transcode the 4k MP4. I'm hoping the Resolve RAW tab will soon work with these files.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 3, 2017)

joejohnbear said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > joejohnbear said:
> ...


 I dont get emotional about this. Anyway you are too troll like to take seriously.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 3, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Username??? What does the guy's username have to do with anything? Or his syntax?


 I guess I am supposed to get triggered? The reply was too illogical to even want to defend myself.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 3, 2017)

ranger9913 said:


> As someone who owns a C200 and FS7, I can tell you that for 90% of what I need to do, the C200 in MP4 mode is the clear winner. The color science in the C200 is such a relief compared to the FS7, the ISO performance is second to none. For any type of event shooting, I can not imagine picking up the Sony again. I do wish there was a 10bit 4:2:2 option internally, but I think I can easily live without.
> 
> As for the RAW, dropping it straight into Resolve, exporting to ProRes HQ has been very easy. It takes about the same amount of time as FCPX does to transcode the 4k MP4. I'm hoping the Resolve RAW tab will soon work with these files.



Thank you! This is great information from a real world user. I was on the fence on buying this camera. Definitely now leaning towards adding this tool to my quiver when the time is right.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 3, 2017)

RayValdez360 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > RayValdez360 said:
> ...



So far you have resorted to the following ad-hominums:
1. fanboy (you generalized most forum users as this with a BS (inaccurate) argumentum ad populum (appeal to mob) from DVXusers forum; there are several real users who disagree with you there)
2. shill (totally non-constructive name-calling since this can be neither proven or disproven)
3. troll (first to mention this word is usually self-describing)


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 3, 2017)

RayValdez360 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Username??? What does the guy's username have to do with anything? Or his syntax?
> ...



You were already triggered. Your username reveals your business name. Your syntax (grammar structure) revealed if you were in the market.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 3, 2017)

RayValdez360 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Username??? What does the guy's username have to do with anything? Or his syntax?
> ...



Yeah. My last name is Diaz, so the idiot...


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 3, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



I was addressing RayValdez*360*. Are you the same person? Are you in the market for the BlackMagic Ursa Mini Pro, FS7 or FS7II, or Panasonic EVA1? Those are all roughly in the same sub-10k price range. Which one are you actually buying?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 4, 2017)

joejohnbear said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > RayValdez360 said:
> ...



I know exactly who you were addressing. Nope, I'm not in the market for any video based camera. What has that got to do with it? I just know a jerk when I read one. Referring to a guy's name and syntax, then drawing the conclusion that he isn't in that market, is a nut job stupid thing to do.

Besides that: Even if he isn't in the market does not mean he doesn't have something worthwhile to say.

Then again, maybe you are the one not in the market. How could one prove either way? Can't be done, but so what? Troll.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 4, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


He doesn't shoot video at this moment. It's like a plumber who has a very strong opinion on what paint brush that an artist wants; or a civilian commenting on which ordinance is best used for a strafing run. There are three users who seem to be in the market and actual video shooters here, whose opinions I more than respect. You and Valdez are not one of them. So please, armchair and read the spec sheets more. Also, and the "no, you are" argument is fit for schoolchildren. Congratulations.

Back to the topic on hand, I will post this user's review post from DVXusers in its entirety if it's allowed since I found it very useful (link to original post at http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?356437-Tell-me-why-C200-or-AU-EVA1&p=1986720241&viewfull=1#post1986720241). Hopefully other actual video shooters will find it equally useful in evaluating the camera:



> Default Yesterday 08:24 AM
> Right now is not the time to make this decision, the time will be in a few weeks once we all see footage from the EVA 1. I bought the C200 because I needed a 4K camera right away for some projects under way and so far, it's pretty good. I am working on a big review for HD Video Pro but just quickly:
> 
> Likes
> ...


----------



## leGreve (Sep 4, 2017)

The point being to the post before mine......... he already has a lot of the items needed to make the camera work.
Lenses, cards, Atomos recorder etc. and ofcourse you have to factor in you need a rig as well if you don't have that.
I would expect the majority of buyers are people who already are somehow heavily invested in Canon and / or accessories that will work with the C200.
I you haven't those things already, the C200 just isn't the immediate obvious choice at this point.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 4, 2017)

leGreve said:


> The point being to the post before mine......... he already has a lot of the items needed to make the camera work.
> Lenses, cards, Atomos recorder etc. and ofcourse you have to factor in you need a rig as well if you don't have that.
> I would expect the majority of buyers are people who already are somehow heavily invested in Canon and / or accessories that will work with the C200.
> I you haven't those things already, the C200 just isn't the immediate obvious choice at this point.



Well, if you're an ENG-style / broadcast shooter who doesn't need autofocus but does need 4:2:2 10 bit out in a manageable codec, FS7 or FS7II is a great camera choice right now. If you want raw on the FS7 for narrative or commercial work, you'll still need the Atomos, Sony or Odyssey recorder, so different pros and cons for different shooters.

I think those who fret at switching have to look at the financial loss when doing so, or adapt their lenses. The C300II is kind of the ENG / broadcast camera right now, although the form factor and price put it out of consideration for quite a few shooters. Will switching systems entirely be more costly or just paying the price difference for the C300II (disregarding form factor)?

Thank you for your input and perspective as a fellow video shooter!


----------



## sigh (Sep 4, 2017)

I get the need to differentiate between other models, such as the C300 Mark II, but there is no reason why they should not have at least given this camera 4:2:2 chroma subsampling.

The XC10 and XC15 already shoot 8bit 4:2:2 footage using XF-AVC, so Canon could have just brought that version of the codec over to the C200. Hell, even their DSLRs shoot 4K using better chroma subsampling. It looks like Canon has gone out of their way to make a worse codec specifically for this camera.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 4, 2017)

joejohnbear said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > joejohnbear said:
> ...




I shoot video I just dont make the same amount of money as I do with photography and dont promote it as much. I have a c100 MK II and even got the c Log Update or my mark iv but you are allowed to fabricate what you want and be totally wrong.


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 5, 2017)

RayValdez360 said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



So you're a photographer dabbling in video with a strong opinion on a camera you have no use for.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 5, 2017)

leGreve said:


> The point being to the post before mine......... he already has a lot of the items needed to make the camera work.
> Lenses, cards



imagine that .. he has lenses and cards already..


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 7, 2017)

joejohnbear said:


> RayValdez360 said:
> 
> 
> > joejohnbear said:
> ...



No, he's a guy that does some video and may be thinking of moving up. You, on the other hand, are a cad who thinks he knows what somebody else is in the market for based on last name and syntax. What a guy!


----------



## joejohnbear (Sep 7, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > RayValdez360 said:
> ...



Addressing you directly: Buy the FS7 or and other competitors and move on with your life. Oh wait, you are just here to complain = not actually a paying customer for product segment. Why should Canon listen to you?


----------



## athan (Mar 14, 2018)

When oh when is this firmware being released? :


----------



## Berliwood (Mar 16, 2018)

Good by Canon...welcome Sony 7Riii


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 16, 2018)

Berliwood said:


> Good by Canon...welcome Sony 7Riii



Goodbye and thanks, your contributions to the forum will be greatly missed. :


----------



## akvideoshooter (Aug 8, 2018)

Well the codec was released and the world is still humming along - guess it did what everyone expected, which was to add metadata but not provide a big boost in compression or color space. BTW, I got to rent a C200 for a week and compared it to my C300mkII and the colors seemed pretty different even with default C-log - anyone else notice this? Some example pics: Canon C200.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 8, 2018)

The reason is that the camera has a DV6 processor, which has a less sophisticated hardware encoder that would enable hardware 4K in consumer cameras. The compression capabilities of the camera are baked into the hardware and can't be changed by firmware. The C200 is primarily intended as a RAW camera, with lower quality compression codecs available for quick shots. If you want high quality professional grade compression you need the C300, which gets that using the DV5 processor. The DV5 (and it's sibling, the Digic 7) get too hot when encoding 4K and consequently require a fan to be useable, which means that they can't be used for 4K in stills cameras and consumer cameras where a fan won't fly (pardon the pun). The DV6/Digic 8 family solves that problem by using a scaled back encoder for 4K to keep the thermal envelope under control. Presumably the DV6 has other attributes that makes it a superior processor for RAW shooting, and that is why it was used in the C200.

For those reasons IMO the expectations and hopes of the average user in terms of this firmware upgrade were unrealistic and never on the cards.


----------

