Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

C200 vs EVA1

T

Tanner Morrison

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2017
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
San Dimas, CA
I am currently in the market for a sub-$10k cinema camera. With the C200 shipping later this summer, and the EVA1 on the horizon, I wanted to get my fellow filmmakers opinions on the two.

C200 vs EVA1

They both have what I need:
- Native EF Mount
- 60fps+ in FHD
- S35 Sensor
- Built in XLR inputs
- Built in ND

Question: What will it be used for?
Answer: Honestly, a bit of everything. I need a camera that will do well in harsh ENG style environments (my primary source of work is on gun & car enthusiast content), while also providing a cinematic look that isn't overly digital like most stuff shot on RED. Although my primary source of work consist of overly sharp, highly energetic, and extreme content, that's actually not what I want to be doing, or what my passion projects shot on my future camera will consist of. My favorite digital look is provided by the ALEXA. I want something that is seemingly "good" straight from camera, with making slight tweaks in post (I'm no color grader).

Here are a few talking points that I am interested in:
1. Which company tends to have better color science?
2. With my GH4, and any Sony mirrorless systems, I tend to see a motion blur that seems very "digital", even with shooting with a 1/48 shutter, but I don't see that in RED/ARRI footage. How will my two camera options fair?
3. When not shooting raw, the Canon provides 8-bit 4:2:0, whereas the EVA1 provides 4:2:2, are they significantly different?
4. Who's sensor will be larger? Yes, I know they state S35, but there are lots of different dimensions of S35.
5. Which company has a better track record in their tech?
6. Which company should I invest in? Whom is doing better things for the human existence?
7. I'm interested in anything YOU have to say!

Am I missing another competitor out there?! Kinefinity, Sony (yuck), Arri Alexa Classic

I will be moving up from my trusty GH4, into the realm of actual "digital cinema cameras", so I know both the C200 or EVA1 will be an upgrade.
 
I can answer some questions just based on my internet research:

1. Canon is famous for their color science, but Panasonic is no slouch either. In fact many users of the Varicam line have said they like the color definition in Panasonic better than any other camera they have used. I call this one a toss up.
3. If you nail your white balance and don't have to deal with much in the way of mixed temperature light, you'll be okay with 4:2:0. But if you want to push your color 4:2:2 will make a pretty big difference. Though if I was shooing on C200, I would be RAW all the way. Hard drives are cheap.
5. What kind of track record? Panasonic are rock solid in the ENG world, Canon in DSLR. Both of these are kind of cross overs for each. Another toss up to me. Service wise I prefer Panasonic, but not by a long shot.

I'm buying a big travel package that includes 2 Reds, and one sub-red camera. And I've been having this same internal battle. Currently I'm leaning Canon thanks to its amazing auto focus and RAW. But I slightly prefer the color on the Panasonic and the low light performance is better with its dual ISO. Tough call frankly.
 
Neither camera has been released just yet so it's hard to say which one will be better than the other. I think the used RED market is going to be VERY interesting once these come out, especially for MX and DSMC1 cameras. If I had to choose one I would have to go with the Panasonic as, quite frankly, I don't trust Canon's compressed RAW and video business practices based on their treatment of their DSLR lines. Going by word of mouth about the latest Panasonic Varicam developments, I would be more excited to use a camera based on that quality and feature set.
 
Have a look at this link
https://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashcam.de%2F4K-Kamera-Bestenliste.pl%3Fklasse%3DWechseloptik-Camcorder---Cinema-Kamera&edit-text=&act=url

It's a German site but has pretty good info.

C200 and EVA1 are not out yet so we don't really know how they will perform in real.

C200 has the big advantage of a working autofocus above others, but also a crappy codec 4:2:0.
EVA1 has more pixels.
URSA MINI PRO is now also a matured camera.
 
The ergonomics on the C300 cameras was pretty good. Not perfect but functional. The EVA1 seems closer to the AF100 in design (minus an onboard EVF) and is light weight. A better onboard or EVF will most likely be a requirement for either of these cams.

I've shot a ton with cams from both companies and color shouldn't be an issue with either one.

For me, the things I'd be factoring are the DUAL ISO and the internal 10-bit 422 in the EVA1. These are significant. The Dual ISO in the Varicam 35 and LT is incredible and I'd expect the low noise levels to be similar on the EVA1. I've been using the GH5 for a few months, mostly as a 3rd or 4th camera, but I've had it on as primary on a few shoots. Recording 10-bit 4K internally, the footage looks very good. I've been able to grade it to cut next to varicam and dragon footage for cable network delivery with no problem. Recording 10-bit 4K externally (Shogun and Odyssey) yields footage that's pretty impressive and extremely quiet. But the files are pretty large. I would expect the EVA1 to be at least on par, if not better, and the 400 mb/s internal recording in the EVA1 hopefully will mean the camera's internal record will be sufficient for most needs.
 
I'm pondering the same dilemma. I currently own a C300 II (along with my Epic-W), and while I love it, I also can't stand having to shoot mixed-resolution projects when I need to do varispeed stuff. I want 4K 60p SO bad. The C200 does that in a similar form factor with an even nicer codec (if I want) or a crappy codec if the project is of that sort. But of course the trade-off is that it can't do anything in between. I'm not super interested in Canon's Raw Lite, as I have a raw-shooting camera already.

The Panasonic sounds almost too good to be true. I love the Varicam colors, and it will have that sweet-spot 400Mb/s codec to go with them. It will fit nicely on a gimbal when I need it to, and the dual ISO will almost certainly beat the C200's low-light. I saw some test footage from a Canon rep at Cinegear, and the C200 looked unusually noisy. Then again, it's very hard to tell with log footage that I didn't shoot. Anyway, the EVA-1 sounds like a mini Varicam, and that has me SO excited. But the problem is no EVF (I actually love the C300 II EVF). And only 6 stops of internal ND. Also, my C300 II rents ok because a lot of the old C300 die-hards are switching up to it. I doubt the EVA-1 will rent at all unless I can get people to give it a try in the first place.

I'll probably sell my C300 II and go with the EVA 1, to be honest. Especially if it comes in around $7K like I've heard rumored.
 
Don't forget about the Black Magic, Ursa Mini Pro. Just bought one last month, and for the price, it really is a tough camera to beat. Pro Res or Raw, this camera produces a beautiful image.
 
I was incredibly impressed with the color science on my GH4 (shooting to an external recorder in V-LogL). Not going to lie, when I got my Epic-W I was slightly less impressed until I started messing with RWG/L3G10 (I mean straight out of the gates with DC2/RG4, obviously raw at that res gives so much room to work). Canon color science is beloved by certain folks but I'm not necessarily one of them.
 
I went from the Sony FS5 to the Kinefinity TERRA6K and I have to say I'm not at all disappointed with the camera. My biggest pro for the Kinefinity is the in camera pro-res recording in all resolutions to the cheapest SSD option on the market.
The fact that the EVA1 doesn't have a locking mount is something you have to take in account when you want to use bigger/heavier glass and remote focus motors. I rented a Canon DX1-II once and when using with cine-glass the mount was very shaky. Also the EVA1 is only 8-bit for 4K 60fps.
The Kinefinity doesn't do 60fps at S35 without High-Speed mode and so it either needs High-Speed with pixel-binning or skipping or you need to crop the sensor which was fine for me personally.
 
I posted this over on the newsshooter article.

I'm keeping my C200 pre-order. I think it really comes down to whether or not you prioritize internal RAW or internal 10-bit 422 to a codec. Thing is Canon could have offered both and undercut the EVA1 and sold a LOT more C200s, but at the possible expense of selling C300-IIs. I guess Canon doesn't want to make a perfect camera; they want to make several cameras that fill different needs and sell to different segments. I'm sure you will be able to create great imagery with both, so for me it come down to features.

Panasonic has:

-10-bit 422 codec recording. For folks that need to meet broadcast specs this is huge; media costs next to nothing and a lot of folks will already have media laying around. For a lot of people this alone will be the deciding factor.
-5.7k downscaled image. No footage yet, but it may yield a sharper image.
-Removable IR filter. I'm actually not sure of the day to day use of this one.
-Timecode in.

Canon has:

-Internal RAW recording up to 60p. For indie narrative filmmakers this is huge and for some (like me) this will be the deciding factor.
-Best in class continuous tracking autofocus.
-Built in EVF. If you want to add one to the Panasonic, that'll make it the more expensive camera.
-Stronger ND filter options. 10 stops vs 6.

Looks like the two cameras, although very similar at a glance, are actually aimed at different shooter (with some overlap). If I were a documentarian, I'd probably lean towards the EVA because I'd almost never shoot RAW and would want to meet broadcast spec. I'm buying to shoot narrative, so the C200 seems to make more sense for me considering I'll be shooting RAW all the time. If I were an event shooter, the autofocus of the Canon would be hugely attractive (both seem light sensitive enough). It should also be noted that, with the exception of autofocus, both cameras can add the capabilities the other has; Panasonic will enable external RAW and you can add on an EVF, and Canon allows 10-bit 422 over HDMI and SDI. You can also add timecode to the Canon with a tentaclesync.

One thing's for sure: both cameras appear to be great, and it's an amazing time to buy a camera. I didn't even mention that Sony and Blackmagic both also have cameras that are in the same price range that have similar capabilities. I think we may be in a golden age for cinema cameras!
 
On paper, the EVA1 is the better camera with 4:2:2 10bit. On the Canon, unless you're shooting RAW, that 8-bit codec is terrible.

I love my FS7, and would recommend the FS7 Mk II over either of those. The image is great, the files are 10 bit but still manageable size. My FS7 has paid for itself many times over.
 
I think the DPAF in the C200 is the major draw there. I tried the C200 over at Canon Burbank and the DPAF just blew me away. You can shoot at f1.4 on a gimbal and lock focus on your subject with total perfection. I shot a model with a 35mm lens at f2.8 and flew the camera behind a tripod and a big light to see if it would screw up. The DPAF picked the subject back up perfectly without hunting. If the DPAF wasn't on the C200 I wouldn't even think twice about. It does have 10 stops of ND, which is great, but the EVA1 really does destroy it on all other fronts. That being said, after using that DPAF, I want it. I love the shallow DOF look which is so hard to do without a dedicated focus puller and is even difficult with one when both the camera and subject is moving.
 
Robbert van Weelderen said:
I went from the Sony FS5 to the Kinefinity TERRA6K and I have to say I'm not at all disappointed with the camera. My biggest pro for the Kinefinity is the in camera pro-res recording in all resolutions to the cheapest SSD option on the market.
The fact that the EVA1 doesn't have a locking mount is something you have to take in account when you want to use bigger/heavier glass and remote focus motors. I rented a Canon DX1-II once and when using with cine-glass the mount was very shaky. Also the EVA1 is only 8-bit for 4K 60fps.
The Kinefinity doesn't do 60fps at S35 without High-Speed mode and so it either needs High-Speed with pixel-binning or skipping or you need to crop the sensor which was fine for me personally.
Click to expand...

A locking lens mount is extremely important. I'm wondering if the C200 with have a locking mount option, as I know the C300 has that option.
 
David Kudell said:
On paper, the EVA1 is the better camera with 4:2:2 10bit. On the Canon, unless you're shooting RAW, that 8-bit codec is terrible.

I love my FS7, and would recommend the FS7 Mk II over either of those. The image is great, the files are 10 bit but still manageable size. My FS7 has paid for itself many times over.
Click to expand...

I would like to invest in a camera that is EF mount natively. I've had some issues while using a Metabones on an FS7. Not a fan of 3rd party adapters.
 
EVA1 does seem interesting, i havent thought about panasonic for about 12 years until this new series and canon was at the top for doc style shooting and the c300 really took off, but im ultra curious about this dual iso, how does that work exactly?
 
In my experience Canon has great ergonomics. I'm locked into that system by choice. For a multi-purpose owner/op jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none camera you can't beat a Canon. I also like the color in their cinema line a lot and that, unlike Sony, the color and gamma don't seem to straight up break the image half the time (the A7S II remains the low light king though!). Canon has DPAF and great lenses. I haven't used the C200 but friends with the C300 Mk II like it pretty well and I really like the C100 and C300 (less so the C500) but those are too long in the tooth to recommend to anyone today. I don't think Sony is as terrible as it used to be. I worked on a project shot on the F55 that just came out and which looks pretty good to me but to be fair it was graded by Technicolor. ;) The F65 has been and remains great.

The new Varicam has a nice image. Nice thick color. Feels similar to the Alexa but more saturated. Less soft and smooth. Really nice camera. Vibrant greens, nice skin tones. Rich, crisp image. I think the look might be better out of the box than the C300 Mk II's more digital look, possibly significantly better, but both seem technically on par with nothing broken like some of Sony's color spaces so they can be graded like-to-like.

Subjectively I also like the Alexa most. Just preference. That's the footage I want to work with and want to watch. But I work in post and so I want 1080p ProRes to work efficiently and my displays max out at 1080p so resolution isn't a big factor for me as much as color and DR. I also like the look and the grain texture. I do not like the ergonomics on the Mini one bit. Nice drone camera. Nice Ronin camera. Bad owner/operator camera. The Amira has its flaws but I like the Amira a lot. Not the price.

The BM 4.6 has a nice image but it has problems for jack-of-all-trade stuff. Noisier low light, less compact. But it's got a great image for sure.

I'd rent both and try both. I think they are both great choices. See what clients want, too. Clients seem to love the C300 and FS7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top