Canon C200 vs Canon C500 Mark II - Image Quality

[@fender6713]

Honestly I'm super happy with my C200 I can't think of any reason to upgrade, for a 5+ year old camera it holds up incredibly well.

[@curtisjudd]

Thanks for this Chris. Appreciate the thoughtful, practical comparison.

[@ChrisFrancis]

Curtis Judd you’re welcome & thank you!

[@demetrizuev258]

Thanks for the video! Now I can see that the upgrade from C200 to C500mkII is not worth $10000 for sure

[@11thchildtube]

I’m 2yrs late but thank you because I’m finally upgrading to C500 as my A Cam and now my C200 as B cam thanks to your insightful vid! 🙏🏾✌🏾

[@TexpatOTG]

Hard to say about these two when watching it on KZbin. I think this is more of a financial and business decision than a image quality decision. Would your clients understand, know or care. Not sure.

[@PhoenicianSailor]

Great review. I’ll graduate to the C500 someday :)

[@mribi]

Dude thank you so much for this video full of real content and not a drawn out intro, sponsor message etc. appreciate it

[@Vervoult]

Hello Chris! Thanks for video comparing these 2 beautifull Canon cameras. I 'm thinking about upgrade to C500MII Did you leave some RAW files from that session or may be others to share them for public?

[@theampedlife]

Hi Chris, thanks for an informative video. I recently had an opportunity to trade my 1 year old C200 for a used C500mii, at a good price, however I decided against it and this video justified my decision 100%. The RAW is obviously the stronger codec, but I love the UHD 4K image of the C200 - even the 2K proxy files are very usable if the lighting is good. For what the C200 gives me, I find that for now its good for my needs. With the RAW it is future proof enough to hold onto as well, so I'm happy with what I have and the extra $$ will go to some additional lighting. Thanks bro!

[@itsjantore]

Thanks for the comparison. C200 might be one of the best value full fledged cine cameras out there now. I also find myself shooting a lot of 8 bit 1080p/4k just for the compact codec. C500ii is definitely yummy. Would love to have that 10 bit internal codec!

[@juancarlospena7089]

Thanks man! Keep up the great work! Love my C200!

[@AnchorLineTV]

Great video. Thank you for the comparisons. We have a video coming out next week that shows off the different crops from the C500ii. It's really interesting to see them all lined up coming out of that camera.

[@ChrisFrancis]

Sweet, looking forward to checking it out!

[@NewsMoto]

This is awesome hard work! You deserve more subs!

[@Whaever_1981]

Check around 3:45 mark. You'll notice a clear dynamic range difference between the two cams on the far side of her face

[@GriffinConway]

Great video Chris! Just dropped you a like and sub. I’ve got some more c500 Mark ii vs C200 footage coming up today on my channel. I actually did that exact test (low light) that you were mentioning. Thanks for sharing your tests!

[@ChrisFrancis]

Griffin Conway stoked to check it out, really enjoyed your first C500 video.

[@JorgeDourado]

Hi Chris, great to see your review and look to some side by side and C200 and c500MKII. Nevertheless, I understand your intentions when closing the aperture to f3.5 and f5.6 to see emulate the same sharpness but this actually gives us a different light measurement when the light gets to the sensor. You are changing the contrast ratio for both cameras, in this case, giving to the C500 a 1stop and 1/3 less light. You can bring it up in post(recommend to use DaVinci by the way instead of Premiere) or light the scene to compensate one aperture but that destroys all propose of seeing what both cameras solve the same light. They are 2 different sensors indeed but aside from the crop differences would be interesting to see both on their "native" raw capabilities and in XF-AVC with the same lens, check the light with a light meter, and same apertures to see their response in skin tones and noise and DR. Thanks for sharing! I would glad to discuss it we a beer! Cheers.

[@ChrisFrancis]

Jorge Dourado thanks for the feedback. You are correct on the exposure differences on the first set of tests. It’s definitely tricky to run tests across two different sensors in a way that seems 100% equal playing field. While not the same lens (Canon 50mm 1.4 vs Canon 85mm 1.8 so same series of lens at least) the shot at 6:27 does have all of the same camera settings for an accurate comparison of noise and dynamic range.

[@PHUKU]

Great review. Full frame also gives you better low light capability no?

[@ChrisFrancis]

Not really. It's not like how a speed booster works where you get shallower depth of field AND an extra stop of exposure (which is what I used to think), you just get the shallower depth of field. Some say that full frame sensors are more sensitive to light but in practice if you put both the C200 and the C500MKII with the same exposure settings you're getting the same exact exposure. If there is any slight difference in higher ISO's I'm guessing it's because of the C500's processing, not the sensor.

[@OfTwoLands]

Nice comparison man !! Lovely images :)

[@juntingzhou6923]

Thank you for the video! But I don't agree on the last statement. Sensor size affect not just field of view and depth of field. The size and quality of each pixel are different between different sizes of the sensor, which also reflect the ranks of the cameras in the product line. The bigger and higher quality pixels, which mostly reside in bigger sensors, are able to capture more details and produce less noise. Nowadays, cameras with small sensors can often produce no worse image than the bigger sensor camera. It is not just because the sensor technology is getting more advanced but also because of the more and more sophisticated computational process inside the cameras.

[@ChrisFrancis]

If you have an hour to kill I'd highly recommend watching this presentation regarding pixel sizes from bigger sensors improving image quality: www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/ResDemoPt2.html

[@kendrickgray2873]

@@ChrisFrancis I remember watching this... learned a lot.

[@definitionxmk]

Awesome video man! I literally just got my C500 Mark II today and I am excited to try this thing out. This will be a great addition to my two C200s; which have been great workhorses.

[@ChrisFrancis]

Project Definition awesome, congrats!!

[@lenswork4]

Excellent side-by-side comparison. Thanks.

[@자급자족하는사람들]

Recently, I bought a canon c500 markii and was looking at B camera. Really helpful! Thank you! Looking forward to good video from now on!

[@ChrisFrancis]

Congrats! It's a rad camera for sure!

[@MASTERPPA]

Hello. As someone who used the C200 in RAW the last week, and looking at the C500 II, I get the feeling the C500 II is just a full frame, slightly updated sensor of the C200. Also, when it comes to sharpness in this C200 vs C500 tests, shooting a 85MM at a higher Fstop also doesn't make the test apples to apples for sharpness. (since Canon's 85MM lenses stopped down are sharper then their 50mm (unless these are Cinema lenses,etc) The better test would have been to use the same lens and just move the camera for the same FOV.. Thanks.

[@ChrisFrancis]

thanks for the feedback - definitely tough to get an apples to apples comparison when comparing two different sized sensors that effect the image in different ways. Because of different sensor sizes changing the lens distortion, moving the camera forward with the same lens wouldn't create the same FOV. My hope was that having both lenses at f/5.6 would give them a decently fair shake (but not perfect). At 5.6 both lenses should be getting close to a sweet spot as far as sharpness is concerned. Something like 7.1 probably would have been even more even, but I didn't have enough light.... Not a perfect test, but it gave me a ballpark idea of the real-world differences that I might expect to achieve (or not achieve).

[@MASTERPPA]

@@ChrisFrancis which lenses were those exactly? Cinema or L, or other? I am also wonder if a 4K crop C500II vs a C200 would be a better compare with the same lens and settings. I keep getting the feeling the C500II is just a full frame C200

[@ChrisFrancis]

RC N canon 85 1.8 and canon 50 1.4. I would imagine that Super 35 C500 4K would yield the same quality as the C200 - maybe a hair more DR. I only did FF tests on the C500MKII because those are the only modes that utilize the full 6K sensor and hence would have the best odds of a noticeable quality improvement.

[@eifionjones8513]

Nice vid, thanks for doing it. Pretty happy with the c200 for a good while

[@Danumals]

Man that c500ii raw is noisy in the shadows. After suffering from this on my FS5, I value a good internal codec. But the C200 actually looks clean! Tanks for the comparrison!

[@merriweathersmith6419]

Something feels wrong about that C500 6K Raw footage. The noise in the shadows renders it completely unusable imo. Looking at your other C500 review the 120p shot you have has the same problem too (and even in the 60p shot of the guy drinking). Not trying to bash or anything, just very curious. Would you mind sending a sample bit of the 6K Raw via dropbox?

[@ChrisFrancis]

You can download a ProRes version of the comparison with a more contrasty version of the LUT here: vimeo.com/391304742/08c5e742f9?activityReferer=1

[@nicholasolivas317]

@@ChrisFrancis much better thank you. I can see the difference.

[@nicholasolivas317]

The 6k definitely holds more detail especially when zoomed in.

[@simitometi6219]

Great video brother! Why does nobody care about FX9?

[@damiencooper]

Good video. My take away: It’s better but not 10k and bigger file sizes better. So the C300III is imo the way to go!

[@josephberkeley]

Thanks for this review. Very informative and on point. I am thinking about buying the C500 mark ii. It's a pretty spendy investment for my business but it is at the beginning of its lifecycle.

[@ChrisFrancis]

You're welcome Joe!

[@nicholasolivas317]

I don't understand, how is your business being in the beginning of it's life cycle justifies making an expensive purchase? I heard all new businesses are in survival mode til they build up clientele, Wouldn't saving money be the focus until the biz gets into growth stage?

[@TillThenPlease]

Great video! Anybody know where to get the exact Canon WDR LUT he mentioned?

[@KamalJones]

great review, FYI C200 Base ISO in RAW is 400 it's 800 for MP4

[@organismx]

Thank you for keeping it real 👍🏽👊🏽 Yes I subscribed !

[@AdamKirbyFilms]

Are you shooting C-log2 or C-log3 on the C500mk2? There’s no c-log2 on the C200, but I’ve heard C-log3 on the C500mk2 isn’t great, while C-log2 is much better and less noisy than previous renditions of log on cameras like the C300mk2 etc. Any thoughts on this?

[@ChrisFrancis]

Adam Kirby Wide DR on the XF-AVC examples and then raw (which is basically C-log2) on the raw examples.

[@MartenKaehlert]

Thanks Chris. Very helpful video. What I have seen from some downloaded RAW files is, that C500 looks in full resolution so much better, simply more alive. But by the cost of much bigger file sizes on that my editing rig struggled really hard compared to the C200 RAW files. But after your comparison and upload on KZbin, it seems that the image is now nearly identical to the C200. The 10bit XF-AVC codec looks definitely much better than the 8 bit one from the C200. But for client work I try to shoot as much RAW as I can, so an upgrade to the C500 Mark II seems not worth the 10K extra for me at the moment. The full frame would be great in some situation, e.g. when I shoot in tight rooms with less light, but that is not really often to be honest. Most of the time, I can find a fitting perspective that work with Super35. Looking forward to your next video

[@ChrisFrancis]

Thanks Marten. Yes on my 5K iMac looking at the clips in full resolution the quality difference is easier to see, but as you've noticed the irony is that when exporting an 8GB 4K file onto KZbin is the highest quality viewing that any of my clients would ever see and if it's hard to tell a quality difference on here, is it ultimately really worth it........?

[@fgzy123]

Hi, did you use the same copy of the lens on each camera and do the tests one at a time, or you tested the cameras side by side with a different lens on each camera?

[@JoeLamOfficial]

Incredible comparison, thank you !

[@ChrisFrancis]

thanks Joe!

[@titusnixon]

Yes Christ I think you have a great comparison, I was thinking of getting the C500 and selling my C200 but now I don't think it worth the upgrade for the work I do besides the C200 has been great.

[@thisisryker]

Closing aperture in the lens, testing sharpness. Seems reasonable...

[@felipemvera]

Hoping the c200 ii has body frame like the c500! Thoughts of c200 vs 1dx mark iii?

[@ChrisFrancis]

Personally I'm not interested in the 1DX Mark 3 at all. I really dislike the DSLR form factor and lack of internal ND filters, etc. Also, I think the raw files from the 1DX Mark 3 are going to be even BIGGER than the C500 6K Raw files because the Mark 3 is shooting in RAW and not Cinema RAW Light, yikes.

[@JDMism]

Chris Francis The 1Dx III raw bitrate for 60fps is higher at 2600Mbps but for 30/24fps it’s 1800Mbps which works out as approximately the same data rate per pixel as the C500 if my calculations are correct

[@ChrisFrancis]

JDM ism ah, good to know. Sounds like the file sizes will still be pretty huge.

[@felipemvera]

JDM ism althought bit rates arent the same that doesn’t mean dynamic range are the same right?

[@JDMism]

felipe olvera That’s a difficult question to answer. The bit depth and data rate are the same, so the dynamic range won’t be limited that way. The 5.5k 1Dx III sensor is 36mm wide but the 5.9k C500 sensor is 38.1mm wide so the “sensels” on the 1Dx are probably a tiny bit bigger but I suspect the dynamic range will be very similar We’ll only really know when someone does a comparison!

[@robertefremov9380]

There is something to the C200, i don't know what it is it just always looks gorgeous and so cinematic

[@ChrisFrancis]

when shooting raw it really is such a great image

[@Phonothek]

Hey Chris, thanks a lot for the comparison! Is it possible to upload the comparison to Vimeo? KZbins compression just nullifying the marginal but important quality differences. Thanks! Keep on going!

[@ChrisFrancis]

I'll see what I can do. Vimeo's 5GB file limit also puts a damper on things.....

[@smartdoctorphysicist3095]

Hi Chris thank you very much, when I ever I the funds to get a C200 I will go for it. C200 looks good to me and one can save a lot of money and by more things for the C200. Thank you

[@ChrisFrancis]

You're welcome - C200 is hard to beat when it comes to quality & usability for the price!

[@beatmakerarmetsao]

can you upload all of your gears in this vidéo please ?

[@SuperHappyGiantRobot]

This was so helpful!

[@VulcanworxSG]

great job! May I know if this was shot in Clog 2? Using the CinemaGamut_CanonLog2-to-BT709_WideDR_65_FF_Ver.2.0 base LUT?

[@indago1]

Not worth the extra 10k in upgrading, imo.. only if you doing feature work then yes, but both cameras are great

[@johnwhession]

Very interesting video. I was looking at the C500 but decided to keep my C200 for several reasons. First, I have, as best as can be done in Super 35, replicated the Euphoria look. I have mounted my C200 on a lab 3, put a 24mm prime lens on it, and am trying to shoot every scene at 2.8 for a consistent depth of field and keep the camera moving for every shot. I was thinking about the C500 but this would require upgrading my gimbal and spending a lot of additional money when the C200 footage looks beautiful. Also, when using the camera with my canon super35 zooms, I would have to use the C500 in crop mode, so not sure I want to upgrade my lenses as well. Will be interested in what Canon announces this summer, especially the new cinema camera and the R5.

[@shuaili9437]

For C500, the noise in dark is a little bit high.

[@TJIzzy]

Dang, that C200 RAW footage is beautiful for the price

[@jopphotography]

What kind of rig do you use and what accessories? Love the viewfinder!

[@ChrisFrancis]

It's the Small Rig VCT baseplate with the Zacuto Rosette Dual Handgrip and the Zacuto Z-finder and the Zacuto top plate with all of the Axis mount kit. To be honest it's a lot of gak and pushes the weight limit of my EasyRig Mini Max, but it lets me operate exactly how I prefer to.

[@ignaciomoreno2115]

Why am watching this if i dont have a cent? good video however

[@DropItStudio]

I see a lot of moving noise for the C500 in RAW

[@domagojdusek5898]

yeah, me too...behind her right hand and on her hair...a lot of noise

[@BenCunninghamVideo]

Hey Chris, thanks for the video. One point that you didn't seem to mention is that when comparing Raw vs Raw (at 4:13), the C500 has a TON more noise in the shadows. Both in her hair and in the wall in the left of the image. What do you think accounts for this difference? Was there any difference in post-processing?

[@ChrisFrancis]

Hey Ben, I wouldn't look at the C500 noise levels until you get to the clips after 6:26 as that's when they are using the exact same exposure settings as the C200 and there's no tweaks in post (besides WideDR LUT). The first set of clips that you referenced at 4:13 are set to the same depth of field, not same exposure, so I had to boost the gain in post on the C500 footage to match the look of the C200 on those clips - so there likely is more noise on those clips.

[@BenCunninghamVideo]

@@ChrisFrancis makes sense, thanks for clarifying! Appreciate your work and looking forward to more.

[@jonathanmasters2178]

maybe its the youtube compression but the c500ii raw had way more noise in the green background andher hair than the c200 raw. anybody else seeing the same thing?

[@jamesdrakefilms]

interesting stuff. What was going on with the noise in her hair on the C500?

[@jasonnowwhat5041]

Great video, subbed for more.

[@amd64x]

C500MKII is the answer to 10 bit codec in C200

[@ruebencruz-tokar3279]

You can’t use different lenses when comparing sharpness or color. Lens sharpness is so different across the frame and every model lens has a different color temperature even within the same brand.

[@chappelldigital]

a 50mm F3.5 and an 85mm f5.6 is going to show the differences in the lenses more than the cameras used. There no way you could possibly judge which camera is 'sharper' with a different focal length and F stop unfortunately

[@ChrisFrancis]

Sure you can - in fact when comparing a super 35mm shot to a full frame shot you'd have to - there's no other way. I didn't nail it perfectly - I should have had the tripod a little further back on the 85mm to more closely match the framing, but it was close enough for me to analyze the differences between the two in a real world situation.

[@chappelldigital]

@@ChrisFrancis I meant moreso the aperture you're using. Any lens on its own will be noticeably sharper at F5.6 than it will be at F3.5 (or lower). Shooting one cam at 5.6 and one at 3.5 gives the camera at 5.6 the advantage. I bet if you switched the f-stops around, the camera at 5.6 would then be perceived to be 'sharper'.

[@ChrisFrancis]

@@chappelldigital I'm not sure that's right. On the same sensor that would certainly be true - f/5.6 is always going to be sharper than f/3.5, however when comparing full frame sensor to super 35mm sensor the same aperture is going to create different depth of field and to my knowledge sharpness. When going from Super 35mm to Full Frame you have to multiply the aperture and focal length by 1.6 to achieve the same look. f/3.5 x1.6 = F/5.6 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm (so not quite 85mm). There's certainly going to be trade-offs like the full frame sensor is going to "see" the whole lens so it's likely going to be softer in the corners on lower apertures, whereas a super 35mm sensor is only going to "see" more of the sweet spot of the lens and have sharper edge to edge detail, but when all is said is done, this is the only way to compare full frame to super 35mm as accurately as possible. It's not perfect, but the results are good enough for me to feel like I'm making an accurate decision when factoring image quality between the two cameras.

[@chappelldigital]

Chris Francis youre correct if you’re trying to match depth of field and field of view. But like you said, f5.6 will always be sharper than f3.5 - doesn’t matter what the focal length is, or sensor. A full frame sensor, or super 35 sensor doesn’t increase or decrease the sharpness of a lens (unless you’re checking the edges of the frame arguably... but that’s still not changing the lens’ ability) The aperture absolutely does change a lens’ sharpness. Testing sensors using different lenses and especially using different apertures won’t give you accurate results. Either way I’m sure the c500ii would come out on top 👍🏻

[@ChrisFrancis]

@@chappelldigital I'm not sure that's true re: apertures. I'm totally fine being wrong here if that is true. Do you have a link I can check out that shows that this is scientifically true (specifically when testing across different sensors)? I have a hard time believing that having the exact same depth of field would somehow be creating different sharpnesses - the falloff would be the same and the focal plane would be the same. I'm mostly basing my tests on Steve Yedlin's work on perceived image quality across different resolutions and sensors. He seems to be fine switching f-stops and focal lengths for the sake of matching in his sharpness and clarity tests (see around the 9:36 mark): www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/ResDemoPt1.html From what I can tell he's the most scientific DP in the game, so if it's good enough for him it's good enough for me - especially since I'm not shooting charts here and just want to see how the cameras generally compare to one another. For what it's worth at 6:43 I'm showing both cameras at the exact same apertures if you feel that would give more accurate results.

[@martinparzenfilm3498]

Which Lut of Canon do you use ? Don’t like this lut pack of canon . There are too much luts and no one knows who’s the correct one

[@ChrisFrancis]

Martin Parzen Film when shooting raw I often transcode to Prores inside of Canon’s Raw Development utility using the 709 WideDR setting. If applying the LUT inside Premiere I normally use CinemaGamut_CanonLog2-to-BT709_WideDR_65_FF if I exposed properly. Sometimes if I underexposed or shot in too contrasty of a scene I’ll use CinemaGamut_CanonLog3-to-BT709_WideDR_65_FF

[@ResizeFilms]

Does your computer handle well the XF-AVC and RAW footage in the timeline?

[@ChrisFrancis]

Resize Films currently my computer doesn’t handle anything well 😂. My computer and Premiere haven’t been on good terms for a while....

[@chrismorgancontentmarketin8995]

So I own the c200 and really need a BCam I wanted to buy a c100 but I’ve been debating towards the c500 II, what would you say in quality difference between 4K set ups? I understand the 6k downsampling but will it record all super heavy data? I can’t imagine dealing with editing 6k footage all day long. Are both 4K super 35 on the c200 the same quality as the 4K full frame c500 regardless of crop factor of course ?!

[@ChrisFrancis]

Have you considered buying a C200B as your B-Cam? That's what I have and I really like having two cameras that are exactly the same - makes matching in post and using in the field a lot simpler. I think as far as "practical quality" the C500MKII's full frame 4K AVC footage is "better" than the C200's 4K raw because it's probably a little sharper, already has noise reduction and sharpening applied in camera, and there's enough color information there that if you don't totally botch the shot you can easily tweak the colors in post or in-camera with a LUT to your liking - all without having to deal with raw file sizes or raw workflow. If I bought the C500MKII I would probably shoot in 4K AVC 99% of the time.

[@chrismorgancontentmarketin8995]

Chris Francis best response thanks again !! Great channel

[@ChrisFrancis]

@@chrismorgancontentmarketin8995 You're welcome!

[@jakejames1591]

Dude. Buy a 1DC. I use it as a B Cam to my c200 and it's pretty wild how well it matches up with Raw. Very, very close in their look. It's also cool to shoot on an older camera with zero new tech-y features. Rig it out a bit with a monitor and handle and it's a badass piece of equipment still. I love it.

[@complexity5545]

I'm here late, but that c200 footage looks better. I think the f/3.5 lens is making it look better. That f/5.6 glass (aperature/f-stop) on the c500 is not doing it justice. You really want to compare the cmos and how the on-board cpu/processor converts the light-matrix values to a bayer layer. But your comparison videos clearly show that the lens is the key. The camera body is not going to make the image better between a C200 and a c500. When you compare camera bodies, you shoot at in low light conditions like at night, or a night club, church, or inside-building with the same lens. Then you check if the pixels are hitting their limit in the blacks. You also test shooting the sun and very bright conditions to see if the whites get blown out. Next you test shooting a very high dynamic image like a woman sitting at a table in front of the sun. Good video though. It helped knowing that buying a lens will actually make the picture quality better. Its not worth going from c200 to c500. P.S. I am a CSC engineer and embedded programmer for scientific multimedia. I know the better lens is probably on the c200. I'm am here because someone offered me a c500 for $900. I don't want it now. I would have to change my man hours converting video and upgrade my RAM from 256GiB to 512GiB (on a AMD epyc system). I can get the same video quality while using a lossless compression with an embedded camera. I guess if you're hollywood and specs is the key to getting jobs, then maybe get a c500 because they might want 6k. Real good video.

[@jakejames1591]

What WIDE DR lut are you using for than C200 xf-avc footage?

[@JamesBoss]

Great video

[@ChrisFrancis]

James Boss thans!

[@brettthemonster]

That's a lot of IR noise with the C500 shooting RAW.

[@ironcrossmedia2654]

What are the fie size differences between the C200 and C500 in avc and Raw?

[@ChrisFrancis]

Just multiply the data rates: C200 AVC @ 150mb/s C200 RAW @ 1gb/s C500 AVC @ 410mb/s C500 RAW @ 2.1gb/s So for a one minute clip at 23.98fps: C200 AVC = 9GB C200 RAW = 60GB C500 AVC = 24.6GB C500 RAW = 126GB Best bang for your buck (er, megabite) is definitely the C500 AVC. At under half the size of C200 RAW, but pretty much the same quality.

[@shendetaliu8272]

Of course you gonna see more details in the t-shirt, you are closer, make a fair comparison. This didn't help much!

[@DavidParrella]

Appreciate the comparison, but I have to stop watching (technically) and move on to another video when I see that they're shot using separate lenses. Can't watch it as a technical comparison :/ thank you for the rest of the info though!

[@ChrisFrancis]

It's not perfect, but it's not possible to do a full frame vs super 35mm comparison without using different focal lengths unless you're strictly testing noise & dynamic range only

[@DavidParrella]

@@ChrisFrancis Yeah I get that, which is what I'm looking for mostly. Again very much appreciate the rest!

[@xeronamezerfs2give988]

EOS is a goddess of the personification of the dawn… so that’s why. Ppl think it’s an Acronym it’s not.

[@neilt8790]

I appriciate the work put in but comparing 2 cameras with different lenses and f stops is pointless.

[@ChrisFrancis]

you have to when comparing a super 35mm sensor to a full frame sensor, no way around it.

[@viranimediakenya3272]

Full frame has a different lens compression

[@meaningfulmedia2083]

You used different lenses and settings, how can you compare these? different f-stops! C500 is using f/5.6 f course its sharper and larger in the frame too? Why even do a comparison if you don't control for those confounding factors?

[@meaningfulmedia2083]

I understand one is full frame, but you still need to control for it!

[@DavisTibbz]

Come on, there is more info on the highlights for C500

[@shem44]

the improvement from c200 to c500 is not as worthy as from Sony Fs7 to FX9. This is especially true when u consider the big price jump.

[@ChrisFrancis]

Kenny Shem I haven’t looked at any tests, didn’t realize there was such a big IQ jump from FS-7 to FX9

[@shem44]

@@ChrisFrancis there is no big jump in IQ for the Sony but taking into consideration other features such as dual ISO and the much sensitive and cleaner back illuminated sensor, the higher asking price is more justifiable than upgrading from c200 to c500.

[@simitometi6219]

Yessss!

[@edpr2244]

I don't know how you can't see the dynamic range difference? 500 mark ii has much better dynamic range. you can see this by looking on her left arm and the sheer hanging in front of the window. At least 1- 2 stops.

[@ChrisFrancis]

If you're trying to perceive a difference between dynamic range, make sure you're doing so on the clips at 6:53 as those have the exact same exposure settings. As you'll see there the luma values on the waveform monitor are pretty close, definitely not 1-2 stops different. If you're seeing that big of a difference there it may be a combo of KZbin/your viewing display.

[@edpr2244]

@@ChrisFrancis I actually own this camera myself. And i can tell you that c500 has better dynamic range than c-200.

[@ChrisFrancis]

@@edpr2244 prove it

[@titusnixon]

I don't see that much of a difference. I have the C200 I think I will just work with what it has to offer than chasing rainbow with the C500

[@EventideVisuals]

The noise in her hair is really bad. I've shot quite a bit of raw with my FS5-> shogun inferno and while there is noise, it looks nowhere near that bad. That's a well exposed scene and the color noise is awful in the shadows.

[@ChrisFrancis]

Eventide Visuals it’s definitely not ideal. Canon says that 800 is the native ISO and will give you the most dynamic range, but I almost always shoot at cleaner ISOs to reduce the noise when possible. However, in these tests I wanted to shoot at 800 since that’s the “normal” ISO.

[@EventideVisuals]

@@ChrisFrancis Yeah I hear you on the 800, it should be perfectly clean at that ISO. Any lower and you sacrifice dynamic range. I think in RAW you can't go below 800 anyway. It's just inexcusable that the camera would have that much noise in the shadows at 800. That looks like the kind of noise you get at 6000+ ISO on most cameras these days.

[@ChrisFrancis]

@@EventideVisuals Oh yes, that's correct on the C500MKII you can't go below 800 ISO in raw. On the C200 you can. Also, want to make sure that you're looking at the noise from 6:26 on as that's when both cameras are set to the exact same settings for exposure and will yield accurate comparison for noise.

[@Ten28film]

EOS = Electro Optical System

[@DariuszGoldmann]

Watching on iPhone XS... no difference.

[@jasonbullockfilms]

Name change?

[@ChrisFrancis]

Just for the KZbin channel. I have a lot of newer teaching content that won't fit perfectly under the Church Film School umbrella because it's commercial, doc, etc.

[@fantasirider1080]

same quality

[@bencorwin]

Not worth the extra storage. No way.

[@jayclas5283]

You can’t talk color or anything when you use different lenses. Thanks for doing this but it was a waste of time.

[@ChrisFrancis]

jay clas sure you can, I just did. Used same line of glass from Canon across the board. Def wasn’t a waste of time for me

[@jamismirs8353]

To me, it all looks the same.