This has proved to be a much harder evaluation than I expected.<\/p>\n
Normally it\u2019s a very straightforward assessment of clear and defined responses. Where do they clip? What colours distort? How does the colour change with exposure? How much noise at various underexposure levels and so on.<\/p>\n
This time it\u2019s purely personal, how do they feel? How easy are they to use? How robust are they?<\/p>\n
I was going to do this as a 3 stage evaluations, I\u2019ve already posted the technical shoot material and I had intended to post general material that I\u2019d shot but whats the point? There\u2019s a ton of this kind of stuff on the web. So…<\/p>\n
My overall impression of the images is that they\u2019re all very good but there are caveats.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m going to split the results into categories.<\/p>\n
1\u00a0 Record formats<\/p>\n
Canon C200 records in C-RAW Lite which is a variable compression ratio RAW codes of between 3:1 and 5:. It varies the compression ratio based on content and motion.
\nCanon provide software to translate this RAW material into various formats if you can\u2019t work with the C-RAW. The range of output formats and options is good, ProRes 444, DPX 10 & 16 bit and EXR, colour gamut of Cinema, 2020, P3 & BT.709, Gamma of CLog2, Clog3, BT.709, Wide, DCI.
\nThis is a little odd as the only gamma available in the ACES IDT is CLog3 and surely that\u2019s a case for CLog2 if there ever was one!<\/p>\n
EVA records in, at best, H264 150 Mbps, this is not a professional level codec as far as I\u2019m concerned, this is a format that belongs in HDSLR\u2019s and\u00a0\u201cprosumer\u201d kit. They are promising 400 Mbps and RAW but when?
\nThis is a killer for me. Right now this camera is out of the running because of this.<\/p>\n
Ursa MP records in RAW to CDNG in uncompressed 3:1 & 4:1 compression as well as all formats of \u00a0ProRes from \u00a04444 XQ downwards. CDNG works really well in Resolve but can be a little harder to get the best out of in some other software.<\/p>\n
The winner in this category is marginally the Ursa MP but it\u2019s only a hair ahead of the C200, the EVA has fallen and is struggling to get up here.<\/p>\n
2 Overall feel and build<\/p>\n
There are major differences here and they will probably have a major effect on which camera you prefer.
\nThey split into 2 categories, traditional and well, I\u2019m not sure what to call it \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n
The Ursa MP fits into the traditional category, kitted out with the shoulder mount and the V\/F it feels and operates pretty much as any\u00a0docco camera that I\u2019ve used in the last 40 years. There is a clear line from 16mm to Betacam to HDCam to Varicam to Amira. If you are used to using a camera like this then the UMP will feel\u00a0\u201cright\u201d everything is where it should be and it all just falls into place.
\nIt\u2019s built like a brick shithouse and will take a huge amount of abuse and just keep on going.
\nThe biggest downside is weight,\u00a0 (camera departments seems to be filling up with wimps at the moment ) and battery life. Having said that it\u2019s lighter than the other cameras I\u2019ve mentioned in the lineage and it\u2019s less power hungry. It\u2019s only in comparison with the mini generation that it feels\u00a0heavy and power hungry.
\nI also\u00a0found the Cfast slots a bit difficult to get cards into correctly.<\/p>\n
The C200 and the EVA are very similar on first impression but as you spend time with them you start to find the differences.
\nThey\u2019re very small differences, the Canon is a little heavier but it feels more substantial, the doors over the card slots are more robust, the V\/F is better mounted (more about all the V\/F\u2019s later) it\u2019s all very small stuff but I think the Canon feels overall a more expensive camera and it is, about $100 more \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n
3 Autofocus<\/p>\n
Well there\u2019s a clear winner here, the C200 is way better than either of the others both of which tend to hunt. I tested with new lenses and also with 12 year old lenses.<\/p>\n
4 Built in V\/F & menus<\/p>\n
The UrsaMP is the winner for display here it has a larger and clearer display and a wonderful menu structure that is really clear and simple to use. However, the range of movement is very limited and obstructs the dial you need to use to adjust iris. It doesn\u2019t fold out past 90 degrees from the camera body and this can make it awkward to see the screen and the on-body controls you are trying to alter.
\nThe EVA is in a better\u00a0position than the Ursa but the mount is not as solid as it needs to be and also has the 90 degree limitation.\u00a0The supplied V\/F hood was collapsing when I got it and I had to remove it. It would have been a good\u00a0addition if it had worked.
\nThere are 2 menu structures, one accessed by pressing the menu button which takes you to a what I can only describe as a traditional Sony type menu, I hate it. Pressing home turns the entire V\/F into an Alexa like\u00a0menu which is a joy to use even though the touchscreen is a tad reluctant to\u00a0respond at times.
\nThe C200 is in the same position as the EVA but is much more rigid, it also fold 180\u00a0degrees to go flat to the camera body. It\u2019s much easier to adjust things on a tripod with the screen at about 120 degrees.
\nMenu display buttons and the joystick for adjusting everything is on the V\/F and it takes a bit of getting used to. There\u2019s also a function button and\u00a0joystick at the back of the camera that controls the main settings that you\u2019re likely to need.<\/p>\n
The C200 is a\u00a0clear loser in the menu competition.<\/p>\n
5 Workflow<\/p>\n
The C200 works fine in Resolve and Prelight as does the EVA, the Ursa MP is a little limited in Prelight but that\u2019s an issue between BMD and Filmlight\u2026
\nI had no problems working with any of the cameras other than needing to go through an extra software stage if I wanted to use the Canon in CLog2!! However, that software stage also gave me the option of going straight to 16 bit EXR and I love that.
\nI\u2019m sure that there are data wimps out there who will complain about raw from both the C200 and Ursa MP,\u00a0grow a pair!<\/p>\n
6 Conclusions<\/p>\n
In the end it comes down to what kind of camera do you want?<\/p>\n
If you want a traditional workhorse that produces great images and will integrate into a conventional workflow easily and that has TC,\u00a0genlock etc then the clear winner is the Ursa Mini Pro.<\/p>\n
If you want a lighter camera for drone work or observational type documentaries and all kinds of lighter more personal work then the C200 edges ahead of the EVA. The clear differential here is recording capability and autofocus.
\nIf you want to shoot observational quick moving type jobs then good AF is essential.
\nThere are issues with the C200, no T\/C and no Genlock limits what it can be used for but that\u2019s probably just a market segment thing from Canon. Also why no CLog2 from monitoring out?<\/p>\n
There’s also the question of lens mounts,\u00a0\u00a0The Ursa MP is user interchangeable and\u00a0<\/span>takes just about anything, the obvious main choices being EF & PL, the C200 can be changed\u00a0 from EF to PL at a Canon service centre. The EVA is EF only.<\/span><\/p>\n So, you pays your money and you take your choices…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This has proved to be a much harder evaluation than I expected. Normally it\u2019s a very straightforward assessment of clear and defined responses. Where do they clip? What colours distort? How does the colour change with exposure? How much noise at various underexposure levels and so on. This time it\u2019s purely personal, how do they … Continue reading “C200-EVA-UrsaMP I’m going to duck and cover now”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cameras"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8PwMD-31","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cinematography.net\/CineRant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cinematography.net\/CineRant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cinematography.net\/CineRant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cinematography.net\/CineRant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cinematography.net\/CineRant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cinematography.net\/CineRant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":188,"href":"https:\/\/cinematography.net\/CineRant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187\/revisions\/188"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cinematography.net\/CineRant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cinematography.net\/CineRant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cinematography.net\/CineRant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}