You're using a beta version of our new web site.

Canon 1dx ii vs. Canon C200

Home Forums Cameras and Camcorders Professional Camcorders Canon 1dx ii vs. Canon C200

This topic contains 1 reply, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Kevinp 2 months, 3 weeks ago.

  • Author
  • #97199 Reply

    I'm a professional photographer that is trying to get more into video. I have a Canon 1dx ii and I think it takes great video, but it's obviously lacking the CLog and raw capabilities plus more that the C200 has to offer. So, is it worth saving up the money and getting a C200 to add to my two-person business since we are going heavier and heavier with video all the time? Video is starting to become more important and lucrative for us than photography, so I am willing to save the money over time to get it if it is truly worth it. The biggest thing I want to know is if the CLog makes so much of a difference that it is definitely worth spending the extra money to get the C200. Thank you ahead of time for anyone that answers!?


  • #278596 Reply


    Man that is a tough question !  There are actually 3 different C-Logs…. Watch the video on youtube by Carlos Quintero titled "How to Expose Canon Log on Canon Cinema Cameras" and he also has a video showing C-Log on a C200 and then also color corrected.  Mainly you get extra dynamic range is all… you can either slap a rec 709 on the clog  or you have to color grade it yourself or apply a custom lut, so depends on what "type" of video work you are doing…. Since you already have the 1 dx II may i suggest you look at the Canon XC15 ????  It does 4k AND C-Log, MA-400 mic adapter, waveform and peaking, slow and fast motion, works great in semi-auto mode, several modes of great image stabilization, the list goes on… only thing missing on the XC15 is great low light capability.

  • #278598 Reply


    I have the original 1Dx and chose to add a C200 rather than go to the mkII. I've considered the XV15 as a second video camera but quite a few owners complain about its poor image, small sensor and fixed lens. The main argumant for the C200 is the internal raw capture. That will get you as close as possible to the flexibility you enjoy with raw still files. FCPx, Davinci Resolve and Premiere all now process Canon raw light files natively. They feature 12bits of luminence info, no color subsampling (they are not debayered), and a 1Gb/sec bit rate. The downside is that at that bitrate, they are big files that fill cards quickly and require storage later. So if you do long form recording (weddings and docs, for example) you will want to use the internal mp4 or mkv recording.

    If you are likely to get serious with video, don't go the DSLR route. I did for a while and it is painful. Having well thought out external controls is a big advantage over a menu system. Having motorized built-in ND filters is much easier than lens mounter filters. Having XLR inputs and 4 channels of 24/48LPCM audio means you don't need an external recorder (or recordist, or synch in post). Finally, ergonomics do matter.

Reply To: Canon 1dx ii vs. Canon C200
Your information: