Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
John Doe II

About the Canon C200

Recommended Posts

Are there any users of this camera here among our forum ?

Canon 12 bit 4K RAW seems to be good. Who has used this camera housed? What did you think about it?

 

Edited by John Doe II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@marktipple has one for sale with a Nauticam housing so may well be able to comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jacobguymedia selling one as well now. There's two people you could ask, JDII?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2021 at 10:21 AM, John Doe II said:

My luck eh...... as I purchase one they are coming out of the wood work.

Its an amazing camera, when you get it neutrally buoyant they are amazing, and the raw footage is amazing 4k60 looks incredible. I'm really sad i have to sell mine only as i have to get a stills setup, have you got a full set up now or just the camera or housing ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jacob,

I have the housing, WACP I port, (ended up with 2 WACP I's in a strange twist of fate)  smallHD 702 Bright 7" monitor and Nauticam housing for it, sled, trim weights etc. Still need the cam and lights.

Looks like browser mode through the C200 cam is not functioning very well - pity as I wanted to tether the camera and operate it from a boat above it - will look into what can be done.. maybe dive and see have a way around the problem - they are pretty cluely guys with this stuff.

I sent you a PM about the camera.

Edited by John Doe II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if......

.....It is possible to put a wifi dongle on the end of an ethernet cable to the surface ?

The C200 camera has a really cool browser remote control feature that works really well on wi-fi connection but does not work very well on straight ethernet.

Wondering if it is possible to have some sort of wi-fi dongle or similar connected to an Ethernet cable - so ethernet run from surface - > bulkhead -> inside of C200 housing -> wi-fi dongle so the cam can be controlled via wi-fi? So commands would have to come from either a wi-fi bridge at he surface or the wi-fi dongle would have to be controlled by a laptop directly - not sure if such a thing exists ?

To be clear - I dont want to record through ethernet to the surface - I will record to the cameras onboard recorder. The ethernet to wi-fi link is purely for control - I dont know the bitrate for this control - its probably beefy as its transmitting live imagery to the browser topside.

 

Edited by John Doe II
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethernet (copper) spec is for a 100m run. Longer runs may work but are not guaranteed. 300m is going into 'well.... maaaaaaybe' territory. At those ranges, multimode fiber is typically the tool of choice.

Why does the browser control work poorly on Ethernet? Some quirk of the camera software? I mean, it's TCP/IP regardless of transport media, and typically wired links work better than wireless. Maybe there's some problem with your specific Ethernet setup?

Keep in mind that ff you're using WiFi bridges, you will also need some way of powering them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

Ethernet (copper) spec is for a 100m run. Longer runs may work but are not guaranteed. 300m is going into 'well.... maaaaaaybe' territory. At those ranges, multimode fiber is typically the tool of choice.

Why does the browser control work poorly on Ethernet? Some quirk of the camera software? I mean, it's TCP/IP regardless of transport media, and typically wired links work better than wireless. Maybe there's some problem with your specific Ethernet setup?

Keep in mind that ff you're using WiFi bridges, you will also need some way of powering them.

opps - you're right - meant to say 300ft. I want to put the camera at 50m depth and to control the camera from topside.

 

There is this : https://reefphoto.com/blogs/custom-projects/wi-fi-extender-configuration-guide

 

not sure why they are using SDI cable ? maybe they are trying to record through that sdi cable ?

 

I dont have the camera yet - getting all the expensive stuff squared away first - the cheapest bit of all this is the camera !

Edited by John Doe II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, John Doe II said:

not sure why they are using SDI cable ? maybe they are trying to record through that sdi cable ?

They're not running Ethernet down into the housing, they're just powering a dumb antenna in there - no electronics involved. The cable is carrying an RF signal, not Ethernet frames. Note that they're limited to 45 meters, which not quite the distance that you're looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Barmaglot said:

 The cable is carrying an RF signal, not Ethernet frames. Note that they're limited to 45 meters,

ahhh isee - RF signal only. Hmmm seems an odd way to do it.

Would something like this work ? https://www.amazon.com/IOGEAR-Ethernet-2-WiFi-Universal-Wireless-GWU637/dp/B018YPWORE

the only issue i could see is space in the housing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, John Doe II said:

ahhh isee - RF signal only. Hmmm seems an odd way to do it.

I can see why they did it - it requires the least possible space inside the housing, and doesn't use any electronic components that need power and control.

42 minutes ago, John Doe II said:

This is actually the reverse of what you'd want. This device connects to a Wi-Fi network and downlinks it to its Ethernet port. It's what you'd use if your camera did not have WiFi connectivity but rather only an RJ45 port, and you wanted to link it to a WiFi network.

If you want to bridge your camera's WiFi to an Ethernet link to the surface, you need a WiFi access point that is small enough to fit into the housing and is powered by PoE (Power over Ethernet). I'm not sure such a device exists, access points tend to be pretty large. If I were you, I'd look into getting the camera's Ethernet link working properly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would get the camera and see if it works tethered via ethernet cable or not - you said you don't have the camera yet.  So try it on an ethernet cable to see if does what you want.  If it does then an UW 100m ethernet cable from dive and see should work.  If not you are back to the drawing board.

The other difficult part will be deploying the cable - you'll need I imagine a security cable or rope  connected to the camera so you don't "lose" it, perhaps a surface buoy and some way to prevent pulling on the cable if the buoy or the boat is subject to wind or current.  You don't say what type of water you are diving in - open ocean? - sheltered lake? .  I would think you would want the cable of whatever type you end up with secured to your rope with some slack at the bulkhead.  You basically don't want end up inadvertently pulling on the cable and causing strain there. At the top end you'd have a similar situation to avoid boat movement putting strain on the cable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

I can see why they did it - it requires the least possible space inside the housing, and doesn't use any electronic components that need power and control.

Does make sense - no power requirement is a big one. Anything using power generates heat and there is enough heat being generated in a closed housing as it is without adding more.

 

10 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

 This device connects to a Wi-Fi network and downlinks it to its Ethernet port.

Which is what I want to do. The cam generates its own wi-fi signal and devices can lock onto it. So i need to to get that wi-fi signal and transmit it to the surface. The device I linked does this - it takes the wi-fi signal and sends the data out on ethernet. Advantage is I can get a 100m run to the surface. Disadvantage - and its a big one in this case - it most likely wont fit into the housing. Plus it needs power (could probably take power from the USB on the camera) and therefore must produce some heat. The online reviews for this device are not good anyway so not the way forward.

 

10 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

 

 I'm not sure such a device exists, access points tend to be pretty large. If I were you, I'd look into getting the camera's Ethernet link working properly.

 

I am not sure either hence posting here in case anyone here knows how to do this. Seems that the Nauticam wi-fi extender setup is the way to do this. I am sure a lot of clever guys have looked at this and that is what they came up with - has to be some good reasons why.  Problem is the max cable length is only 45m - looks like that is going to have to do.

This cam came out in 2017. As of 2020 there are YT videos out on setting up the remote browser feature and how it works well on wi-fi and is buggy on ethernet. I dont know how I would fix that. If it was going to be addressed by canon it would have been done by now. I am assuming that the ethernet connection is not going to be viable here. Wi-fi is a known good operator on this cam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

I would get the camera and see if it works tethered via ethernet cable or not - you said you don't have the camera yet. 

That is correct - I dont have the camera yet. In this crazy world of underwater photography the camera is the cheap bit. I am getting all the other bits together first as that's where the real money is. I will get the cam when I am ready to splash the setup. The camera keeps going down in price in the mean time. Seems around the 3K price for a good low hours used cam is where it is at right now. As ever, one has to wait for the right piece of equipment to come along. But they do eventually.

The very last thing I will buy is the lights. Lighting tech is moving so fast.

 

The ethernet on this cam is buggy. Many users have reported it. Its a 2017 cam (ancient now by a lot of standards - but its 4K 12 bit Raw - crazy times we live in to call that standard ancient). If by 2021 this ethernet problem is still a thing then I cant see it ever being sorted out. Probably only Canon can fix it with a firmware fix perhaps? But it looks like they have long since moved onto to bigger and better things, so it seems likely that the ethernet on this cam will never work the remote browser well. Shame really because if it did work well it is perfect for my application and simple enough to use a dive and see cable/bulkhead.

 

My target depth is 55m - so 100m would allow sufficient slack so as not to pull on cables etc - provided I use ethernet. The HD-SDI cable solution while known to work only gives 45m. I am working in a vast inland lake. But gets as rough as the sea. No tides. Some places do seem to have a current but most places I work dont.

Edited by John Doe II
Typo's. One day I will learn to type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came across this in my searching on the topic of how to resolve the known ethernet problem for the remote browser. Thought it might be useful to put it up here in case anyone comes along in the future looking to solve this same problem.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"I have not set this up with any of the EOS cinema line but I dealt with the issue with my 1DX series bodies which I always connect via ethernet.  The Canon instructions are NOT well written and if you are using Windows 10 it seems to create its own issues after updates but there is a work around to it.

 

If possible, go with an ethernet cable directly into your workstation which avoids the additional complication of dealing with a router.  That is what I do with my HP Z840 and Z820 workstations.  Once you do this, try using the automatic network configuration in the camera and then launch the Canon utility software on your computer.

 

The initial setup/configuration is very slow and will appear at times to be stuck but give it time (up to 5 minutes if I remember correctly).  It will grab a dynamic address as part of the setup and once it completes write down this address and enter it as a fixed IP address in the camera network setup.  This was 1/2 of the trick to getting it to work quickly and reliably with my Win 10 workstations because otherwise connection was very slow every time.  The other half of the trick is to set the Canon software to NOT launch automatically but instead you should launch it manually after you start network connect for subsequent uses.  After I went to this fixed IP setting and not launching software automatically, the problems that occurred after frequent Win 10 updates went away and the ethernet connection is a pleasure to use.

 

I often use three DSLR bodies at events (1DX, 1DX 2, and 1DX 3) and I transfer everything via ethernet.  Until I figured out the trick of setting a fixed IP address it was a pain every time but now it is a quick and sure connection.  And from the time I spent "googling" looking for a solution I figured out that apparently not many people use a direct ethernet connection because I found a lot of people asking questions but not finding solutions.

 

Good luck!

 

Rodger

EOS 1DX M3, 1DX M2, 1DX, 5DS R, 1D M2, EOS 650 (film), many lenses, XF400 video "
 
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
So while not exactly the same camera it is quite possible that the above workaround will solve the C200 ethernet problem as well. If it does work then it makes everything simple. Not cheap though. Nothing is ever cheap with underwater anything. $650 for 100m of ethernet, $395 for a bulk head. So $1050 plus fitting of bulkhead to get all this working. Still if it can work its the simplest way to do it all and I will be thankful we can get the ethernet connection working. So, I do need the camera now after all as I need to know whether this work around works on the C200 because I have to get the right cable and bulkhead and get it fitted before it comes out to me. But at least some progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, John Doe II said:

Came across this in my searching on the topic of how to resolve the known ethernet problem for the remote browser. Thought it might be useful to put it up here in case anyone comes along in the future looking to solve this same problem.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"I have not set this up with any of the EOS cinema line but I dealt with the issue with my 1DX series bodies which I always connect via ethernet.  The Canon instructions are NOT well written and if you are using Windows 10 it seems to create its own issues after updates but there is a work around to it.

 

If possible, go with an ethernet cable directly into your workstation which avoids the additional complication of dealing with a router.  That is what I do with my HP Z840 and Z820 workstations.  Once you do this, try using the automatic network configuration in the camera and then launch the Canon utility software on your computer.

 

The initial setup/configuration is very slow and will appear at times to be stuck but give it time (up to 5 minutes if I remember correctly).  It will grab a dynamic address as part of the setup and once it completes write down this address and enter it as a fixed IP address in the camera network setup.  This was 1/2 of the trick to getting it to work quickly and reliably with my Win 10 workstations because otherwise connection was very slow every time.  The other half of the trick is to set the Canon software to NOT launch automatically but instead you should launch it manually after you start network connect for subsequent uses.  After I went to this fixed IP setting and not launching software automatically, the problems that occurred after frequent Win 10 updates went away and the ethernet connection is a pleasure to use.

 

I often use three DSLR bodies at events (1DX, 1DX 2, and 1DX 3) and I transfer everything via ethernet.  Until I figured out the trick of setting a fixed IP address it was a pain every time but now it is a quick and sure connection.  And from the time I spent "googling" looking for a solution I figured out that apparently not many people use a direct ethernet connection because I found a lot of people asking questions but not finding solutions.

 

Good luck!

 

Rodger

EOS 1DX M3, 1DX M2, 1DX, 5DS R, 1D M2, EOS 650 (film), many lenses, XF400 video "
 
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
So while not exactly the same camera it is quite possible that the above workaround will solve the C200 ethernet problem as well. If it does work then it makes everything simple. Not cheap though. Nothing is ever cheap with underwater anything. $650 for 100m of ethernet, $395 for a bulk head. So $1050 plus fitting of bulkhead to get all this working. Still if it can work its the simplest way to do it all and I will be thankful we can get the ethernet connection working. So, I do need the camera now after all as I need to know whether this work around works on the C200 because I have to get the right cable and bulkhead and get it fitted before it comes out to me. But at least some progress.

Fitting a bulkhead should not be rocket science - they are sealed with an o-ring.  Remove the plug, pass the internal cable through the hole then  screw in the bulkhead and tighten.  Pretty hard to stuff it up - use your normal o-ring cleanliness and lubrication and once it's in it stays there.  It should be no different to fitting a flash bulkhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have access to a C200 that you can try this with? Just using a laptop and a plain Ethernet cable, maybe through a friend of an in-store demo.

Also, I do networking support for a living, and those instructions sound... odd to me. Should be much easier to just set a static IPs in the same subnet on the camera and computer, or even run a simple DHCP server server on your machine to hand out an address to the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

Do you have access to a C200 that you can try this with? Just using a laptop and a plain Ethernet cable, maybe through a friend of an in-store demo.

Also, I do networking support for a living, and those instructions sound... odd to me. Should be much easier to just set a static IPs in the same subnet on the camera and computer, or even run a simple DHCP server server on your machine to hand out an address to the camera.

I know some of the earlier Canon ethernet setups were clunky and not that well documented.  Setting up a ethernet printer used to seem to be more art than science, on today's computers it's plug and play.  I imagine both sides of the equation (camera and computer) would need to play properly to work seamlessly like modern setups do.  Don't forget what's second nature to a network support person can confuse the hell out of the average computer hack (myself included sometimes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

Do you have access to a C200 that you can try this with? Just using a laptop and a plain Ethernet cable, maybe through a friend of an in-store demo.

Also, I do networking support for a living, and those instructions sound... odd to me. Should be much easier to just set a static IPs in the same subnet on the camera and computer, or even run a simple DHCP server server on your machine to hand out an address to the camera.

Agree - however you just dont know how Canon have coded the setup. It sounds like there is some sort of routine that the camera runs to hand out an IP - and it sounds convoluted at best. But this is why there is some sort of issue with the ethernet on this camera. Something odd about it for sure.

And no, I dont have a camera to try it on. I have yet to purchase the camera. As has been said many times here, work backwards. First find a camera that works for your purpose then get the housing/ports/extras setup and then worry about the actual camera itself last as thats the easy bit.

Edited by John Doe II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Fitting a bulkhead should not be rocket science - they are sealed with an o-ring.  Remove the plug, pass the internal cable through the hole then  screw in the bulkhead and tighten.  Pretty hard to stuff it up - use your normal o-ring cleanliness and lubrication and once it's in it stays there.  It should be no different to fitting a flash bulkhead.

I have never fitted a bulkhead fitting to a housing so not sure what is involved or how precise it needs to be. So will let the dealer do it in his workshops to make sure it comes out to me right.

I am going to go ahead and get the ethernet setup from Dive and See.

 

Products / Connectors / DNC-2084
 
DNC 2084 Elbow Underwater LAN Ethernet Cat6 bulkhead connector 8 circular contacts
DNC 2084 Elbow Underwater LAN Ethernet Cat6 bulkhead connector 8 circular contactsDNC-2084 Elbow Rotatable Bulkhead connector Ethernet M16DNC-2084 Elbow Rotatable right angle waterproof Bulkhead connector Ethernet M16
 
 

DNC-2084

US $395

Elbow style Underwater LAN Ethernet Cat6 bulkhead connector, 8 circular contacts

* DNC-2084 Elbow style bulkhead connector is used for facilitating the transmission of LAN Ethernet data at speeds up to 1,000 Mbps (1 Gigabit per second) between underwater systems
* The new design allows installing the bulkhead connector in available - desirable direction on your housing. Elbow shape (90 degrees) of the connector keeps the external cable horizontally, instead of the standard vertical style of the connections
* Material: Marine Aluminum with Hard Anodizing coating
* Bulkhead connector has a water block, which is allowing to keep vacuum inside of your underwater housing
*  HIGH SPEED CAT5E CABLE, Stranded T-568B Wiring
* 8 Contacts (Brass - Gold plated) 
* Custom length and other connector types are available
* Depth - 240 PSI (160 meters)
* Compatible with LAN Ethernet Dive And See cables DNC-1101, DNC-1044, etc

 

to go with this cable

 

 

Products / Underwater Cables / DNC-1044
 
DNC-1044 300ft Cat6 waterproof Ethernet cable (550 MHZ)
DNC-1044 300ft Cat6 waterproof Ethernet cable (550 MHZ)DNC-1044 300 ft network underwater, cat 6 black colorDNC-1044 300ft Ethernet network underwater cable cat 6 black color
 
 

DNC-1044

US $650

300ft Underwater to Surface Cat6 Ethernet Network Cable, LAN

* Depth Rating 90 meters
* Connecting any CAT6 applications to the computer, router, hub, Network, distribute data or video
* Z CAM E2 Gigabit Ethernet for data, control & live preview
* Transmit UltraHD (3840x2160) at 25/29.97 fps 4K/HD Camera such a AJA RovoCam
* Gigabit Ethernet
* Power over Ethernet (PoE) compatible
* Supports IP Cameras
Cable compatible with Dive And See bulkhead connectors 
DNC-2025DNC-2031DNC-2071DNC-2084DNC-2082
* The bulkhead connector sold separately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, John Doe II said:

Agree - however you just dont know how Canon have coded the setup. It sounds like there is some sort of routine that the camera runs to hand out an IP - and it sounds convoluted at best.

This isn't black magic; the procedure described sounds like the camera is set up to pull a DHCP lease, but with a direct connection between workstation and camera and no DHCP server involved, it times out and falls back to APIPA (automatic private IP address) - that's why it takes several minutes, for both the camera and the workstation to time out on DHCP discovery and assign themselves something in the 169.254.0.1 - 169.254.255.254 range, with a /16 subnet. Once this happens, you configure the random address as static, and the application autodiscovers the camera, probably by the means of network broadcast. It reads as a result of someone randomly poking around in the dark with no idea of what they're doing - you can arrive to the same result much faster by either configuring static IPs in the same subnet to begin with (and with a direct connection, you can go as small as a /30 subnet, instead of a /16), or by running a DHCP server on your machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, John Doe II said:

I have never fitted a bulkhead fitting to a housing so not sure what is involved or how precise it needs to be. So will let the dealer do it in his workshops to make sure it comes out to me right.

 

There is no precision involved, you just screw it in  and tighten it, but if you are not confident I guess there is no harm in getting the dealer to do it.  The only thing to be aware of is the same standard of o-ring cleanliness as you use for the main housing o-ring which you service yourself all the time.  If the housing holds a vacuum after installation, you are all set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Barmaglot said:

This isn't black magic; the procedure described sounds like the camera is set up to pull a DHCP lease, but with a direct connection between workstation and camera and no DHCP server involved, it times out and falls back to APIPA (automatic private IP address) - that's why it takes several minutes, for both the camera and the workstation to time out on DHCP discovery and assign themselves something in the 169.254.0.1 - 169.254.255.254 range, with a /16 subnet. Once this happens, you configure the random address as static, and the application autodiscovers the camera, probably by the means of network broadcast. It reads as a result of someone randomly poking around in the dark with no idea of what they're doing - you can arrive to the same result much faster by either configuring static IPs in the same subnet to begin with (and with a direct connection, you can go as small as a /30 subnet, instead of a /16), or by running a DHCP server on your machine.

Yep - understand all that. I was also in IT - not quite as heavy as network support but i was involved in installing WAN links and setting UP Public IP's and Private IP's on various subnet levels. I am not quite sure what the 169.x.x.x range is all about - generally when you get a 169.x.x.x the connection is not getting through.

Overall it does seem as the ethernet link can be made to work with enough perseverance. Its surely a better way to go then the alternatives and gives up to 300ft of usable cable length.

Edited by John Doe II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...