FX9 overtakes C300 Mark ii, 4/5/21:

JPNola

JPNola

Veteran
FX9 overtakes C300 Mark ii in Crews Control survey, giving Sony all three spots on the podium.



The following figures are for “Corporate” production. I don’t think it includes production done in-house for corporations, because Crews Control provides freelance crews and the figures are based on what those freelance crews are using. In-house production would not be included in that. ( Crews Control would have no means of knowing what cameras those productions use. Although we can safely surmise it would also be Sony-heavy. )


PXW-FS7: 31.23%
PXW-FS7 M2: 11.59%
PXW-FX9: 10.33%
EOS C300 Mark II: 8.31%
PMW-F55: 3.78%
PMW-F5: 3.27%
All Other Cameras: <3%


“ The Sony FX9 continues to grow in popularity, but this new video camera has yet to dethrone the Sony FS7. The Canon EOS C300 Mark II tends to remain in the top 3 in our monthly reports. But in this quarterly report, it was beat out in popularity by the FX9. ”



https://crewscontrol.com/blog-central/top-corporate-video-cameras-camera-usage-report-q1-2021/
 
The C300ii is pretty crippled (on paper) (no one rates excellent 2k444) and 'in the handle' XLR arragement was designed by fools. Good riddance.

The 300iii/500ii seem exactly the best cameras.. but they are too expensive.

Just like the F3 vs C300i and FS7 vs C300ii the sony wins on price ???
 
Is this survey based on their own shoots and those who work for them? It appears to be based on just their shoots, so these numbers only reflect Crews Control's crews and not the industry as a whole.

In my experience most clients who ask for a Sony FS7 or FX9 are lower budget clients who are less discerning about the camera's image quality (particularly with regards to the FS7), such as reality TV. Equivalent Canon cameras have generally cost more than equivalent Sony cameras so it makes sense that Canon owner/ops would charge more for a more expensive camera. Crews Control has set rates they pay their DPs of which I turned down working for them because their rates were too low. In other words, one can get higher rates with Canon cameras than Sony cameras, Crews Control doesn't pay out higher rates, therefore, a larger (as in skewed statistics) percentage of their crews would be using the lower budget camera option since their rates are the same regardless of how expensive your camera is. Outside of Crews Control where DPs can get higher rates, Canon cameras likely have a higher usage percentage than in the lower budget rates of Crews Control shoots. Considering Crews Control seems to pay the same rate for a Sony FS7 as they do for an Alexa LF with Arri Signature Primes, you could then conclude from their survey that Arri cameras are practically never used by anyone, when in reality it's just that not many people who paid a lot of money for an Arri want to work for Crews Control at around $1100 to $1300 per day depending on how much you pay your audio tech.


My e-mail chain with Crews Control from 2018...


"We were also looking over your rates, and they are a bit higher than what we would charge our clients. We normally charge a rate of $2300-$2400 at the most for a 2 person crew with an FS7. Would you be able to agree to that rate?

We also wanted to mention that we take a 15% Commission from all booked shoots. We take this from the crew rates, we do not add this on top. For example, if you quoted $2000 for a shoot, we would take 15% of that ($300) and you would receive the rest ($1700). Please let us know if there are questions in regards to those terms." - Crews Control

________

"My cameras are higher end than a Sony FS7, and thus I don't charge rates that reflect Sony FS7 rates. My Arri Amira with my two Canon cinema zooms for example is over $100k, while an FS7 with a typical lens package is around $20k. C300 Mark IIs are also more expensive than the FS7, and my support (lighting package, tripods, audio gear, lenses, etc.) tends to be higher end than what most FS7 owner/ops have. Thus, I charge higher rates and regularly book at those higher rates. I also have quality demo reels to backup the higher rates I charge.

$2400 for a two person crew, minus $360 for your fee, and minus $750 for an audio guy, would leave me with $1290 for the day. I typically like to make at least $1500 to $2000 for a day. If you can get me jobs closer to those rates then that would work. I'd of course still charge more for an Amira package, as noted. If these rates are above what a lot of your clients like to pay, then perhaps you could keep me in mind for more discerning clients who are willing to pay more for higher end equipment and skill-set." - Me

_________

"I would like to mention that our clients are mostly booking shoots with an FS7, C300 (or mk II or similar equivalents) which is why we are asking our crews to charge somewhere in the $2400 range. We do not book many shoots with Arris at the moment. We do work with many high-end clients, but they are not requesting those cameras at the moment in order to keep their budgets low. However, our current crews do shoot with an exceptional level of expertise even when working with a $2400 budget. If you’re able to work with that range, we will continue to process your application. Please let me know how you’d like to proceed." - Crews Control

____________



There was a bit more discussion, but ultimately they would not budge on their rates, so I never worked for them. I don't find these crewing companies to be good for freelancers. With their commissions, it's really just another middle man to bring down our rates.

I thought it was a bit silly to infer they have high end clients who want to keep their budgets low. High end and low budget generally are opposites, and there are plenty of high end clients out there who will pay top dollar for better quality equipment and personnel. Apparently those clients don't hire Crews Control, or if they do, Crews Control just points them to their lower budget offerings, which would actually result in less profit for Crews Control since they're commission is based on percentages.

I'd take this survey with a grain a salt. I'm not saying Canon cameras are more popular because I don't have any hard statistics on the matter (though I definitely see more Canons in the wild and know more Canon owner/ops than Sony), but I am saying this survey's statistics appear to be skewed if the stats are meant to reflect the industry as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
Is this survey based on their own shoots and those who work for them? It appears to be based on just their shoots, so these numbers only reflect Crews Control's crews and not the industry as a whole.

In my experience most clients who ask for a Sony FS7 or FX9 are lower budget clients who are less discerning about the camera's image quality (particularly with regards to the FS7), such as reality TV. Equivalent Canon cameras have generally cost more than equivalent Sony cameras so it makes sense that Canon owner/ops would charge more for a more expensive camera. Crews Control has set rates they pay their DPs of which I turned down working for them because their rates were too low. In other words, one can get higher rates with Canon cameras than Sony cameras, Crews Control doesn't pay out higher rates, therefore, a larger (as in skewed statistics) percentage of their crews would be using the lower budget camera option since their rates are the same regardless of how expensive your camera is. Outside of Crews Control where DPs can get higher rates, Canon cameras likely have a higher usage percentage than in the lower budget rates of Crews Control shoots. Considering Crews Control seems to pay the same rate for a Sony FS7 as they do for an Alexa LF with Arri Signature Primes, you could then conclude from their survey that Arri cameras are practically never used by anyone, when in reality it's just that not many people who paid a lot of money for an Arri want to work for Crews Control at around $1100 to $1300 per day depending on how much you pay your audio tech.


My e-mail chain with Crews Control from 2018...


"We were also looking over your rates, and they are a bit higher than what we would charge our clients. We normally charge a rate of $2300-$2400 at the most for a 2 person crew with an FS7. Would you be able to agree to that rate?

We also wanted to mention that we take a 15% Commission from all booked shoots. We take this from the crew rates, we do not add this on top. For example, if you quoted $2000 for a shoot, we would take 15% of that ($300) and you would receive the rest ($1700). Please let us know if there are questions in regards to those terms." - Crews Control

________

"My cameras are higher end than a Sony FS7, and thus I don't charge rates that reflect Sony FS7 rates. My Arri Amira with my two Canon cinema zooms for example is over $100k, while an FS7 with a typical lens package is around $20k. C300 Mark IIs are also more expensive than the FS7, and my support (lighting package, tripods, audio gear, lenses, etc.) tends to be higher end than what most FS7 owner/ops have. Thus, I charge higher rates and regularly book at those higher rates. I also have quality demo reels to backup the higher rates I charge.

$2400 for a two person crew, minus $360 for your fee, and minus $750 for an audio guy, would leave me with $1290 for the day. I typically like to make at least $1500 to $2000 for a day. If you can get me jobs closer to those rates then that would work. I'd of course still charge more for an Amira package, as noted. If these rates are above what a lot of your clients like to pay, then perhaps you could keep me in mind for more discerning clients who are willing to pay more for higher end equipment and skill-set." - Me

_________

"I would like to mention that our clients are mostly booking shoots with an FS7, C300 (or mk II or similar equivalents) which is why we are asking our crews to charge somewhere in the $2400 range. We do not book many shoots with Arris at the moment. We do work with many high-end clients, but they are not requesting those cameras at the moment in order to keep their budgets low. However, our current crews do shoot with an exceptional level of expertise even when working with a $2400 budget. If you’re able to work with that range, we will continue to process your application. Please let me know how you’d like to proceed." - Crews Control

____________



There was a bit more discussion, but ultimately they would not budge on their rates, so I never worked for them. I don't find these crewing companies to be good for freelancers. With their commissions, it's really just another middle man to bring down our rates.

I thought it was a bit silly to infer they have high end clients who want to keep their budgets low. High end and low budget generally are opposites, and there are plenty of high end clients out there who will pay top dollar for better quality equipment and personnel. Apparently those clients don't hire Crews Control, or if they do, Crews Control just points them to their lower budget offerings, which would actually result in less profit for Crews Control since they're commission is based on percentages.

I'd take this survey with a grain a salt. I'm not saying Canon cameras are more popular because I don't have any hard statistics on the matter (though I definitely see more Canons in the wild and know more Canon owner/ops than Sony), but I am saying this survey's statistics appear to be skewed if the stats are meant to reflect the industry as a whole.
Click to expand...

So much arrogance, flat-out wrongness, and silliness there I don’t know where to begin.
 
I'm agreeing with Eric... still developing professionally and still working with Crews Control and similar staffing services. For the past two years or so, I've been renting whatever spec'd body, and running A7# or FS5 for most really low rate jobs.

If given my druthers and enough budget, I'll absolutely hire in a C500 mk2. Always hated Canon ergos but I enjoy that thing on so many levels... easy to build, easy to operate, looks great, not too big, wide codec flexibility...

Nonetheless, I'm now renting in spec'd FX9's 2-3x a month... so I'm buying an FX9. Its kind of huge and the menu system and odd internal conflicts are somewhat dumb... but it'll pay for itself easily with what I can currently charge in good conscience.

As my skills and rates rise, I won't mind moving up/diagonally/sideways... but for now, FX9 appears to be the best balance.
 
Last edited:
$2300-$2400 for a two-man crew is about right for the types of shoots that Crews Control gets called for and books crews for. This is also about ballpark for what some of the nets pay for similar two-man crews(which, again, is pretty much what they are crewing for or at least similar type/style for corporate, etc.). One of my net clients pays $2400 base for a two-man crew. I own all of the gear: camera, audio and lighting, so I'm generally only paying audio labor.

Now on to the fly-in-the-ointment: Their cut. 15% is really high. 10% used to be a standard cut for crewing and production companies, and it was only on the base rate(not OT or any additional expenses like mileage, parking, per diem, etc.). And I'm not 100% sure they don't take a cut from the client. After all, they are the ones invoicing the client, not you. You don't know what the end bill looks like that the client is getting. They may be telling you the rate is $2400, but they may also be billing the client $2500-$2600, so they might be making $560 for making some phone calls and handling some invoices.

But some things to weigh out. They are responsible for dealing with payment from the end client. You'll probably be paid within 30 days from CC(don't know their terms, but way too many TV clients are paying net 90, now). And if you can negotiate your rate up to $2500 and their cut down to 10%, it's not that bad(presuming you're not going out with an Amira and Ultra Primes for that rate). At those terms, I could still clear $1750, most days. That's not bad, especially if you don't have another shoot.
 
jbregar said:
The C300 Mark III and the FX9 are the same price.
Click to expand...

Dont split hairs.

It collapses my arguments.

I think the 9 is overpriced, no one has bought it since the 6 was released (yes absolutely no one) the C300 is more costy per unit area of sensor than the 9 :)
 
In my experience on these types of shoots in this range (never worked for this company before), it seems they ask for cameras that have been out a long time: FS7 or C300MKII but are OK when you mention you have the newer version. I think it has more to do with post-workflow more than anything. Because post for projects like this are done in-house, the actual capture is the main variable in their pipeline so they're looking to standardize that with what's proven over getting a higher quality capture.

This use to come back to bite me when I had two C200s because the H.264 wasn't good enough quality and they didn't want to deal with raw/proxies. Now that I have a C300MKIII I can book these jobs left and right (same could be said if I had an FS7 or C300MKII). The extra "I" at the end of my camera model is for my own satisfaction & investment in making my stuff look better so I can graduate from this mid-level segment of the market :)

My highest paying regular gig is DP'ing a cable documentary show that asks for a FS7 (or equivalent) and shoots in 1920x1080 29.97.

If you're trying to maximize profits in this space, old proven gear is the ticket. If you're trying to grow out of this space, that's where the FX9, C300MKII, C500MKII come into play. These are what I would call transitionary cameras on your way to getting on jobs that shoot on ARRI, high end RED, etc.
 
Last edited:
I'd easily pay the extra 2x for the C300.3 over the .2 simply so I didn't have to f around with separate audio/video cables and clamshell-monitor-handle-mounted-audio idiocy :D

Also don't forget the impact of the low/no-contact "Zoom interview," in its various formats... did more than a few shoots over the past year which were basically spec'd as "set up the camera/lights/audio, hit record, leave it, and monitor from the front stoop." Solid AF has been vital. C300.2 gets distracted easily. FS7... well, yeah, no. 300.3, 500.2, and FX9 all stick it.
 
@Run&Gun: Yeah, it obviously works out better if you're paying less for audio such as if you have all of the audio gear necessary and good audio guys who know your gear well and are willing to work at labor only. Since I'm often working in different locations I don't always have an audio guy who is willing to work at labor only, and I haven't invested the $10k to $20k needed for a profressional audio kit that I'd feel would match what a professional may bring. I may make that investment some day, but it may not make much sense since I travel so much. The next part of my conversation with Crews Control involved me suggesting me handling the audio on my own and bringing on a PA at a lower $175 rate for a two person crew since I can often handle audio on my own for simple audio shoots such as single person sit down interviews, in which case I could have made $1865 per shoot which was enough to be worth it for me at the time, but they were pretty set in their ways and insisted it be a professional audio tech and the DP, so it didn't work out.

These days my day rates for shooting are starting at $4500 to $5000 and go up to $10k when booked with two Amiras, Ultra Primes, accesories, and crewing up-charges, with around $3k being the lowest I'll take on a job depending on how busy I am and how much stuff they want as well as how far away it is since my rates include travel time and expenses since I work as a local wherever I go (within driving distance which to me means up to a 12 hour drive), so I've priced myself out of Crews Control budgets at this point. I did do a job for a crewing company a few months ago and they were able to meet my rates. COVID really boosted my business big time and enabled me to double my rates from what I charged pre-COVID; maybe owning Ultra Primes thanks to JPNola pointing out the Ultra Primes deals going on has helped too. I really appreciate how JPNola has helped my business as the Ultra Primes have pretty much already paid for themselves in the 6-9 months I've had them.

I do a fair amount of crewing and subcontracting DPs myself, and if a DP quotes me X rate, instead of telling them, "I always pay my DPs X amount regardless of their skillset and equipment," I can always just quote the client more if I value working with that DP such that I can still be profitable if the job books, or keep them in mind for projects that are suitable for their rates. I just found it odd that a larger crewing service like Crews Control didn't seem that interested in catering to bigger budget shoots and instead only seems to work with one type of budget, which seems rather limiting for a crewing agency. Then again, they're one of the biggest crewing agencies out there so they had to be doing something right to get to where they're at.

Back to the main topic, in that particular budget range, the FS7 and FX9's may be the most popular cameras (though I'm not sure), but at other budget levels, other cameras are more popular, and I don't know what is the most common camera used for the broadly termed, "professional," shoots. I just found the article a bit misleading and wanted to give some context to the article.

Some of the distributors on this forum such as Terry Nixon, Jim Martin, and Mitch Gross probably have a better idea of the amount of camera sales of different models and companies if they ever wanted to disclose such information.
 
Last edited:
Eric, Crews Controls may be going more for 'quantity over quality'. Figuring it's easier to bring in a lot of the mid-level jobs than the high-end, especially since these are more plug & play/formulaic, whereas higher-end starts to get mote "custom" with more gear and needs and demands and starts to get into "bidding the job", etc. Kinda like going into Chick-Fil-A and ordering a #3, vs. going into The Capital Grille.
 
Run&Gun said:
higher-end starts to get mote "custom" with more gear and needs and demands and starts to get into "bidding the job", etc. Kinda like going into Chick-Fil-A and ordering a #3, vs. going into The Capital Grille.
Click to expand...

Do you often have to bid on your meal at a restaurant? Must be a southern thing
 
Run&Gun, yeah, I suppose that makes sense. Higher end jobs would be less likely to go through a crewing agency. I used to shoot weddings for a couple wedding companies that were mass producing the weddings, so the brides often didn't know much about who they were getting to film their wedding, just the company as a whole. They were mid-range weddings. Yeah, I imagine all of the high end weddings were individuals and not mass produced companies.


ahalpert said:
How come?
Click to expand...
Perhaps because I work as a local in many areas and for higher end jobs clients used to often fly out their big shot L.A. or NY DPs and now they're more likely to hire a pseudo local with high end gear such as myself who drives alone to the shoot and sleeps in my car so poses no COVID travel risks that would be associated with airlines or hotel stays. There was probably also a backlog from when things originally shut down, there are a good number of shoots related to COVID such as a CEO delivering a video message via an interview that previously would have been done in person, there's probably more demand in the streaming world for documentaries with theaters heavily shut down and a lot of my work is docs, and I also updated my demo reel and got the Ultra Primes, which gave me confidence to raise my rates in general. I got swamped with work in the last few months of 2020 such that I was getting burned out from being overworked (like gone from home for 45 days in a 60 day period once), kept raising my rates but was still getting hired constantly, until eventually work started slowing down more and this year so far it's been more normal but I've kept the higher rates.

I'm kind of starting to get tired of this traveling DP thing. Maybe I'll buy a studio in Atlanta and build that up with employees and such or try to become a movie producer. At the least I need to market myself locally more so I'm not gone from home so often. It was good the first three years I was doing it but it's starting to get old being gone from home 120-150 days per year. If I won the lottery I'd probably just make short fiction films and feature films for fun as a producer/director. I started in college as a filmmaker and kind of fell into DPing because it was easy to make money with. I enjoy it, but perhaps I like to think of myself more as a filmmaker than as a cinematographer, while cinematography is what I make most of my income from currently.

I theorize Atlanta is becoming like L.A., where there are an abundance of DPs so the market gets saturated and the rates lowered. I've got a local job next week where the client talked me down on rates because they had another DP offering a Mini with a Movi Pro for half of what I was quoting for that. Half was still $3500 for my rate so I went ahead and took the job since that's still worth it, plus my family is visiting later that day so it will be good to have something local since I've been turning down out of state jobs while they're in town. But I'm sure there's still plenty of well budgeted local work to find if I look in the right places.
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
Do you often have to bid on your meal at a restaurant? Must be a southern thing
Click to expand...

I meant it like the mid-level type stuff that Crews Control calls about are like fast food. Hey, we need a crew to do a live shot tomorrow. Basic work, basic price, no need for a lot of negotiating. Most crews doing this a while know what's gonna be needed and expected, generally speaking. But the high-end can be more like a nice sit-down restaurant where everything is a la cart and costs more.
 
Threads like these - and this is not directed at the OP - tend to make me pull out the hip waders when things get so deep... to go do some fly fishing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top