Is Canon getting ready to release new cinema camera/s? Big C200 Price reduction
- Thread starter Ken1212
- Start date
cpreston
Veteran
Moved on to what? Red and Arri? Sony? I haven't really noticed much of a shift in camera usage. I haven't really noticed much usage of the current generation of Canon cameras, but mostly I have just noticed more Reds showing up.
The assumption is that the high end moved toward ARRI Alexa 35.
Bob Loblaw
Active member
I remember in 2015 Canon C cameras were everywhere. Red and Canon were the most used cameras in the commercial space, but most documentaries and video productions I worked on were shot on the C300 or C100. Now, all I see are Sony cameras everywhere. The FS7 or FX6 seem to dominate these days. I’m starting to see more and more FX3 & FX9 cameras. Red Komodos are popping up more frequently too. I’ve done post work are a few projects shot on Blackmagic, but it’s been years since I’ve worked on anything shot on Canon.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
there seems a logic to who won what race and why..
1) thinking of going s35 from dv
2) fs7 $8000 c300 $14000
buy fs7 and lenses
3) want af.. buy the fx9/6
so that early canon or sony thing was won by the sony being $5k cheaper and thus that production company is ony for ever because that is where the lens investment lies.
Of course I did the opposite and grabbed a load of 'cheap' ef glass
1) thinking of going s35 from dv
2) fs7 $8000 c300 $14000
buy fs7 and lenses
3) want af.. buy the fx9/6
so that early canon or sony thing was won by the sony being $5k cheaper and thus that production company is ony for ever because that is where the lens investment lies.
Of course I did the opposite and grabbed a load of 'cheap' ef glass
cpreston
Veteran
This is how I remember the low end cinema camera race.
1) Canon C300 was really the only thing in its class and was designed to take advantage of the market the 5DMKII had created.
2) FS7 had 4K 60P and therefore beat the C300MKII in corporate work and the C300MKII had timecode and AF which made it slightly more popular in the doc and reality side.
3) Black Magic and Red finally became moderately reliable for corporate and doc work and sucked up a good portion of the market for Canon and Sony.
That's just how I've experienced the type of cameras showing up on shoots. I'm heavily invested in Canon and don't see any reason to switch, but I also haven't seen a lot of FX6's or FX9's. I've seen more Venice recently. And, of course, Arri.
Run&Gun
Veteran
In the "grown up" world, Arri. RED still seems to kind of be the "cool kids" camera* (or the people that and spellbound by spec sheets and think resolution is everything), but one of my friends that is on the younger side(south of me by well over a decade) sold his Gemini to free up money for the 35 he ordered. But, he kept his Komodo. And already owned a mini and Amira.
One of my "sports doc" clients was heavily into Canon when the C300 came out, as we all were. Now the Canons are largely the "hand me downs", as they can basically be considered an "Arri Shop", with roughly half a dozen Amira's and two miLF's, that they own.
Another big client, on the feature/doc side is largely Arri and RED(100% freelancers). And another network sports client is largely Sony, with Venice's and FX9's(and I thought I saw one of my buddies shooting with his F55 this past week).
Honestly, If you can't create a nice looking image with a camera made in the last decade or so, it's not the camera... I'm also not saying every camera is created equal, by any means, but the images they all can make is nice. And I still like the image from my original C300...
*I'm not knocking RED, because they make beautiful images, but... I was at one of the biggest sporting events in the country, this past week/weekend, and I saw more Canons than I saw RED's, that's for damn sure(I honestly can't recall if I saw a single RED). For the high-end shooting that was going on, based on numbers of cameras that I saw(obviously completely anecdotal and not all-inclusive as I wasn't everywhere), it was Arri, Sony, then Canon.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I went from high-end 2/3" to C300 to F55 to Arri.
The original C300 was insanely popular, and even at what may be considered a "steep" price today, when it was released, it was incredibly affordable. I knew guys buying multiple bodies. ~$15K vs. the last generation of cameras that we had bought at roughly double to triple that, plus glass, made them no-brainers. Oh yeah, and the image they made, too... I know more people who had Canon C300's than fs7's. But I don't think there is any denying that Sony ate Canon's lunch with the fs7/II vs C300/II(even though I still think the Canon had a better image, without post massaging at that level). I never bought a C300 mkII, as I bought an F55.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Of course there are a million stories - all true.
the c300 was cheap to the 2/3 folk .. the dvx/ex1 gang was probably a bigger gang and went fs7 which was more affordable to them
?
the c300 was cheap to the 2/3 folk .. the dvx/ex1 gang was probably a bigger gang and went fs7 which was more affordable to them
?
Run&Gun
Veteran
Yes, affordable is a relative term.
jcadge
Active member
I bought the Canon C300 back in 2012, when as I remember the choice for super 35 sensor video cameras in 15K price range was the Sony PMW-F3 or Canon C300. At the time we were using Panasonic P2 HD 2/3 cameras, before that the Panasonic SDX 900 (I think the best SD camera ever made). The Canon 5D came along and was a disrupter in the video biz, making a great image with a still camera. I remember choosing the C300 because it captured internally 4:2:2 color space, we were doing a lot of green screen at the time, I think the Sony F3 captured in 4:2:0 internally so we switched to Canon and have stayed in the Canon camp ever since. Out of the gate the C300 proved a better camera then the PMW-F3 but Sony caught up with the FS7.
As a solo run-and-gun shooter, I want to know how everybody can afford Arri cameras...
If I wasn't a Canon shooter already, I'd go for the FX6. But Sony lost me in the early days (first generation FS-series, A7-series) because of their color science at the time.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I think you can afford an arri if..
-you have been doing top doc work for the major networks for 30 years
-you have a rich daddy
-you are a midrange guy and save for a beaten antique (you probably have an fs6 for work)
-you have been doing top doc work for the major networks for 30 years
-you have a rich daddy
-you are a midrange guy and save for a beaten antique (you probably have an fs6 for work)
Run&Gun
Veteran
Market segment (average day rate) and of course amassing a little bit of a war chest over the years. Expensive and high-end cameras get higher day-rates and maintain their higher rental rates for longer. It kind of parallels the old saying, “It takes money to make money”. But… I actually didn’t pay any more for my Amira than I did my F55. I bought both of them used from friends of friends. So, yes purchasing an Arri brand-new is a lot(I have an A35 on order and that still makes me sweat a bit), but if you can find a good one used, you can buy at reasonable prices and still reap most of the rewards. I bought my Amira late last spring/early summer, but because of the good combination of buying used and the market I’m in, it paid for itself before the end of the year. And a friend who bought an A35 and finally got his at the end of ‘22, when I saw him last month, it had already been booked on about $20K in rentals, just being sent out by-itself, not counting his work with it, so he will probably recoup his money on it by the end of this year, if not sooner.
cpreston
Veteran
My sense of the Arri camera market is that it isn't a very safe investment as a new camera unless you can get the rental days in fairly quickly. Looking at the used market for the new Arri bodies, it seems that you can get an LF for about 50% of new, an Mini LF for about 90% of new, and an A35 for about 110% of new. If you can get an early on the DP owner/operator game with a packed rental schedule, then it will pay for itself pretty easily. But if you are just a run and gun corporate guy whose clients don't ask about your camera package then it is never going to be a worthwhile investment.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Run&Gun and company are some of the last tried and true ole timers who worked (works) how many used to back in the day and it was very lucrative for a lot of those guys and gals, but now - in a world where you could find free video production from many with extremely high quality and production value - most people can't or don't need to spend more than a few K on cameras unless they are using house money or simply have the cash flow, old or new $.
Run&Gun
Veteran
You kind of contradict yourself with Arri's not being a safe "investment", but essentially sum it up in the last sentence(depends on the market segment you serve).
Yeah, LF's aren't generally as popular, because of their size/weight/power consumption, when a miLF does the bulk of what it will do, but studio LF's aren't really owner/op cameras like mini's, Amira's, miLF's and now A35's. But saying that a used miLF is still going for 90% of new(it's 4 yrs old) and the A35 for 110% of new sounds like they retain their value pretty well. I just talked to someone a few weeks ago who owns an Amira, and cancelled his A35 order, but is kinda second guessing that decision, because he's still kicking himself for not buying a mini years ago, because he could still be printing money with it.
But if you're not in the market where a camera like that isn't appreciated/in-demand, then you could be spending a lot of money for very little return.