IronFilm

Interesting chart, and you can draw broad conclusions from it: ARRI dominates! (but no surprise there) And film still has a presence, somewhat surprisingly. But be careful about drawing more detailed conclusions about the broader high end market, as 10 films is a very small sample size so your confidence interval would be massive.

I definitely remember reading about this a few years ago, and no, it never was anything ARRI officially said they were doing, as it never came to pass. I do agree. (and heh, how many $40K ARRIs even get sold? Yeah, the bare bones ARRI Mini is slightly under that I believe. But most people loaded it up with the options and get the EVF, which then pushes that above $40K) Because people EXPECT student footage to look subpar (although many student's thesis year projects can turn out damn well!). Can't see it harming them if it is only sold to select approved educational institutions. And what people start out on, they're likely to carry on with in their career. So I can see how it can be beneficial for ARRI to get in early. I disagree. If you are looking at it from the perspective of "a person camera to own", then yes I agree, an ARRI is very much like "aspiring to have a supercar". But if you look at it from a professional aspect, then ARRI is just your usual standard workhorse camera that gets seen on sets all the time. To graduate without hands on experience with an ARRI would perhaps be like getting your truck driver's license without ever being in a truck and only ever driving a van??? Now of course many film schools wouldn't own an ARRI, not even at "special educational pricing". Those small film schools are getting an URSA Mini instead, or perhaps still using some old gear like a Panasonic AF100, or even worse! But if you're one of the top film schools in the country then you'll be wanting professional cameras from the upper end of the spectrum for your students to work on. Imagine you're in the shoes of an ARRI business manager, do you want all these film schools to be buying and teaching their students about a RED Dragon / Sony PMW-F5 / Panasonic Varicam LT or an ARRI ALEXA?

Which mount did you get it for?

Fuji likely wasn't expecting IBIS to be a major feature, maybe had never even considered it, back when they design the X Mount. Guess this often happens, people can't predict the future. Sony make a similar, or even worse mistake, as they never planned at the start to squeeze a FF sensor into the E Mount. Canon stumbled with the EOS-M mount, perhaps also never thinking they'd want to put their high end FF sensors into these dainty little consumer bodies. They've gone the path of coming up with a completely new mount instead! Fragmenting their users across EOS M & R mount. (Nikon did something kinda similar, dipped their toe in with the Nikon 1 system, then dumped that completely for Z Mount) Wonder what mount will be the most future proofed to allow new tech to be put into it and built on top without compromise? I'd bet on Nikon Z Mount or L Mount, the newest mounts of them all. But will their late start in the mirrorless market be too late and they've missed the boat in gaining a foothold in market share?

Am sure the ratio of FS7 to C300mk2 varies from market to market and niche to niche. But when you're talking about a large city like Seattle, then I don't believe a C300 could be waaaaay more popular than the FS7. Globally the FS7 would be the #1 most popular cinema camera for corporate shoots. (and heck, popular for all kinds of low budget shoots. Just for instance do a search for the #SonyFS7 vs #CanonC300 hashtags on IG, the FS7 has waaaaaaaaaay more) Am not a local Seattle resident, so I can't speak from first hand experience, but what I did was I went productionhub and did a search for C300 vs FS7 in Seattle. 23 vs 19 result, so yes, Canon is ahead, but only marginally so, within the sampling error for sure. But additionally.... there is a big weakness in this methodology: I bet *many* of these C300 results are referring to the old C300mk1. And we're getting a false positive in the search results. As after all, a very large proportion of veterans who are shooting with a FS7 today were shooting with the C300mk1 before the FS7, so would still have "C300" listed under experience/CV. (as the C300mk1 was the #1 Camera for this bracket before the FS7 stole its crown) Thus I went through the C300 search results reading each profile to see how many had an FS7! Half of them. (plus saw a few more too with a FS5 instead, the "baby FS7") Sure, crippling can occur for more than one reason: market segmentation, lack of horse power, plain old oversight/cluelessness, etc And that's the point, Canon has frequently simply lacked the grunt of cutting edge electronics to give the consumer what they really need. That is why the Canon 1D C had such an efficient codec, that is why the C300mk2 has its weird hidden limitations too, etc

The C300mk2 is targeted at owner ops, and to rental houses. (the C300 can be a popular rental when there isn't the budget for a Mini)

This is exactly what the JVC LS300 with its variable scanning is useful for! ? You can exactly dial in the amount over lens coverage you want to have, want 100%? Want 97%? Want 95%? You can pick it!

"Difference" in what manner? In terms of ROI? Yeah, I'd say the difference for most people is quite significant. You'll see two dozen job adverts for a "FS7 shooter" for every one looking for a C300mk2 owner.

Hit the gym then! And get yourself an assistant. Is marketed as a "solo operator" camera, but honestly it still is a bit of a beast.

No way would a Panasonic L Mount FF mirrorless camera priced substantially under the S1 have all of the features that would be in a GH6.

oh! I just realized noticed they've now brought out a DZOFilm 10-24mm T2.9 MFT Lens which will be coming out soon. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1507683-REG/dzoptics_dzo_6226613a_10_24mm_t2_9_m4_3_lens.html This would be a wonderful pairing with the 20-70mm! Imagine shooting a feature / tv show with a two camera set up with 2x GH5S/GH5/BMPCC4K/E2/whatever with one of these lenses on each. Could do the wides with the 10-24mm on the wiiiide end and the other camera at 20mm (of the 20-70) then go in for the tighter coverage with the 10-24 then being at 24mm (which is mid FoV for MFT) and the 20-70mm being even tighter on the 2nd camera. You could shoot everything with just those two lenses and two cameras, and never need to change a lens at all! Speedy speedy. A dream setup.

Yeah the DZOFilm 20-70mm T2.9 might be the closest we get to the kind of affordable 15-60mm T2-ish PL/F lens I dream of. HOWEVER.... big difference between 15 and 20mm, even 18mm vs 20mm is quite noticeable when we're talking about 2mm here on the wide end. And it gets much much worse... this is MFT only, so we can't use it on PL / F / EF Mount cameras. And also, the fact it is designed specifically only for MFT Mount means I highly suspect if you adapt it to E Mount then it will not cover S35. (otherwise DZOFilm would already be offering it in E Mount, as a S35 E Mount would be a massive market for them to sell affordable cinema zooms to) So while I'm excited to see this very cheaply priced mid range zoom for MFT (yay!), it still falls far short of what I'm dreaming of.

Am not going to deny the C300mk2 is a nice camera, but also it clearly and obviously hasn't been the success the C300mk1 was! If I was in the market for a low/mid priced cinema camera and I got offered a FS7mk2 and a C300mk2 at identical price with identical condition (same package too with each, media/accessories/etc) then I'd pick the FS7 every time. The reason is because at this price level you're not buying it as casual fun hobby camera, it is a business investment. And the FS7 will surely in the long run get me more work than a C300 would. (I'm just saying what I believe, and what I think is true for most people, of course there will be exceptions. If all your friends own a C300mk2, or if you have a long term gig locked in coming up which needs a C300mk2, then by all means go for the C300mk2!) Have got a friend who used to own a FS7, which he then sold (because he thought he a full time job at a studio lined up, using their own gear. But then that fell through). And he got offered a C300mk2 at a very good price, comparable to what he sold his FS7 for, so he went for the Canon instead. Well, since then he's found he's got a lot less work with it, and he is often having to borrow/rent a FS7 or use the production company's gear instead. With hindsight, he'd have been much better off buying a FS7 instead.

This is a bit like asking "is Bugatti making an affordable car for soccer mums to drive?" Technically they could, but I'm almost certain they will not. Because it would absolutely ruin Bugatti's brand image and everything they've been doing in trying to craft that. The ARRI Mini & AMIRA was their "cheap" cameras. (and they are, relatively speaking. Just compare their price to an ALEXA SXT W) Their "certified ARRI" refurbished programming selling ARRI ALEXA Classics are their "cheap cameras". I see it as extremely unlikely ARRI will bring out a brand new camera priced under $10K, and the chances of them making a sub $5K camera? Nil! However for RED, it is somewhat less surprising (it could be argued the surprising factor is why hasn't RED done this earlier?). Because it has ALWAYS been part of RED's branding that they're the "affordable / budget value" option. That is how they've positioned themselves from Day #1. (of course back when RED launched, a camera could be very very expensive and still be massively cheaper than the cinema cameras from competitors! And with time RED trended up into the higher end markets, but even then RED still presented themselves as "giving you more for your dollar, that their cameras could do more and thus are better value) Minor side note: I do remember years ago there being serious talk/rumors about ARRI making an "ALEXA Academic Edition" camera. Which would have been identical to their full size ALEXAs but limited to only 720p and only allowed to be sold to educational institutions. This did make a lot of sense I thought, by limiting it to 720p they're still protecting their branding/value/pricing strategy for the commercial sector, event though this variant would be sold at a much cheaper "educational pricing". While at the same time, getting in to catch them young a new next generation of filmmakers while they're still at film school. Get them learning on and loving ARRI cameras, ready and experienced to use them as soon as they graduate, instead of having the universities buy RED Epics for their students to learn on. Is a pity it didn't happen, and I don't think it would make sense to do this now. But perhaps if after the ARRI ALEXA Mini 4K S35 gets launched this year (which ARRI has signaled in advance already that it will happen, 2020 is the year they're launching their brand new S35 4K sensor) then an "ALEXA Mini 1080" (using the original 3.2K sensor, but limited to 1080, and with a body identical in design to the Mini) at special "academic pricing" (exclusive to educational institutions) could be a smash hit with students.

Canon had two major problems: 1) too late to the market, by then the FS7 already had an iron firm grip on the market. Would have taken something AMAZING to shake loose the mighty FS7 2) Canon was being Canon, in holding back or crippling the C300mk2. Not just in the obvious ways you could read from the spec sheet (such as no 4K 60fps), but also in little weird ways you didn't realize until you got the C300mk2 in your hands and tried shooting with it (such as not being able to use EVF/ monitor / SDI all at once, seems like such an obvious simple thing everyone would need... but nope, Canon wouldn't let you! This could seriously hamper your shooting workflow. Just to give one example). Just dropping 6K would put it too close to the C500mk2, the sales of the C500mk2 would tank. Just give the C200 mk1 a firmware update For. Goodness. Sake! Who wants to bet on if a C100mk3 comes out in 2020 that it will be 1080? I'd give it a good 50/50 chance, could go either way. And if the C100mk3 has 4K at all, it definitely will not be 4K 60fps 10bit 422 in 2020!! haha, no way Canon will.

More oversized camera sensors is good! Allows for features like multi aspect ratio, or getting more out anamorphic. The GH1 / GH2 were a bit like this as well. damn, that's a really good idea THIS! YUP! And I would indeed say that is a form of "cluelessness", the very worst kind, which even builds up a resistance to even learn about anything else and give them a try.

Is very subjective what is "off brand" or "unknown". Plus isn't the entire point of forum discussions like this is to learn about new things? Thus by definition they're "unknown" beforehand. For instance @kye just mentioned he didn't know about how cheap the Z Cam E1 is, if I'd posted about a special on that would it be an "unknown off brand product" I'm promoting?

They're just such radically different cameras, puzzles me how someone can swing to considering an a7 one moment to GoPro the next! (or even the reverse, GoPro to a7) They were even selling for sub $200 brand new, is a pity the current eBay prices don't reflect that. (the Z Cam E2C is another really cheap Z Cam camera if you're not aware of it, pricier, but close in price to the E1 than to the E2)

Also when you see the size of the lens you realize what will be likely required for a 15-40mm t2 S35 (although I personally would prefer if it reaches out to at least 55mm... which means even bigger!) no matter who makes it. That is by no means massive for a cinema zoom, but it does dwarf a Sigma 18-35mm! Still wish a third party (Tokina, Sigma, etc or a chinese brand) would give a go at building this.

Hell yeah, how good would those Fuji MK lenses be on the BMPCC6K?? ? But sadly you can not, because BMD chose EF instead of MFT. Also I think Z Cam posted something a little while ago about working on an APS-C MFT camera?? I think. Don't keep up with their latest up to the minute news at the moment.

Canon APS-C sensor measures 22.2 x 14.8 mm , I don't remember howls of protest about Canon not being "Super 35". And JVC has put behind the LS300's MFT mount a significantly bigger sensor than that. The majority of third party lenses for MFT can also cover APS-C / Super 35, as they were originally designed for that sensor coverage. And a good chunk of Panasonic / Olympus lenses can cover APS-C as well. Even for those which don't, all you usually need to do is a slight punch in (which the JVC LS300 can do automatically in camera, a variable amount of your choosing) to say 90% then you're good to go. Plus, just because a camera CAN DO "SOMETHING" doesn't mean you must do it. Just because a camera records 4K doesn't mean I'll always be recording in 4K. Just because it can do 120fps doesn't mean everything will be in slow motion. Just because it has 10bit doesn't mean I can't use 8bit on a shoot. Is all about having the flexibility to choose the right tool for the right moment. Need to go run and gun on a reality show outdoors? Put on that Panasonic 14-140mm lens with its massive zoom range. Need to balance the camera on a small handheld gimbal? Put on that teeny tiny SLR Magic 8mm f4 ultrawide angle MFT lens. Want to shoot a short film with a juicy set of vintage S35 PL primes? Then put on a PL adapter and use that whole sensor. Want to have that "Vista Vision" look with super shallow DoF? Then whack on a focal reducer and use your Nikkor 50mm f1.2 lens.

Who wants to debate which looks better and is overall a better camera out of Panasonic DVX100b vs the Canon GL2 vs Canon XL2 vs JVC GY-HD100 ? Indeed, in ten years plus from now, absolutely nobody will care. (aside from the geekiest of geeky gearheads, or retro hipsters)

Even in this scenario it makes no sense, as a locking MFT with an EF adapter would be at least as good. And what about the times when URSA is using something else than EF? As the URSA Mini Pro has a swappable mount! Could be using Nikon F, B4 Mount, PL mount, etc Wouldn't it be better if the BMPCC6K could have the same mount as the URSA Mini Pro is using?

Unfortunately the average buyer is so utterly clueless when it comes to lens mounts. So many times I've heard people say "I only brought this because it is an EF Mount, I'd never have bought it if it was MFT" when referring to the BMPCC6K (or other cameras too, like an URSA Mini, Z Cam S6, or a Panasonic EVA1). I mean come on, seriously??? You can't name even one good reason for EF on those cameras over using a locking MFT mount. You're certainly not buying a BMPCC6K for its great AF with EF lenses! haha And a locking MFT would give the maximum flexibility and benefits. You could slap on a S16 zoom for those days you need massive zoom range all in just one lens. You could put on a focal reducer for Vista Vision Field of View and an extra stop of light. You could put on adapters for lenses that can't even be put on EF, such as FD lenses. Or even lenses that you could put on EF with an adapter, such as Nikon F Mount, you could have a much more solid connection (would basically feel like a "native F Mount") using a locking MFT mount than using the usual EF mount. Unfortunately I suspect these companies are intentionally choosing EF Mount because they know they'll likely sell more to the idiotic buyers by having an EF Mount, in spite of all the technical reasons for choosing a locking MFT mount (which perhaps even BMD are unaware?? Wouldn't surprise me, I've sadly season folks like J.B. who beta tests for BMD being a strong advocate against MFT, ditto other companies like Panasonic where Mitch Gross argued very strongly against MFT for EVA1. Which is extra madness, as Panasonic ought to be supporting their own MFT mount and GH series of cameras!!). But if only they could at least have offered us the choice! Like BMD did back at the start with BMCC EF vs BMCC MFT. Or ship out all cameras with an EF adapter to appease the fears and worries of Canon diehards (kinda a bit like Sony did with the VENICE and all of the F3/F5/F55 cameras, so many of those users don't even realize there is another mount underneath!!).

Even on small non-Netflix shows (which is basically what I mostly work on) then the extra cost of say a Sony RX0, DJI Osmo Pocket, GH5, or Z Cam E1 or whatever over a GoPro is pretty minimal.