If high mirrorless video specs hurt pro cinema range, why does Sony do it?

[IronFilm]

It is not just the excellent B Cam options to use alongside their cinema cameras, but also it provides a natural upgrade path for their users. 

 

Got an a6300? Then upgrade to the a7Smk2

But have a M50, where do you go, nowhere really?

Have a 80D, does it really make sense to buy a 5Dmk4?!

This is also the flaw Panasonic made by not having a smooth upgrade path from G7 to GH5 to EVA1, the simple fix is bring out an EVA1 MFT

[Yurolov]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The elephant in the room is still Sony and why they are seeing massive sales success of both A7 series AND pro video cameras, without crippling either.

Nobody can answer the conundrum it seems.

I dont understand this statement. A7 series offers 8 bit 4:2:0 @ 100mbs. Literally the only things not crippled are low light performance, noncrop, and detail. The images you can get from the Fs series are vastly superior. At least with the eos r we get 10 bit 4:2:2 external, which you dont even get with the c200! I dont see how that is protecting, given the cheaper variant meets broadcast standards.

[Mako Sports]

It is interesting because everyone knows that Sony is the indutry standard in tv (sports and news), something of which Canon has basically no market share in. They also have No.1 documentary camera - the FS7 which dethroned the C300mkii. I feel like on the low end canon is catering to the vlogger market and on the higher end - In house Netflix productions. 

[newfoundmass]

32 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

It is interesting because everyone knows that Sony is the indutry standard in tv (sports and news), something of which Canon has basically no market share in. They also have No.1 documentary camera - the FS7 which dethroned the C300mkii. I feel like on the low end canon is catering to the vlogger market and on the higher end - In house Netflix productions. 

Do you mean studio news? Cause in the field news is overwhelming shot on Panasonic and JVC from my experience. The DVX200 is especially popular with news shooters I've seen throughout New England. 

--- 

When it comes to cinema cameras, I stand by what I wrote in another thread:

"The stupid thing about cannibalizing their pro video line is that, even if they put almost every feature into a smaller mirrorless camera, a large segment of that pro line market will still buy the cinema cameras anyway. I can't tell you how many people I know that own C200's or whatever that don't really do anything with it that they couldn't also do with the 1D X or the 5D mk IV (assuming they insist on staying in the Canon family.) They own them as much for the "prestige" or credibility as much as the functionality. It's about ego and image, not practicality and quality for a lot of people. 

It's like projects I've helped on where they insisted on renting a RED camera and lenses, spending as much on that as they would've spent on buying a GH5, Sony A7Sii or comparable camera that they could've used on their next project. Tons of indie films that never make money and hardly get seen do this, and for no reason. 

I'm guilty of it myself, on a smaller scale. I love my LS300 but I don't really need it anymore since I've got a GH5 and G85. However on certain projects I bring it when I have a feeling that the client will look poorly on me using what looks like normal cameras instead of a more professional looking one. And while the LS300 doesn't have the greatest build quality, once you rig it up with monitors and stuff it looks a lot more professional than my GH5 set up. "

6 hours ago, mercer said:

Because who would buy the GH5, 6 months after release, if you could get the GH5s for only a little more with IBIS? They still need to protect the life cycle of the GH5.

$500 is quite a bit more than "a little." 

If they were concerned about hurting the GH5 they wouldn't have released the GH5S when they did. I have no reason to believe that they didn't include Ibis because of it. 

As for reasons why someone would buy a GH5 over the GH5S? One is a more capable stills camera, the other not so much. 

[Robert Collins]

I still think the simplest and most obvious explanation for the EOS R video specs is that Canon simply doesnt have the sensor tech that all the other manufacturers have access to.

It simply doesnt make sense to introduce a 'new mount' with worst specs than everyone else unless you have no choice.

[Mako Sports]

1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

I still think the simplest and most obvious explanation for the EOS R video specs is that Canon simply doesnt have the sensor tech that all the other manufacturers have access to.

It simply doesnt make sense to introduce a 'new mount' with worst specs than everyone else unless you have no choice.

its because with Canon they don't need to release the best camera on the market. Because of the brand name people will buy it anyways unlike the other competitors the name sells the camera not the spec sheet. 

[newfoundmass]

57 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

its because with Canon they don't need to release the best camera on the market. Because of the brand name people will buy it anyways unlike the other competitors the name sells the camera not the spec sheet. 

It's probably a mix of both, honestly. They haven't innovated in the DSLR/Mirrorless market in a long, long time. DPAF is the exception, but they've been falling behind tech wise for so long. They have hardly even improved their 1080p over the last 8 or so years; its still a soft, muddy image even as cameras a fraction of their price produced very good 4k video. 

Between not wanting to hurt their C-line and being comfortable coasting along/not devoting resources to the DSLR/Mirrorless market, they've now found themselves behind technologically I think. I dare say that might even be the reason they ended up giving the EOS R C-Log and external 10 bit 4:2:2, because the rest of their offering was essentially dated tech based on a dated sensor that apparently isn't capable of performing at the same standards as their competitors. 

[Snowbro]

"In 1995 the company brought its first digital camera to market, the DC40. This was years before many others would get into the digital game, but Kodak never took advantage of its early start. Philisophically, the company was steeped in the film business, and to embrace digital meant cannibalizing its own business. Others quickly filled the niche, and Kodak didn't fully rev up its digital business until 2001, when it launched the EasyShare line of point-and-shoot cameras."

"Those rivals — including Fujifilm, Nikon, Sony, Canon and others — kept innovating over the years with features like face detection, smile detection, and in-camera red-eye fixes, and Kodak, while it put out competent products, was always following feature trends, never leading them."

"Don't be afraid to cannibalize your own business in the name of progress. Kodak has shown, if all you do is play it safe, the cost just to stay in the game will whittle you down until you've got nothing left."

[Jimmy]

10 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The elephant in the room is still Sony and why they are seeing massive sales success of both A7 series AND pro video cameras, without crippling either.

Nobody can answer the conundrum it seems.

They are crippled though... with 8 bit 4:2:0

When their hands are forced into adding 10 bit 4:2:2 , high end sales might drop.

Though i generally do believe that people who want NDs, XLRs etc will always want that type of body and will also buy mirrorless for B cams. The companies are too paranoid about it. They should actively make large A cams and smaller B cams that match the specs as much as possible (without NDs, XLRs etc).

They could even slap a pro price tag on that is similar to the A cam.. just give us the option of a small cam that has as much as is technically possible.

 

[Oliver Daniel]

59 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

They are crippled though... with 8 bit 4:2:0

When their hands are forced into adding 10 bit 4:2:2 , high end sales might drop.

Though i generally do believe that people who want NDs, XLRs etc will always want that type of body and will also buy mirrorless for B cams. The companies are too paranoid about it. They should actively make large A cams and smaller B cams that match the specs as much as possible (without NDs, XLRs etc).

They could even slap a pro price tag on that is similar to the A cam.. just give us the option of a small cam that has as much as is technically possible.

 

If Canon released this for $4000:

- Improved XC10 style body

- 10 bit 4:2:2 with 1080 120 and 4K 60

- EF mount 

- Clog

then crippling their mirrorless would make sense! 

[Mako Sports]

2 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

If Canon released this for $4000:

- Improved XC10 style body

- 10 bit 4:2:2 with 1080 120 and 4K 60

- EF mount 

- Clog

then crippling their mirrorless would make sense! 

That camera would sit above the c200 and the c300mk2 somewhat with those specs. Literally the specs from the FS7 but charge an extra $5,000 on top of that for the "Canon Tax" 

[Jimmy]

Yea... pretty much my dream cam if it had the c200 sensor and NDs

[jonpais]

Searching for ‘Sony crippled,’ I get this:

0 search results.

Are you searching for Canon?

?

[Oliver Daniel]

7 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

That camera would sit above the c200 and the c300mk2 somewhat with those specs. Literally the specs from the FS7 but charge an extra $5,000 on top of that for the "Canon Tax" 

Says a lot about their C-line! (but if they did release such a camera,,everyone would go nuts!) 

Why is the C700 like a bazooka? Barely anyone wants a camera that big. The much less expensive Kinefinity Mavo does 6k slow motion RAW in a tiny box, but with the C700 you have to make it even BIGGER just to get some RAW? 

While most are bitchin’ about the mirrorless and DSLR’s, the C series isn’t exactly worth protecting anyway! 

[anonim]

12 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Nobody can answer the conundrum it seems.

But why it seems as conclusion? I read here some very interesting, well-founded and clever analysis/answers from different perspectives?

[Yurolov]

As far as I'm aware the A7 series doesn't allow for broadcast codecs. Canon just gave us one, though. If people think the A7 series is in anyway in competition with their pro line then they are sorely mistaken. Let's see what happens to sales of the Fs5 if they give us 10 bit 60p internal as people seem to be thinking they will in the a7siii. They have been protecting their pro line, indisputably so. 

[Andrew Reid]

2 hours ago, Yurolov said:

As far as I'm aware the A7 series doesn't allow for broadcast codecs. Canon just gave us one, though. If people think the A7 series is in anyway in competition with their pro line then they are sorely mistaken. Let's see what happens to sales of the Fs5 if they give us 10 bit 60p internal as people seem to be thinking they will in the a7siii. They have been protecting their pro line, indisputably so. 

EOS R H.264 4:2:0 is a broadcast codec? Could have fooled me.

Compares very poorly to the GH5 codec.

That camera isn't tier one 4K either according to Alan Roberts / EBU / BBC, but it is for HD.

Respectfully, I suggest you don't really know as much about this stuff as you think you do. Nothing will happen to the FS5 sales when they give us 10bit 60p on the A7S III. Existing FS5 owners might buy one as a second body. Future FS5 customers might buy one as a second body. It is complimentary. In the few cases where it might cannibalise a more expensive sale, I don't think Sony minds anyway - because the biggest profit is from selling E mount lenses for E-mount camera bodies. A7S III owners are just as profitable as FS5 owners in that regards.

Plus when you are chasing market share, a sale is a sale. Whether for $3500 or $5000.

The FS5's HD-SDI interface, XLR audio, NDs, form factor, big battery, are the main reason for pro video users buying it over the small mirrorless cameras anyway, not the codec. I have rarely met a pro videographer who prioritises absolute image quality over getting the job done. An FS5 also looks more 'standard-pro' on a job, and clients tend to view small cameras as a bit amateur. The 'pro look' is a factor in the sales of pro tools, however superficial you might think that is.

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

"The stupid thing about cannibalizing their pro video line is that, even if they put almost every feature into a smaller mirrorless camera, a large segment of that pro line market will still buy the cinema cameras anyway. I can't tell you how many people I know that own C200's or whatever that don't really do anything with it that they couldn't also do with the 1D X or the 5D mk IV (assuming they insist on staying in the Canon family.) They own them as much for the "prestige" or credibility as much as the functionality. It's about ego and image, not practicality and quality for a lot of people. 

That is true all the way down.... many people own a 5D when a 70D could serve their needs perfectly well.
And plenty of 70D owners who don't do anything with it that a Canon Rebel couldn't do. 
And ditto many Rebel owners who might as well have just stuck with their smartphone!

 

10 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

It's like projects I've helped on where they insisted on renting a RED camera and lenses, spending as much on that as they would've spent on buying a GH5, Sony A7Sii or comparable camera that they could've used on their next project. Tons of indie films that never make money and hardly get seen do this, and for no reason. 

Or they could have rented a GH5, and put that spare money into renting lights etc and paying their crew
Was DoP on a shoot earlier this year in which the director had already arranged renting a RED Weapon, am glad I talked him into instead using 2x Sony PMW-F3 and hiring lights + crew.

 

11 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I'm guilty of it myself, on a smaller scale. I love my LS300 but I don't really need it anymore since I've got a GH5 and G85. However on certain projects I bring it when I have a feeling that the client will look poorly on me using what looks like normal cameras instead of a more professional looking one. And while the LS300 doesn't have the greatest build quality, once you rig it up with monitors and stuff it looks a lot more professional than my GH5 set up. "

I'm guilty of this too! Not just cameras, but buying more sound gear than I really truly "need" right now. 

[Yurolov]

23 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

EOS R H.264 4:2:0 is a broadcast codec? Could have fooled me.

The external codec, or is having to use an external monitor too much to ask? 

Just in broad terms I cant imagine anyone here preferring the fs5 notwithstanding the pro level features. I think there is a considerable overlap in the market when you are talking more about small production companies. If we are talking television then the pro cameras obviously aren't impacted. But to suggest that offering 100mbs 4:2:0 is somehow a limit of the hardware and not a direct result of the marketing heads is disingenuous. 

I only have to point you to the c200, which isn't broadcast ready for the most part, and ask you which customer is that product targetting? There is considerable overlap there which sales would be lost to mirrorless. 

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

It's probably a mix of both, honestly. They haven't innovated in the DSLR/Mirrorless market in a long, long time. DPAF is the exception, but they've been falling behind tech wise for so long. They have hardly even improved their 1080p over the last 8 or so years; its still a soft, muddy image even as cameras a fraction of their price produced very good 4k video. 

Between not wanting to hurt their C-line and being comfortable coasting along/not devoting resources to the DSLR/Mirrorless market, they've now found themselves behind technologically I think. I dare say that might even be the reason they ended up giving the EOS R C-Log and external 10 bit 4:2:2, because the rest of their offering was essentially dated tech based on a dated sensor that apparently isn't capable of performing at the same standards as their competitors. 

I feel like that is a reasonable analysis. Canon might have gradually slipped behind everyone else, not just externally with the products they're shipping but slipped behind internally in terms of what their R&D teams are capable of. 

Thus Canon might not even be capable of matching the competition spec for spec in every area. Thus why they "gave" C log and external 10bit 422 as it was the last cards left holding to offer.