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

[Andrew Reid]

They are falling behind on the stills side as well, not just video. They don't have an answer to the low light / high resolution combination of Nikon's 46MP sensor or Sony's 42MP, and at the same time dynamic range is lacking on a number of Canon cameras like the 6D Mark II vs the direct competition at the same price.

The others aren't standing still. Even if Canon's R&D suddenly picked up the pace, they would remain years behind the competition.

[Jimmy]

The fact remains that Sony can't be put on a pedestal while they still only offer 8 bit 4:2:0.

1080p broadcast (eg 90%+ of production work) demands 4:2:2 50mbps.... something canon have had in a few smaller cams.

Panasonic took it a step further with 10bit 4:2:2... they deserve the plaudits.

 

[newfoundmass]

7 hours ago, IronFilm said:

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. 

 

It certainly would explain why they offered them up, given no one really expected them to. While the rest of the EOS R is classic Canon behavior, giving those two things away feels out of character, especially on a $2300 camera. Heck 6 months ago they weren't even willing to give the M50 DPAF in 4K!

 

[Andrew Reid]

Still nobody has answered the question in the OP!

Well I've been talking with a contact at Sony about it, and this is what they think...

The reasoning is that the $2000 to $3500 range of mirrorless cameras act as second bodies. They don't have the pro-audio or form factor of an A-cam. The FS7 for example has a host of interface features you don't find on a small camera. It is also a more robust form factor for rental. Very easy to scratch the little screen on an A7 or beat it up over time. The FS5 and FS7 have the properties of a workhorse. The small cameras will never seriously replace these workhorse models on the market, especially not on the rental market.

So there you have it.

An A7 III does not cannibalise an FS7 sale just because it shoots 4K without a crop.

An EOS R does not cannibalise a C200 sale.

Canon must have another reason for the crippling, either technical (slow CPUs, sensors), or long-term strategy based (sell you the updated models in 1-4 years).

Or they are just wrong-headed in their EOS strategy.

[Jimmy]

No one can answer it because the question is flawed. Sony simply do not offer high end specs in their mirrorless range. 8 bit 4:2:0 is not a professional broadcast standard.

They could offer 8K 480fps, but at 8bit 4:2:0.. no broadcast professional will touch it and Sony know this.

Btw.... i think sony mirrorless are very good for indie filmmakers and what not. They do include some really cool specs. Just that i link larger cameras like the fs700 with broadcast work... so the 8bit 4:2:0 becomes a serious concern when suggesting they spec these cams out to be B cams for production work.

Panasonic on the other hand do offer a legit broadcast capable B cam to their A cams. Even Canon do.

[Cinegain]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Still nobody has answered the question in the OP!

Well I've been talking with a contact at Sony about it, and this is what they think...

The reasoning is that the $2000 to $3500 range of mirrorless cameras act as second bodies. They don't have the pro-audio or form factor of an A-cam. The FS7 for example has a host of interface features you don't find on a small camera. It is also a more robust form factor for rental. Very easy to scratch the little screen on an A7 or beat it up over time. The FS5 and FS7 have the properties of a workhorse. The small cameras will never seriously replace these workhorse models on the market, especially not on the rental market.

So there you have it. [..]

So... then I more or less did actually answer that earlier... ?

21 hours ago, Cinegain said:

If I'm running a somewhat legit production... a small fiddly hybrid camera is the wrong tool for the job. I need a camera that's up to the task. A robust camera taking robust footage. A sensor in a box. With a bunch of ports to connect industry type power, monitors, XLRs, rosettes for extended grips with triggers and whatnot. Not too mention all the external factors such as lighting, audio and stuff, probably hiring a bunch of crew. Renting all the gear, including a solid camera and fancy lenses.

Now... if you're a one man's band operator... you can't be arsed with all of that... not to mention the costs. That would be the wrong approach for the job. So here things focus more on the camera's capability and approachability for a single operator. I don't see either how these two necessarily threaten eachother. Canon's just being a scared little biatch... or maybe they are so high on power they enjoy to just spit in the little guys' face and find them begging for more.

 

[Andrew Reid]

4 hours ago, Jimmy said:

No one can answer it because the question is flawed. Sony simply do not offer high end specs in their mirrorless range. 8 bit 4:2:0 is not a professional broadcast standard.

They could offer 8K 480fps, but at 8bit 4:2:0.. no broadcast professional will touch it and Sony know this.

The question isn't only about the codec, it's about the overall spec, especially the use of a full frame sensor as it's intended... full frame! Not 1.8x crop with the expense of full frame lenses. Nobody wants that. You can buy a GH5, and use a full frame lens on a Speed Booster. 10bit 4:2:2. Problem solved!

How is Canon offering 'broadcast' codecs by the way. I don't see 10bit 4444 ProRes LOG on their DSLRs. Do you?!

I distinctly remember when the C300 came out... 8bit codec... Philip Bloom said I just didn't get it... It was "broadcast ready"!

So if the C300 has an internal codec suitable for broadcast, but looks worse than a Samsung NX1 in the real world, then the A7 III sure has a broadcast ready image.

And I don't see much better than 8bit 4:2:0 on a C100 or C200 either.

3 hours ago, Cinegain said:

So... then I more or less did actually answer that earlier... ?

 

Your answer was that Canon was being a little scared biatch.

High on power, spitting in the little guy's face

Does this answer it then? Maybe CineGain is right?

[gelaxstudio]

A chinese website just posted their NIKON Z7&Z6 camera review ,including IQ 、lowlight AF、 Face detect AF、 120p Video、high ISO ect.

Z7 working very well in video AF and the IQ is great，after I saw the face tracking AF in video mode，I think it performs as well as canon

https://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=248&t=5567307#2263207_1536522246

I translated the ending parts

Pros
Z7 has the same IQ as D850 in a  smaller body

 Tilting touch LCD
Face tracking AF works very well
5 stops IBIS
The FTZ Mount Adapter works well
The ergonomics is responsive，with multiple usable Fn buttons

No crop in FF 4K and 10bit 422 output 
The N-log actually provides 13 stops of DR
Battery life is actually last 3x more than the Nikon  stated（330 shoots）

Cons
No enough buffer in continue shooting，only 20 fps

AF fails when focus on low contrast objects

No Eye AF

 

A  doughty  beginner in this FF mirrorless hunger game  

[Jimmy]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The question isn't only about the codec, it's about the overall spec, especially the use of a full frame sensor as it's intended... full frame! Not 1.8x crop with the expense of full frame lenses. Nobody wants that. You can buy a GH5, and use a full frame lens on a Speed Booster. 10bit 4:2:2. Problem solved!

How is Canon offering 'broadcast' codecs by the way. I don't see 10bit 4444 ProRes LOG on their DSLRs. Do you?!

I distinctly remember when the C300 came out... 8bit codec... Philip Bloom said I just didn't get it... It was "broadcast ready"!

So if the C300 has an internal codec suitable for broadcast, but looks worse than a Samsung NX1 in the real world, then the A7 III sure has a broadcast ready image.

And I don't see much better than 8bit 4:2:0 on a C100 or C200 either.

Your answer was that Canon was being a little scared biatch.

High on power, spitting in the little guy's face

Does this answer it then? Maybe CineGain is right?

BBC standards for HD are 4:2:2 50mbps. It's that simple.

Anyway... I'm a fuji fanboy now... screw canon... screw sony.

I don't work in broadcast... so don't really care. I actually agree that good 8bit 4:2:0 trumps bad 10bit 4:2:2 (though i disagree with your examples).

Broadcast doesn't take looks into consideration though... they have a fixed specsheet and that's that.

[Yurolov]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

So if the C300 has an internal codec suitable for broadcast, but looks worse than a Samsung NX1 in the real world, then the A7 III sure has a broadcast ready image.

And I don't see much better than 8bit 4:2:0 on a C100 or C200 either.

The requirements are objective so judgment calls (like that an nx1 is better than a c300) aren't considered. Jimmy is right the question is flawed. 

Neither of the c100 or c200 are broadcast ready, which is why to say that canon are crippling the eos r by giving us a broadcast ready codec at a substantially reduced price doesn't make sense to me, whereas sony can give us a weak codec but its ok cause they give us no crop full frame. Sony may offer you all these specs but the fact is the baseline image and codecs are still very poor and well behind the market - so the next time you speak to them you may want to ask them to explain that. I mean, if they don't think the cameras will compete with the fs5 or fs7, then why not give us a broadcast worthy codec? I can get one from canon for $2,200.00. I wonder how much I will ultimately have to shell out for sony.     

[Mako Sports]

50 minutes ago, Yurolov said:

The requirements are objective so judgment calls (like that an nx1 is better than a c300) aren't considered. Jimmy is right the question is flawed. 

Neither of the c100 or c200 are broadcast ready, which is why to say that canon are crippling the eos r by giving us a broadcast ready codec at a substantially reduced price doesn't make sense to me, whereas sony can give us a weak codec but its ok cause they give us no crop full frame. Sony may offer you all these specs but the fact is the baseline image and codecs are still very poor and well behind the market - so the next time you speak to them you may want to ask them to explain that. I mean, if they don't think the cameras will compete with the fs5 or fs7, then why not give us a broadcast worthy codec? I can get one from canon for $2,200.00. I wonder how much I will ultimately have to shell out for sony.     

Funny cause the codec is weaker but the image quality is vastly better (Dynamic range, sharpness/detail, high iso, and highlight roll off)  from Sony blow all of Canon stuff completely out of the water.

[Jimmy]

9 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

Funny cause the codec is weaker but the image quality is vastly better (Dynamic range, sharpness/detail, high iso, and highlight roll off)  from Sony blow all of Canon stuff completely out of the water.

As Yurolov mentioned... That stuff is subjective. 

Broadcast production doesn't care which one any of us prefer.. They just care about the cold, hard capture specs, in the UK, that is 4:2:2 50mbps for 1080p.

As Andrew mentioned... The codec is only one part of the puzzle... But some will consider it a big part, just as others will consider full frame 4K to be more important. If you want a truly broadcast capable camera without using an external recorder... Sony is behind... If you want FF 4K, Canon is behind... etc etc

All small form cameras are in some way crippled though.... be it codec, crop factor, poor AF, poor menus, colour, poor lens choices etc etc. Maybe Lumix FF will be the first to truly break this?

[Django]

highlight roll off is poor on most sony cams imo and let's not even talk skin tones or overall color science.. it's what sony tried to fix on FS5 mk2.

as for broadcast standards let's not forget they are still 720p/1080i. so the 4k crop isn't even a concern for that. shoot externally on a C200/EOS R and you've got your ProRes 10-bit 4:2:2. internally only Canon & Panasonic (and soon Fuji) offer high bitrate ALL-I codecs inside their MILCs which is also nice, especially when shooting water etc. motion artifacts will get your footage rejected by broadcast QC.

Sony seem to be the only ones keeping their ALL-I (XAVC-I) codec for their FS7 and 10-bit options for FS5/FS7. If anything, i'd say Sony are the ones crippling their MILCs..

 

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

How is Canon offering 'broadcast' codecs by the way. I don't see 10bit 4444 ProRes LOG on their DSLRs. Do you?!

I distinctly remember when the C300 came out... 8bit codec... Philip Bloom said I just didn't get it... It was "broadcast ready"!

So if the C300 has an internal codec suitable for broadcast, but looks worse than a Samsung NX1 in the real world, then the A7 III sure has a broadcast ready image.

And I don't see much better than 8bit 4:2:0 on a C100 or C200 either.

50 Mbps 422 codec

That is almost merely all that "broadcast codec" means. 

Which is what the C300mk1 did, and the EOS R

Even though the Sony PMW-F3 is a "better" camera technically in what it can do than a C300mk1, this big missing feature of no internal "broadcast codec" is one of the reason it wasn't as successful as the C300mk1 (and is a reason why you can now buy the F3 so much cheaper than a C300).
 

[Jimmy]

I thought the EOS R was 4:2:0 too?

[Yurolov]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

I thought the EOS R was 4:2:0 too?

Internal it is but external is a 10 bit 4:2:2. Internal you get high bitrate ALL-I codecs though. 

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, Jimmy said:

I thought the EOS R was 4:2:0 too?

Ah yes, my bad, should have been referring to only the C300 mk1 there. 

[Django]

35 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Ah yes, my bad, should have been referring to only the C300 mk1 there. 

1DC, 1DX2 & 5D4 all shoot 4K 8-bit 4:2:2 internal. probably the best thing too about that MJPEG codec.

EOS R is 8-bit 4:2:0 internal / 10-bit 4:2:2 external.

[Snowbro]

11 hours ago, Django said:

1DC, 1DX2 & 5D4 all shoot 4K 8-bit 4:2:2 internal. probably the best thing too about that MJPEG codec.

EOS R is 8-bit 4:2:0 internal / 10-bit 4:2:2 external.

How much of a difference is there between 8 bit 4:2:0 & 8 bit 4:2:2? I havent been able to find much info on it, just 4:2:2 10 bit. What I did find, said there was barely any difference, so I am curious. 

[KnightsFan]

46 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

How much of a difference is there between 8 bit 4:2:0 & 8 bit 4:2:2? I havent been able to find much info on it, just 4:2:2 10 bit. What I did find, said there was barely any difference, so I am curious. 

4:2:2 has double the chroma resolution compared to 4:2:0. How much that matters varies.

The best way to see the perceived quality difference is to start with some high quality 4:4:4 footage and then render it as 4:2:2 and as 4:2:0. Try a variety of scenes, try color grading both or doing green screen work. You can come to your own conclusions--always better than listening to what other people claim!