Canon Cinema EOS failure to tap Netflix

[Andrew Reid]

At least they got Tidying Up With Marie Kondo (Season One)

https://ymcinema.com/2020/01/13/the-cameras-behind-43-best-netflix-original-tv-shows-of-2019/?fbclid=IwAR2y_Qf7aYSbLNz7L5Dj7CemB7oB528TUBFc77SI1amGl81UftSthduUT9o

Are high-end shooters looking elsewhere in 2019?

Looks like it.

C300 II has been a flop? Looks like it.

Will C500 II change things? Not without ProRes or a better raw codec.

C700? Nah.

RED and Arri just seem much more attractive at the moment for filmmakers...

[Django]

It’s no secret RED & ARRI share the spotlight in high-end filmmaking production.

That ranking has more to do with budget and industry standards than anything else.

When you’re on a high budget and can rent anything you’re going to go for that latest RED or ARRI. Maybe a Venice or Varicam if you’re going for a different look.

The C300 II is by far the cheapest camera on that list. It came out in 2015. The fact that it’s even on that list is to me a testament of its long lasting appeal.

It certainly isn’t a flop in other filmmaking scenes like docu where it usually comes up on top.

BTW I don’t see Ursa Mini, EVA1 or FS7 on that list at all. All Netflix approved cameras that came out around or after C300 II.

What does that make of them?

 

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

At least they got Tidying Up With Marie Kondo (Season One)

https://ymcinema.com/2020/01/13/the-cameras-behind-43-best-netflix-original-tv-shows-of-2019/?fbclid=IwAR2y_Qf7aYSbLNz7L5Dj7CemB7oB528TUBFc77SI1amGl81UftSthduUT9o

Are high-end shooters looking elsewhere in 2019?

Looks like it.

C300 II has been a flop? Looks like it.

Will C500 II change things? Not without ProRes or a better raw codec.

C700? Nah.

This was stats from 2019, so likely they were filmed in 2018. 
Thus is no surprise to me that C700 doesn't have a strong showing there. Is more interesting to see the stats in 2020. (although my gut instinct is to suspect C700 won't have a strong showing)

Am not surprised to see a lack of C300mk2 cameras, look there are also no FS7 cameras there either! (be much more interesting if they showcased the top 43 documentary shows from Netflix, I bet we'd see a FS7 there! And a scattering of C300mk2 too?)
Because the C300mk2 was not designed to play at this level, the C300mk2 was Canon's response to the FS7 for the low budget productions. 

 

https://ymcinema.com/2019/05/28/the-cameras-behind-netflix-best-series-spoiler-red-dominates/

Looking at the comparisons between mid 2019 and 2019 I see the Panasonic Varicam has experienced a big drop, which is sad. As in 2018 it was the #3 camera. 

Looking deeper into the results I'd say the two major factors are ARRI ALEXA LF & Sony VENICE 

The last Netflix production I was on set for last year they had 3x VENICE. 

Going into the future I bet 2020's stats will show this trend growing even stronger. 

As VENICE was still largely in "kinda beta" firmware up until recently, just lately  in 2019 has it got some really big firmware updates to bring VENICE into prime time. 2018 was very early days for VENICE, that's why the earlier survey only showed one VENICE camera. We're going to see many more VENICE productions coming. 

As for ARRI, well, they're ARRI! Of course they'll be picked. And now they've got the LF and even better the Mini LF (for gimbal / crane / car / etc shots), which the MiniLF didn't exist last year, then the ARRI cameras will only continue to dominate Netflix stats even further 





 

I'd say the most impressive result from that chart is how the Sony F55 (which is the oldest camera on the list) still has a number of productions shooting with it! (the F55 is in 4th= place!)

[newfoundmass]

Canon is king when it comes to documentary and corporate work. For those that got their start with Canon's DSLR cameras it's a natural progression. I see a lot of them for that type of work. 

The higher end cinema stuff though, I think they'll always be battling up hill. They don't really offer much that the other cameras listed can't do. I just don't think people at that level think of Canon when time comes to decide what to shoot on. 

[Andrew Reid]

Maybe Cinema EOS should be renamed Video EOS then?

[Django]

Maybe this site should be renamed ANTI-EOSHD?

While Netflix is technically TV, Canon was all over the Oscars documentary category last year: 

https://***URL not allowed***/oscars-2019-all-nominated-documentaries-shot-on-canon-cameras/

And in this years 2020 nominees, one of the most talked about docu, American Factory (first film out of Obama's production company) was shot on... a 2014 C100 mk2:

..ironically it was picked up by Netflix at Sundance (and is currently streaming on the platform).

So while many seem to obsess over "Netflix approved" cameras, this seems to prove that shooting great content will always trump camera specs.

[Super8]

Was it great content?

[currensheldon]

1 hour ago, Super8 said:

Was it great content?

American Factory is the doc of the year, yep. Great film. 

I think Canon really blew it with the C300 Mark II. The original C300 was one of a kind and huge for all sorts of productions. By the time the Mark II came along, there were much cheaper and more specced out options (FS7 being the obvious one). I won't say better because I still like Canon's image considerably more, but hard to argue with 4k 60fps, 180fps in HD, more codec options - all for about half the price.

With that said, I think Canon is moving in a very good direction with the C500 Mark II and 1DX Mark III. Everyone has been comparing the C500II and FX9, but I don't think that's going to be the real comparison because the C300 III will be in that same $11k price range when it is released (apparently very soon, probably NAB 2020). Here is how Canon should differentiate its lineup:

C700 - nobody cares.

C500 II - full frame, 6k raw, all 10-bit codecs - $16k

C300 III - full frame, 4k only, 4k 120fps, 4k raw, all 10-bit codecs (basically a C500 II but without the 6k options and 6k raw) - $10-11k - THIS would the direct FX9 competitor. 

C200 II - Just a C200 but with the 10-bit codec (Super35, 4k raw, 10-bit 422 4k, 60fps) - $7499

C100 III - Super35 sensor, as small as possible, no raw, 10-bit 422 4k in 60fps - $5499 (and SMALL - for Ronin-S gimbals. Maybe 2/3 the size and weight of C200).

If they did that (and soon), they would have a great range of products from journalism/broadcast/documentary up to feature film and narrative series - all Netflix approve with plenty to differentiate the costs. 

The most important ones and the two they should release this year (since they are rumored to be releasing two this year) would definitely be the C300 III and C100 III. 

[BenEricson]

1 hour ago, currensheldon said:

I think Canon really blew it with the C300 Mark II.

Just curious, have you ever shot with one? The C300ii produces beautiful images with ease. 

The reason the C300ii is so popular in mid range production is because it is a single operator operator camera. The Alexa or Red in that situation can be a burden. 

At the end of the day, the canon images at least hold up next to the red or arri in color space. The FS7 can’t compete in that space. The new FX9 looks better but the color is still not better than the original C300.

[currensheldon]

2 hours ago, BenEricson said:

Just curious, have you ever shot with one? The C300ii produces beautiful images with ease. 

The reason the C300ii is so popular in mid range production is because it is a single operator operator camera. The Alexa or Red in that situation can be a burden. 

At the end of the day, the canon images at least hold up next to the red or arri in color space. The FS7 can’t compete in that space. The new FX9 looks better but the color is still not better than the original C300.

I've used it quite a bit, yes, and totally agree with you. I even said that I think the C300 II produces a MUCH better image than the FS7. What I mean by "blew it" is really the price compared to what else it offered besides a beautiful image. That's my main concern, which is why after using a Sony for a bit, I went back to using Canon and/or Panasonic, but for a lot of people, the FS7 offered more (4k 60fps, 180fps in HD, ability to speedboost it, high bit rates, etc) for about half the price. I'd still take the tradeoffs for a better looking image at 24p (which is 85% of my work), but there are plenty of people who need all the other stuff the FS7 offered or wanted to save $8k.

As an actual image-making device, it's a fantastic camera. Just released at a weird time at a pretty insane price.

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, currensheldon said:

I think Canon really blew it with the C300 Mark II. The original C300 was one of a kind and huge for all sorts of productions. By the time the Mark II came along, there were much cheaper and more specced out options (FS7 being the obvious one). I won't say better because I still like Canon's image considerably more, but hard to argue with 4k 60fps, 180fps in HD, more codec options - all for about half the price.

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).

 

10 hours ago, currensheldon said:

C500 II - full frame, 6k raw, all 10-bit codecs - $16k

C300 III - full frame, 4k only, 4k 120fps, 4k raw, all 10-bit codecs (basically a C500 II but without the 6k options and 6k raw) - $10-11k - THIS would the direct FX9 competitor. 

Just dropping 6K would put it too close to the C500mk2, the sales of the C500mk2 would tank. 

 

10 hours ago, currensheldon said:

C200 II - Just a C200 but with the 10-bit codec (Super35, 4k raw, 10-bit 422 4k, 60fps) - $7499

Just give the C200 mk1 a firmware update For. Goodness. Sake!

10 hours ago, currensheldon said:

C100 III - Super35 sensor, as small as possible, no raw, 10-bit 422 4k in 60fps - $5499 (and SMALL - for Ronin-S gimbals. Maybe 2/3 the size and weight of C200).

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. 

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, BenEricson said:

Just curious, have you ever shot with one? The C300ii produces beautiful images with ease. 

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. 

[Super8]

40 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

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. 

Is there that much difference between the FS7 and the C300mk2 ?

[IronFilm]

"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. 

 

[Adam Kuźniar]

17 hours ago, Django said:

And in this years 2020 nominees, one of the most talked about docu, American Factory (first film out of Obama's production company) was shot on... a 2014 C100 mk2:

 

Don't get me wrong but it definitely looks like it was shot in 2014  It just shows that if you have a good story you can make it happen on anything.

[OliKMIA]

Yeah. I agree with what has been said: the EOS line is mainly designed for video/doc, therefore this ranking is not going to be favorable for Canon.

EOS cameras are all-in-one solution for small filmmaker and doc producer who don't have the time/manpower/budget to mess with DP, focus puller, and an army of PA.

I've always been trashing Canon for crippling its DSLR camera but I purchased a C200 last year for a documentary because it was the best product for the job: I needed a well rounded camera with solid AF. I'm not a fan of Sony menu, codec, and colors. The EVA is great except for the pathetic monitor (couldn't they just copy/paste the one from the GH5?) and the AF, so I picked to the C200. The lack of intermediate codec is a pity but the C200 8bit log is surprisingly good and can be pushed reasonably well. For interview, once the lighting is in place, any idiot that can setup the right exposure and W&B will do a great job with the C200. No need to fill up hard-drives with hours of high bitrate interviews.

PS: that being said, the C700 is a joke and probably a huge sale flop.

[mrtreve]

I think the C500II will do very will with high end docs. It will no doubt have a suitable look and good usability/reliability.

Having owned a C300II and C200 (which I think are very good cameras) I think fundamentally the look doesn't translate all that well to narrative. We'll have to see if the C500II can do it. The specs are impressive, but if this just translates to the same Canon feel at higher resolution, I can't see it catching on in that world. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

I think for TV/content production in the UK, Sony will continue to dominate due to the lower cost and the fact there are so many FS7s out there. You can put together a multi-camera shoot with owner-operators with relative ease and mix together FS7 and FX9 without too many headaches in post.

 

 

 

[BenEricson]

14 hours ago, IronFilm said:

"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. 

 

Depends on your market. The C300 is way more popular in Seattle. Lots of corporate work with Amazon and Microsoft.

I would imagine FS7 is really popular for TV. 

[Mokara]

I don't think there is any mystery here....if you have a high budget production and are professional, you are going to pick one of the best tools for the job. Why wouldn't you? If you have a multi-million dollar budget, spending an extra few k on the best gear is a no brainer.

Things like the EOS systems appeal more to the low budget crowd because that is all they can afford.

17 hours ago, IronFilm said:

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). 

There are usually hardware or IP reasons for those things, it is not "crippling". You can't implement something if the hardware can't do it, or you don't have freedom to operate because of some blocking IP that you don't have a license for.

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, OliKMIA said:

Yeah. I agree with what has been said: the EOS line is mainly designed for video/doc, therefore this ranking is not going to be favorable for Canon.

EOS cameras are all-in-one solution for small filmmaker and doc producer who don't have the time/manpower/budget to mess with DP, focus puller, and an army of PA.

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)