Help me decide: Canon C300 Mark III or Sony FX9

[Jedi Master]

Hi all. This is my first post here. I hope this type of question is okay here.

I'm trying to decide between a Canon C300 Mark III and a Sony FX9. I'm not currently invested in either the Canon or Sony ecosystem, so that's not a consideration. My use case is documentaries, 99% of the time on a tripod.

I've read lots of reviews and have looked at sample footage, but still can't make the choice. When adding up everything I'll need, the price differential came out to just a few dollars, so that's not going to help me decide.

Any advice, experiences, etc., appreciated.

C300 MKIII

Pluses: 

• Uses more modern cards (CFexpress type B) that are both cheaper and available in high capacities
• Easy to adapt to PL lens mount (but somewhat costly at $1500)
• Supports RAW internally (Canon Cinema RAW Lite)
• Ten stops of internal ND
• Touchscreen monitor

Minuses: 

• Internal ND not infinitely variable

 

FX9:

Pluses:

• 6K FF sensor (downrezzed to 4K internally)
• S-Cinetone
• Locking E-mount
• Infinitely variable internal ND

Minuses:

• No touch screen
• Uses older, harder to get in high capacities, cards (XQD) with shrinking list of vendors
• No internal RAW
• No way to output full 6K resolution of sensor
• Internal ND is only seven stops

[Andrew Reid]

Sony a1 for documentary.

[kye]

I always say, if you don't know what the solution to a problem is, then you don't understand it sufficiently.

In this case, you seem to understand your two identified options relatively well, so the final piece is understanding your own needs.  How do you shoot?  Where do you shoot?  What do you shoot?  What lenses will you need?  What other equipment will you need?  What does the whole workflow look like?

All cameras at this level look great, this shouldn't be your focus - you should be focusing on the camera that is easiest for you to shoot where and how you shoot to get better shots by being supported by the entire ecosystem that you're buying into.

[IronFilm]

Have you considered the smaller, lighter, and cheaper Sony FX6? (or the C70 instead of the C300mk3, they both have an identical sensor!) The FX6 seems to be a lot more popular than the FX9 where I am. 

It's a hell of a lot easier shooting with a FX6 than a FX9 on a gimbal. Easier too on the arms if you're doing a long day handheld. 

But you said you're 99% on a tripod, a lot of sit down interviews? For interviews I'd prefer a lot more to have 2x FX6 / C70 than to have a single FX9 / C300mk3. And their smaller weight/size/price makes it easier to buy and travel with two. 

For me, the biggest factor would be what are people in the local market around me using? There is no point having "the best" camera if nobody wants to hire you with it. 

That means with this as my priority, I would have made the decision to shoot with at various points in time:

Sony EX1/EX3 => Canon C100/C300mk1 => Sony FS5/FS7/F5 => Sony FX30/FX3/FX6/FX9

As at each point in time the EX3, C300mk1, FS7, or FX6 was the most popular camera in the low/mid end range of the market. Thus it is an easy no brainer decision to go with the same (or at the very least, go with a close cousin. Say get the much cheaper C100 instead of the C300mk1, and cross your fingers and hope to get some of the crumbs that fall off the table not picked up by C300mk1 shooters. But you will be operating at a big disadvantage competing against them) 

For myself, I had the Panasonic GH1 back when I was a broke film student. (until then I'd been borrowing with my girlfriend's Nikon D90, or my sister's Canon T2i)

Then I got the Sony PMW-F3 at an insanely low price, an offer too good to refuse. (I forget when, I think roughly when the Sony FS7 was released. But the FS7 was way outside my price range back then) Then I picked up the OG BMPCC when it went on sale for US$500, another offer that was too good to ignore. 

Later on I got a Sony FS7 myself, as I felt I purchased it at the right moment of time when it had depreciated a fair bit to be a great value buy, but not so late that the FS7 didn't still have some life left in it (the FX9 was out, but the FX6 had only just been announced). 

Although I think I'm going to sell my Sony FS7 soon, and just not buy anything else for the foreseeable future.  Juggling working kinda full time in the Sound Dept plus studying CompSci full time too, means there simply is not enough hours left in the day to devote to chasing down camera gigs too and developing my craft. I've done very little of that this year. 

And I think if I ever do try to take the camera side of things (rather than an exclusive focus on the Sound Dept) more seriously, then I think I'll be doing one of three options: 

1) just shooting ultra low budget indie drama stuff, not really caring too much about the money, simply doing it for the love of it, and whatever little bit of pay I get for shooting short films is merely fun pocket change spending money 

That means buying one of: 

Going fully nuts and getting an ARRI ALEXA Classic, splurging an amount that doesn't make any financial sense at all whatsoever (but the Alexa Classic is so dirt cheap these days, it's not that much to indulge in as a hobby passion. Many people spend more on golf / fishing / drag racing / Ironmans ) 

Going more sensibly low budget with a Blackmagic (be it a dirt cheap P4K or BMD Micro Studio Camera G2, or a secondhand URSA Mini Pro) 

Or continue my love affair with CineAlta, and get a dirt cheap Sony PMW-F55. 

2) going into the multicam live streaming niche, this probably is where the overlap of my skillset / personality and business opportunities overlap to make the most sense from a financial perspective 

Which means one of these options:

Buying up a handful of old Sony EX3 cameras on the cheap (maybe mixing in a few other Sony models, such as my Sony PMW-F3 that I'm stll keeping)

Buying a handful of BMD Micro Studio G2 cameras. Gives a better image, gives me 4K as well. Integrates nicely with the BMD ATEM ecosystem. But it could be marginally more expensive for the whole setup, once you've rigged out the Micros with everything. And I have a lot of questionable suspicion about if even brand new BMD cameras will be more reliable than secondhand old Sony PMW-EX3 cameras. Plus a Micro vs EX3 looks less "impressively pro" at a conference / sporting event, if you care at all about client impressions. (which do actually matter a lot) 

3) going hardcore into some ultra techy geeky niche, that has relatively little competition. Such as 360VR filmmaking, although sadly 360VR turned out to be a fleeting fashion fad which these days there is no interest in. (maybe it is not too late to jump onto the hype of virtual productions such as The Mandalorian used? But that's more about massive time and money investment into computing power / workflows and huge LED walls. And not at all about cameras you'd be buying for it) But if I was to go into 360VR, then I'd do one of: 

Multiple Sony RX0mk2 cameras, for the first ever 4K 10bit and waterproof multicam rig for 360VR

Multiple ZCam E2-M4 bodies, this seems like a fairly well proven and very low cost option for high quality 360VR filmmaking. Definitely the safest bet option out of all of these I'm listing in the 360VR category. 

Multiple Sony FX30 bodies, a bit higher cost than the E2-M4, but I get to carry on a love affair with CineAlta into the 360VR world. However, this is an unproven configuration nobody else has done. And the body form factor is much more awkward than the body E2-M4 bodies. 

Multiple BMD Studio G2 camera bodies, another unproven configuration that nobody else in the world has done. But their form factor should be ideal for this, and might make for a better image quality (or at least a more familiar workflow for productions, an equally important consideration, or arguably is even more important) than the ZCams have. But, one big benefit of this choice is I could also use these multiple Studio G2 camera bodies for multicam live streaming! Multiple revenue sources? Just need to swap out the UWA MFT lenses for B4 zoom lenses with adapters.

Multiple Panasonic BS1H camera bodies, this is the dream! It would be a low light monster, the best the world has ever seen with 360VR filmmaking (although... this means this is also an unproven configuration, as nobody has ever attempted this. But the BS1H form factor is at least good for this). Although, this is the most expensive option by far! However, the BS1H has seen such a massive drop in price recently, that if I could get a little bit of funding behind me for a 360VR web series, then this could be a viable option to go with. 

 

[PannySVHS]

I would take Ironfilms exellent advice. Of the two i would go for the FX6.

Highly popular and exellent camera. As mentioned above, it is perfectly accepted by clients in the doc field. If you want to make or keep making a living with doc, FX6 all the way. If you want a camera for labours of love with beautiful Canon Raw and the exellent colour coming from the Dual Gain sensor, C70.

I bought my S1H from a docfilmer who does 45 - 60min docs for German TV. He upgraded to a FX and is super happy.

[IronFilm]

Just now, IronFilm said:

For me, the biggest factor would be what are people in the local market around me using? There is no point having "the best" camera if nobody wants to hire you with it. 

Look around what are people local to you shooting with? 

Most likely they're using Sony FX6 (or perhaps FX9) bodies. So just follow the herd and do the same. 

But there are pockets of local groups of people around which have gone in another direction, such as they're mainly using Canon C500mk2 for documentary / corporates / etc which have a reasonable budget. Often all it takes is just a few key leaders or production companies in that local region to go together down a certain path, and the whole local region follows them, and there isn't a single Sony camera in sight. 

However, if you are working purely for yourself / in house, then it doesn't  matter what brand or camera model you choose! 

But if you are working for others, then following what others use matters a lot. 

Had a friend who purchased the Sony FS7 right when it was released, did pretty well working with that, and he got to a point that he felt like he was "outgrowing the FS7" and had the money to buy something better. 

By this point in time the ARRI ALEXA Mini had been out for a couple of years, had proven itself, and no longer did you have crazy insane long wait list times if you wanted to buy one himself. 

But a ALEXA Mini was way outside is budget range. 

So what is the natural upgrade from a FS7? The F5/F55 are "upgrades", but are more similar than different. Definitely not what he was seeking. 

What then? He settled upon the Panasonic Varicam LT, which had recently been released (came out the year after the ARRI ALEXA Mini). He sold his Sony FS7 to raise extra funds, with his extra saved up money, he purchased a brand new Panasonic Varicam LT. (but he only got the Varicam after very extensively testing it, renting and borrowing it from others. Not just to run tests on it, but to use it on real world productions too. I worked on a couple of those productions which he shot with a Varicam LT, prior to him buying his own. He really did very very thoroughly all of his homework before settling on a new camera to buy)

Seems like a rational decision. Was the next step up in price (over double the price of a FS7) and quality from a FS7. Has much better low light performance, & much better color science than the FS7. Plus did timecode and raw better than the FS7. In a way, the Varicam LT was even "better" than the ALEXA Mini, with better slow motion, better low light, better audio, and true 4K. (only downsides being it is bigger/heavier than a Mini, and it is "not an ARRI")

Well, what seemed like a great idea on paper, in reality was one of his worst financial decisions. 

Because for the higher end jobs above the FS7 level, then usually they only want an ARRI camera. He's not landing the higher end jobs with the Varicam LT. (plus ARRI cameras are cheaper than you think, relative to the total cost of a project. It doesn't make sense for them to pinch pennies and settle for the cheaper Varicam LT)

Thus he wasn't earning any extra money due to spending almost double the FS7 amount on a new Varicam LT camera. 

But it was even worse than this, the Panasonic Varicam LT was losing him money. 

Because the bread and butter FS7 jobs were no longer hiring him as much, as they don't want to go with some weirdly different new camera, they want the tried and trusted Sony FS7 which all their other shooters use and slots perfectly into their workflow and productions. 

Owning the Panasonic Varicam LT was a lose-lose situation for him. 

Quite sad really, even though on paper the Varicam LT was undeniably a much  "better" camera than a Sony FS7 (even "better" than an ARRI ALEXA Mini in a fair few ways as well).  

[PannySVHS]

Great input on the business side of operator-ownership! @IronFilm Even though your friend knew his stuff super well, it didnt prevent him from one of our and my biggest lacklusters, GAS, which even hinders creativity as @John Matthewshas pointed out in another thread. I didnt shoot anything meaningful this year and have been hiding behind lower end color grading gigs. That Varicam LT story is perfectly illustrating temptation and consequenes going along with purchases. It's also beautifully written. Thank you😊

[IronFilm]

23 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

Great input on the business side of operator-ownership! @IronFilm Even though your friend knew his stuff super well, it didnt prevent him from one of our and my biggest lacklusters, GAS, which even hinders creativity as @John Matthewshas pointed out in another thread. I didnt shoot anything meaningful this year and have been hiding behind lower end color grading gigs. That Varicam LT story is perfectly illustrating temptation and consequenes going along with purchases. It's also beautifully written. Thank you😊

Glad it was appreciated 🙂

I don't think the Varicam LT hindered his creativity too much (although, it was a modestly heavier camera than the FS7, and more power hungry, but nothing you couldn't muscle your way through with a bit of grit), if anything the better quality of the Varicam LT opened up more creative options (you could for instance get away with a much smaller lighting package with the Varicam LT than a Sony FS7, and work in more difficult conditions). 

It is more than the Varicam LT hindered his bank account... 

(although yeah, I guess it is also limited him in terms of who he could/would work with) 

[TomTheDP]

Such a shame the Varicam LT never took off. It really is an incredible cost/performance camera. Thought I guess it just sat in that awkward place between smaller and bigger projects. 

[Kino]

I wouldn't buy either one at this stage unless you absolutely must have a camera today. The C300 III has been discounted to $9K from $11K and is likely to got down even more as Canon replaces it with an RF mount version with higher resolution. The Sony FX9 is selling for $10K and is now 4 years old. Sony has registered a new camera (WW279317) in China that could be its replacement:

https://weibo.com/2424567755/NoKDocBsC

This registration will be produced by the Shanghai plant (like the FX6 and FX9), so it is most likely an FX camera (or possibly a new camcorder). In any case, the FX9 II is close and when it drops so will the price of the FX9. At that point, you can decide which camera is better for your needs.

[Llaasseerr]

5 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

Such a shame the Varicam LT never took off. It really is an incredible cost/performance camera. Thought I guess it just sat in that awkward place between smaller and bigger projects. 

Agreed, it's an interesting camera. In the last year I have downloaded some DNG footage and had a play with it. I find it interesting that they are so affordable used and the fact you can now record ProRes Raw just with a Ninja V. But also I think it records 2k ProRes 4444 internally, which sounds very nice indeed as long as the debayer quality is good and you don't mind dealing with the P2 media.

I have heard they are slow to boot up and have a bad menu system, also that the rolling shutter is about 15ms which is really the maximum you would put up with these days for a 35mm sensor. But it just seems very robust and properly targeted at a film maker. So if you were buying it for your own creative or doc projects, it doesn't seem like a bad option.

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, Kino said:

I wouldn't buy either one at this stage unless you absolutely must have a camera today. The C300 III has been discounted to $9K from $11K and is likely to got down even more as Canon replaces it with an RF mount version with higher resolution. The Sony FX9 is selling for $10K and is now 4 years old. Sony has registered a new camera (WW279317) in China that could be its replacement:

https://weibo.com/2424567755/NoKDocBsC

This registration will be produced by the Shanghai plant (like the FX6 and FX9), so it is most likely an FX camera (or possibly a new camcorder). In any case, the FX9 II is close and when it drops so will the price of the FX9. At that point, you can decide which camera is better for your needs.

Wonder how big the update will be if it is a FX9mk2

Maybe just a very small modest one like the FS7mk2 and FS5mk2 was?

I hope for a brand new FX model, such as a "FX300". The FX30 does 4K 120fps and is $1600 by itself (or $2K with the audio handle). And that is after the $200 price drop! ($1800 and $2,200 beforehand)

Having a sub $1K (or even sub $800) cinema camera would be awesome. Maybe if it was 4K 60fps, or even just 4K 30fps, that a new Sony FX300 is. But keep all the same codecs, cooling fan, timecode, full size HDMI, etc of the FX30/FX3. 

  

2 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

I have heard they are slow to boot up and have a bad menu system, also that the rolling shutter is about 15ms which is really the maximum you would put up with these days for a 35mm sensor. But it just seems very robust and properly targeted at a film maker. So if you were buying it for your own creative or doc projects, it doesn't seem like a bad option.

Yes I remember when working with the Varicam LT that it had slow reboots. And it fairly often needed to be rebooted, for instance any time you wanted to switch to offspeed mode and then back again 

[Llaasseerr]

7 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Yes I remember when working with the Varicam LT that it had slow reboots. And it fairly often needed to be rebooted, for instance any time you wanted to switch to offspeed mode and then back again 

I would be fine shooting 24p on this camera most of the time. I don't really see a reason to get one, but I can fantasize about wasting some money on it. I went through similar thoughts about a Canon C200B earlier this year, but talked myself out of it. Maybe the OP should consider a C200/C200B? I don't think the fact it only shoots raw is a huge problem now that the Resolve workflow is so manageable on an M1 Mac.

[kye]

8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Wonder how big the update will be if it is a FX9mk2

Maybe just a very small modest one like the FS7mk2 and FS5mk2 was?

I hope for a brand new FX model, such as a "FX300". The FX30 does 4K 120fps and is $1600 by itself (or $2K with the audio handle). And that is after the $200 price drop! ($1800 and $2,200 beforehand)

Having a sub $1K (or even sub $800) cinema camera would be awesome. Maybe if it was 4K 60fps, or even just 4K 30fps, that a new Sony FX300 is. But keep all the same codecs, cooling fan, timecode, full size HDMI, etc of the FX30/FX3. 

That would be interesting, but wouldn't it compete with their A6xxx line too much?

Sadly, what you're talking about would actually make a half-decent vlogging camera.  I suspect Sony is too spec-focused to do such a thing.  Rather than remove resolutions and frame rates they'd rather just remove reliability.

[Kino]

13 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Wonder how big the update will be if it is a FX9mk2

Maybe just a very small modest one like the FS7mk2 and FS5mk2 was?

I hope for a brand new FX model, such as a "FX300". The FX30 does 4K 120fps and is $1600 by itself (or $2K with the audio handle). And that is after the $200 price drop! ($1800 and $2,200 beforehand)

Having a sub $1K (or even sub $800) cinema camera would be awesome. Maybe if it was 4K 60fps, or even just 4K 30fps, that a new Sony FX300 is. But keep all the same codecs, cooling fan, timecode, full size HDMI, etc of the FX30/FX3.

If the FX9 II does come along, it will not be an incremental upgrade like the FS7 II. It has to compete with Canon's next generation Cinema EOS cameras, so it will need to offer 8K recording, better external RAW recording options, and proper 4K 120 internal. There is a possibility for X-OCN 16-Bit at 4K or 6K, but I doubt it. I suspect they plan to replace the discontinued F5 ($16K) with a Burano 6K (using the Venice 1 sensor) and that camera will be the cheapest entry point for Sony's X-OCN. Then the Burano line would mirror the Venice 8K and 6K perfectly.

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

I would be fine shooting 24p on this camera most of the time. I don't really see a reason to get one, but I can fantasize about wasting some money on it. I went through similar thoughts about a Canon C200B earlier this year, but talked myself out of it. Maybe the OP should consider a C200/C200B? I don't think the fact it only shoots raw is a huge problem now that the Resolve workflow is so manageable on an M1 Mac.

Not a bad idea. Plus OP said they did all their shooting on a tripod, suggesting to me their documentary style involves a lot of interviews. So if going for a C200 instead of a C300mk2 means they can have two cameras that would be extremely beneficial. 

And CFast cards have dropped down in price a lot since the C200 was released. You can get a 1TB card for just $500:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1452851-REG/angelbird_avp1tbcf_av_pro_cf_1tb.html

That gives you 2hrs of recording time with 4K 12bit raw. 

Maybe grab another 512GB card for US$300, gives you another 1hr of recording as a spare back up card (something to use while backing up your main cards footage). 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1422513-REG/angelbird_avp512cf_512gb_av_pro_cf.html

US$2K ish for a C200 on eBay plus another $1K-ish in media and batteries? 

  

11 hours ago, kye said:

That would be interesting, but wouldn't it compete with their A6xxx line too much?

Not really. It wouldn't have a mechanical shutter. 

11 hours ago, kye said:

Sadly, what you're talking about would actually make a half-decent vlogging camera.  I suspect Sony is too spec-focused to do such a thing.  Rather than remove resolutions and frame rates they'd rather just remove reliability.

Quite so, for any vlogger which doesn't want slow motion (although a lot do!) this FX300 would be their perfect camera. 

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, Kino said:

If the FX9 II does come along, it will not be an incremental upgrade like the FS7 II. It has to compete with Canon's next generation Cinema EOS cameras, so it will need to offer 8K recording, better external RAW recording options, and proper 4K 120 internal.

I don't think they need to boost the raw capabilities of the FX9/FX6, those are nice to have features for marketing rather than core features for the bread and butter purchasers of them. 

Neither is 8K being demanded strongly by this market segment at all. 

If 4K 120fps (which now even the Sony FX30 can do internally) is the only "major" feature in the FX9mk2 and everything else is tweaks around the edge (such as giving more anamorphic options), then I'd say this is a fairly incremental upgrade like the FS7mk2 was (but a bigger update than the FS5mk2 was!). And the type of possible update I'm expecting from Sony. 

5 hours ago, Kino said:

There is a possibility for X-OCN 16-Bit at 4K or 6K, but I doubt it. I suspect they plan to replace the discontinued F5 ($16K) with a Burano 6K (using the Venice 1 sensor) and that camera will be the cheapest entry point for Sony's X-OCN. Then the Burano line would mirror the Venice 8K and 6K perfectly.

That would be a nice release!

But where would they price it? There is only a $5K difference between the two VENICE bodies. 

Perhaps instead of $25K, they'll make it be $20K?? Would definitely put it within the reach of more FX9 owner-ops 

[TomTheDP]

22 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

Agreed, it's an interesting camera. In the last year I have downloaded some DNG footage and had a play with it. I find it interesting that they are so affordable used and the fact you can now record ProRes Raw just with a Ninja V. But also I think it records 2k ProRes 4444 internally, which sounds very nice indeed as long as the debayer quality is good and you don't mind dealing with the P2 media.

I have heard they are slow to boot up and have a bad menu system, also that the rolling shutter is about 15ms which is really the maximum you would put up with these days for a 35mm sensor. But it just seems very robust and properly targeted at a film maker. So if you were buying it for your own creative or doc projects, it doesn't seem like a bad option.

Yeah boot times don't bother me too much. I am used to them with older red cameras or Alexas. 

2k 444 is ideal for me codec wise. Should be pretty nice if its downsampling from the 4k sensor. 

Rolling shutter is a bit annoying but 15ms is very usable. I have honestly never noticed rolling shutter ever across my life shooting videos, other than for strobe lighting. 

[kye]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

So if going for a C200 instead of a C300mk2 means they can have two cameras that would be extremely beneficial. 

Yeah, and the C200s are smaller so maybe easier to wrangle?

If you have two of them, it might even mean having two setups ready to go and not having to re-rig in the middle of a shoot perhaps?

[Kino]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I don't think they need to boost the raw capabilities of the FX9/FX6, those are nice to have features for marketing rather than core features for the bread and butter purchasers of them. 

Neither is 8K being demanded strongly by this market segment at all. 

If 4K 120fps (which now even the Sony FX30 can do internally) is the only "major" feature in the FX9mk2 and everything else is tweaks around the edge (such as giving more anamorphic options), then I'd say this is a fairly incremental upgrade like the FS7mk2 was (but a bigger update than the FS5mk2 was!). And the type of possible update I'm expecting from Sony. 

That would be a nice release!

But where would they price it? There is only a $5K difference between the two VENICE bodies. 

Perhaps instead of $25K, they'll make it be $20K?? Would definitely put it within the reach of more FX9 owner-ops 

The FX6 is perfectly fine the way it is with the direct RAW output to the Atomos. The FX9 has the problem in that it requires the XDCA extension unit to do the same thing as the FX6. They need to allow for direct RAW out.

8K acquisition provides many advantages that Sony does not want to ignore for their flagship FX camera, especially considering Canon's plans for this segment. I don't see them going with 4K downsampled from 6K yet again. The camera will definitely have a new sensor, perhaps a repurposed A1 sensor (IMX 610) or something else we don't know about.

Brand new, the Venice 6K and 8K barely have any price difference as you note, but you can get a used Venice 6K for almost half the price. A Burano 6K would be amazing if they could get the price down to where the F5 was ($16K). The problem is that the Venice 6K is still very popular on many productions, both big and small, and listed as the official F5 replacement on Sony's website:

https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/digital-cinema-cameras/pmw-f5

I don't expect a "Burano 6K" for some time, but I only mention it because I think the possibility for this camera release determines the kind of features we will get in the FX9 II.