Sony killing Canon Cinema EOS in filmmaking / Sundance documentaries

[Ninpo33]

I do remember cheering out loud when I saw the filmmaker Cullen Hoback using an S1H on some BTS footage of the HBO doc from 3 years ago about The Q-Anon cult. I think he shot the whole thing with two of them. 

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, Django said:

I think a big part of why Canon lost to Sony in the low/mid segment is the change of mount & lenses. 

Canon were super slow to update their cine line to RF and still have this problem were only C70/C80 are RF and the rest is EF. On the Sony side its just E-mount through & through for over a decade. This consistency makes it a lot stronger to build and invest in the ecosystem. Not to mention RF mount has almost no S35 lenses and is closed to third-parties. That whole strategy just backfired on them big time imo. I still like Canon cameras and lenses but it's a much weaker ecosystem than Sony. 

Now Nikon have a chance to enter this market with Z-mount RED/Nikon cine line. Fuji are attempting with the Eterna but I feel that's going to flop, should have gone with a Fuji X APS-c sensor like the one inside XH2S.

I fully agree the lack of RF cameras and lenses does harm Canon both now and recently. But the big shift over from Canon to Sony happened in the 2010's, and I think back then the lens/camera mount was less of a big deal. 

In fact arguably Canon's EF mount was a "strength" of Canon, on their side. (and I'd say is linked to why they were then so slow to transition away from EF, which is not to their detriment) 

[newfoundmass]

1 hour ago, Ninpo33 said:

I do remember cheering out loud when I saw the filmmaker Cullen Hoback using an S1H on some BTS footage of the HBO doc from 3 years ago about The Q-Anon cult. I think he shot the whole thing with two of them. 

Bo Burnham filmed his Netflix comedy special "Inside" on the S1H, too.

 

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

But the big shift over from Canon to Sony happened in the 2010's, and I think back then the lens/camera mount was less of a big deal.

Yeah, by the time they released the C70 (for $5500) the landscape had radically changed. It was only three months later that Sony released the FX3 for $1600 less than the C70 and 18 months later that they released the FX30.

Unless you were a loyal Canon user there weren't many reasons to buy one of their overpriced cinema cameras when there were more affordable and, arguably, better options.

If Canon had released the C70 for $3500 things might be a bit different today. 

[Django]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I fully agree the lack of RF cameras and lenses does harm Canon both now and recently. But the big shift over from Canon to Sony happened in the 2010's, and I think back then the lens/camera mount was less of a big deal. 

In fact arguably Canon's EF mount was a "strength" of Canon, on their side. (and I'd say is linked to why they were then so slow to transition away from EF, which is not to their detriment) 

Sure, Sony lens lineup a decade ago wasn't nearly as complete in pricing & range as was EF. 

Sony has done a great job building its lens collection with the help of Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron etc.

Not to mention all the esoteric/anamorphic E-mount lenses from boutique companies.

Today DSLR lenses like EF aren't nearly as popular due to size, weight & poor video AF performance.

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

Yeah, by the time they released the C70 (for $5500) the landscape had radically changed. It was only three months later that Sony released the FX3 for $1600 less than the C70 and 18 months later that they released the FX30.

Unless you were a loyal Canon user there weren't many reasons to buy one of their overpriced cinema cameras when there were more affordable and, arguably, better options.

If Canon had released the C70 for $3500 things might be a bit different today. 

The C70 wasn't that overpriced in the sense that its an actual cine camera with pro I/O, ND filters, large battery etc. It also had a pretty singular DGO sensor from the top of the line C300 mk3. FX3 was basically a rehoused A7S3.

The main issue is that C70 was RF S35 but with zero APS-C RF lenses so you had to get the speed booster to adapt old EF glass. Really convoluted approach.. C80 is what it should have been from the start.

Still for solo docu work I'd take a C70/C80 over an FX3 for the NDs, internal RAW, battery life & I/Os.

You'd have to step up to FX6 for a fair comparison. FX3's competition is R5C.

[newfoundmass]

7 hours ago, Django said:

The C70 wasn't that overpriced in the sense that its an actual cine camera with pro I/O, ND filters, large battery etc. It also had a pretty singular DGO sensor from the top of the line C300 mk3. FX3 was basically a rehoused A7S3.

The main issue is that C70 was RF S35 but with zero APS-C RF lenses so you had to get the speed booster to adapt old EF glass. Really convoluted approach.. C80 is what it should have been from the start.

Still for solo docu work I'd take a C70/C80 over an FX3 for the NDs, internal RAW, battery life & I/Os.

You'd have to step up to FX6 for a fair comparison. FX3's competition is R5C.

While I understand what you're saying and somewhat agree, there are more people using FX3s than C70s, and there are plenty of reasons people went for it instead of the C70, namely lenses, full frame sensor, and price. When you then factor in the FX6, which was similarly priced and had "better" features, the C70 seemed like even less of a good deal to those who weren't married to Canon. Not only does this graph support that, but just my own personal experience does too.

Between sports, weddings, conventions, festivals, commercial shoots, news gathering, and docs etc. I really can't emphasize enough how few people I see using Canon these days, let alone the C70 or C80. Compared to 10 years ago or so when I'd do these same events and there were tons of C100s and camcorders, it's really night and day.

Though the guy coming to do a story on my wrestling event this Sunday for the local NBC affiliate will be using a T3i, which cracks me up.

[mercer]

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Though the guy coming to do a story on my wrestling event this Sunday for the local NBC affiliate will be using a T3i, which cracks me up.

To me, that's an eye opener right there. 

[mercer]

22 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Events are my bread and butter and they are dominated by Sony. I really don't know many Canon video users outside of corporate shooters, where the C70 is a big hit with them. A friend of mine is also using C100s and I got to use them again recently, which reminded me how much I loved that camera and wanted to get one so bad for the longest time! But here, at least in the northeast, Sony really has taken over from my experience.

Meanwhile I'm over here trying to do all of it with my Lumix cameras! Haha!

I was thinking about buying a C100 Mark II to mess around with. Was using one of Canon's 1" 4K camcorders recently... the XA15 I think... and it was amazing. Hadn't had so much fun shooting since I first bought my 5D3 and the Canon 24-70mm f/4 L I used to own. I'd imagine a C100 is right up there.

[newfoundmass]

49 minutes ago, mercer said:

To me, that's an eye opener right there. 

Yep, he uses a T3i and a cheap MOVO wireless mic (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1542503-REG/movo_photo_wmx_1_2_4ghz_wireless_lavalier.html) right into the camera. Budgets for local news have been cut all over the country; lots of reporters use their cellphones or their own cameras now. When I first did ENG work I was the camera guy that worked with the reporter and used professional equipment provided by the station. Now they all do it themselves for most stories, and only use the professional equipment (which is also mostly ancient) for major stories/press conferences/live feeds.
 

The Panny DVX200 was pretty ubiquitous up here as far as station cameras were concerned but those all went away and now my bud uses a T3i and a $40 wireless mic system haha. Wild times.

 

58 minutes ago, mercer said:

I was thinking about buying a C100 Mark II to mess around with. Was using one of Canon's 1" 4K camcorders recently... the XA15 I think... and it was amazing. Hadn't had so much fun shooting since I first bought my 5D3 and the Canon 24-70mm f/4 L I used to own. I'd imagine a C100 is right up there.

When using the C100 mk2 recently I fell in love again with the body design and, honestly, the image looks good upscaled to 4K. I could very easily take three of those bodies and do my multicam work with them, upscale it to 4K and it'd be fine. Most people wouldn't notice or care. There was some voodoo going on, too, when it comes to that codec. 8-bit at 28Mb/s or whatever it was shouldn't have been as thick as it was, but you could do some pretty heavy color grading on such a small file. The only thing that I would miss is IBIS, but with a body like that it is less of an issue.

I know sites like Lensrentals sell them used for under $700 now, and you could probably find them even cheaper on eBay if you wanted to risk getting something that had no warranty, exchange, etc. It's a testament to the kind of workhorse that camera is that there are so many out there still going strong all these years later.

[IronFilm]

21 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Yeah, by the time they released the C70 (for $5500) the landscape had radically changed. It was only three months later that Sony released the FX3 for $1600 less than the C70 and 18 months later that they released the FX30.

Unless you were a loyal Canon user there weren't many reasons to buy one of their overpriced cinema cameras when there were more affordable and, arguably, better options.

If Canon had released the C70 for $3500 things might be a bit different today. 

Doubt Canon would ever have priced it that cheaply right from the start. 

Maybe if Canon had announced their C70 six months (or even better, a full year plus) before the Sony FX6 (rather than what happened is the C70 was announced me weeks before the FX6) then maybe Canon could have at least made a substantial move in closing the market share gap between Sony and Canon.

Although, I am doubtful, remember back in 2020 then Canon's RF lens lineup was pitful, while Sony E Mount ecosystem had been built up over years and years. 

18 hours ago, Django said:

The C70 wasn't that overpriced in the sense that its an actual cine camera with pro I/O, ND filters, large battery etc. It also had a pretty singular DGO sensor from the top of the line C300 mk3. FX3 was basically a rehoused A7S3.

I agree, the C70 wasn't a FX3 direct competitor, it was a FX6 competitor. 

18 hours ago, Django said:

The main issue is that C70 was RF S35 but with zero APS-C RF lenses so you had to get the speed booster to adapt old EF glass. Really convoluted approach.

I agree again, there was a severe lack of great lens choices for C70 at launch in 2020. 

10 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

While I understand what you're saying and somewhat agree, there are more people using FX3s than C70s, and there are plenty of reasons people went for it instead of the C70, namely lenses, full frame sensor, and price.

I think simply price was the #1 dominant reason.

Today they're a similar price, with a C70 only marginaly more expensive. But at launch, who is going to spend 50% more on a camera when they're already stretching to buy the FX3 as their first (or perhaps 2nd) camera?

The second biggest reason I reckon is simply the dominant nature of the Sony FX/FS series in general, if you already have a FX9/FX6 then you're not going to consider anything else than a FX3 as your B Cam. Or if all your friends are shooting with a FX9/FX6 already and you want to try and jump in as well, then of course you're going for a FX6 over a C70.

10 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Between sports, weddings, conventions, festivals, commercial shoots, news gathering, and docs etc. I really can't emphasize enough how few people I see using Canon these days, let alone the C70 or C80. Compared to 10 years ago or so when I'd do these same events and there were tons of C100s and camcorders, it's really night and day.

Yup, there has been a big shift over the last decade.

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

The Panny DVX200 was pretty ubiquitous up here as far as station cameras were concerned but those all went away and now my bud uses a T3i and a $40 wireless mic system haha. Wild times.

It really is quite sad, when you could pick up a Panasonic DVX200 or a Sony FS5 (with a lens) or a Canon C100 (with a lens) or a Sony PXW-X70 or Canon XC15 for just a thousand bucks or less.

 

 

[newfoundmass]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Doubt Canon would ever have priced it that cheaply right from the start. 

Maybe if Canon had announced their C70 six months (or even better, a full year plus) before the Sony FX6 (rather than what happened is the C70 was announced me weeks before the FX6) then maybe Canon could have at least made a substantial move in closing the market share gap between Sony and Canon.

Although, I am doubtful, remember back in 2020 then Canon's RF lens lineup was pitful, while Sony E Mount ecosystem had been built up over years and years. 

Canon never would've priced the C70 that low but they probably should've. By 2020 the winds were already changing in the camera space, whether it was mirrorless or video/cinema cameras. People were a lot less willing to pay the Canon tax when everyone else started releasing cameras with everything they could put into them for the same price (or sometimes less.) ESPECIALLY when it came to full frame and how the market was swinging in that direction. 

The choice is easier if you were already a Canon or Sony shooter, but in late 2020 if you're looking to purchase a camera and aren't already a loyal Canon or Sony shooter, I think the FX6 probably won out for most people. 

And then when the FX3 came out, if you hadn't jumped on either the C70 or the FX6, you had a compelling option for even less money WITH a upgrade roadmap to the FX6 right there for when/if you decided to upgrade.  Nevermind when then the FX30 came out, adding another path you could take to get to an FX6. The C70 had a much pricier roadmap should you ever wanted to upgrade. 

I don't personally even like the image coming out of the Sony cameras. The Canon C70, in my opinion, has a much nicer image. But I'd still have gone Sony if I had to choose. As a tool it just made sense and was the direction the wind was blowing. Plus I know so many more people shooting with Sony, which would have made it easier to collaborate.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Yup, there has been a big shift over the last decade.

All of my friends who work for major sports leagues and sports franchises have switched to Sony for both video and photo. I'm talking people who work for WWE, AEW, the UFC, the NBA, the Boston Celtics, etc. Ten years ago they were all Canon.

Canon still wins with brand recognition. If you ask most folks to name a camera company Canon will still be the first one most people name. And if you look at your normal brick and mortar store, like Best Buy here in the United States, you'll see their best selling camera is the Canon EOS Rebel T7, a seven year old DSLR. At Walmart it's the EOS Rebel T100, another seven year old DSLR.

But on the professional end Canon is losing ground and has been for a while. 

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

It really is quite sad, when you could pick up a Panasonic DVX200 or a Sony FS5 (with a lens) or a Canon C100 (with a lens) or a Sony PXW-X70 or Canon XC15 for just a thousand bucks or less.

I'll ask him, but my honest guess is he's expected to provide his own camera and is using what he had. If it's what he had, or if it's what he could afford, I get why he uses it over his phone. He can still get decent shallow DOF when doing interviews, and good enough quality footage. After all, Vermont is a very small television market!

It was still funny though; it feels weird to have so much nicer equipment to film my rasslin' events with than the local NBC affiliate uses to cover our event! But when people see it at home I don't think they really care what camera they used or if the audio sucks, as long as it's in focus and the sound is audible. 

With the way the journalism industry has collapsed he's probably not in a position to be able to purchase a nicer camera. Which is a bummer. 

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I'll ask him, but my honest guess is he's expected to provide his own camera and is using what he had. If it's what he had, or if it's what he could afford, I get why he uses it over his phone. He can still get decent shallow DOF when doing interviews, and good enough quality footage. After all, Vermont is a very small television market!

IF I was in his shoes, I'd still be getting something like a FS5 / C100 on the cheap, even if the local TV market is not demanding anything better from me. For three reasons:

1) providing a bit higher quality footage than expected will help reduce the odds he gets fired/cut at some point over the next 5yrs+, even if it just improves the odds slightly by 10%, that still makes it worth it 

2) this next point is kinda the same as the previous point, because having a proper video camera means there is less fluffing about, and he'll be able to get the shot / get better shots when under pressure, thus "getting better quality shots" (in terms of content that is, not just image quality)

3) he can diversify out and dabble in doing videography work too for local companies / events

[Django]

3 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I don't personally even like the image coming out of the Sony cameras. The Canon C70, in my opinion, has a much nicer image. But I'd still have gone Sony if I had to choose. As a tool it just made sense and was the direction the wind was blowing. Plus I know so many more people shooting with Sony, which would have made it easier to collaborate.

I'm a long-time Canon shooter and my next camera will probably be an R5C or R5 mk2. 

That said my on-going workhorse camera is an FS7 because it gives me work. 

Logic would dictate I get an FX3/FX6 but I'm just not a fan of the camera specs / price ratio in 2025:

No 6K/8K, No open gate, No RAW, No EVF etc.. with a price tag here in Europe still at 4500€ for FX3.

Sony's dominance comes at a price, to me they are the overpriced and under spec'd cameras today.

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, Django said:

No 6K/8K, No open gate, No RAW, No EVF etc.. with a price tag here in Europe still at 4500€ for FX3.

 

There's a few under €4k now, but otherwise the pricing and the lack of even 6k is what stopped me from going Sony for video.

If I did, it would more likely be the FX30's over the FX3. 

I kind of got the price when it came out, but now... Seems over-priced IMO.

[mercer]

16 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Yep, he uses a T3i and a cheap MOVO wireless mic (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1542503-REG/movo_photo_wmx_1_2_4ghz_wireless_lavalier.html) right into the camera. Budgets for local news have been cut all over the country; lots of reporters use their cellphones or their own cameras now. When I first did ENG work I was the camera guy that worked with the reporter and used professional equipment provided by the station. Now they all do it themselves for most stories, and only use the professional equipment (which is also mostly ancient) for major stories/press conferences/live feeds.
 

The Panny DVX200 was pretty ubiquitous up here as far as station cameras were concerned but those all went away and now my bud uses a T3i and a $40 wireless mic system haha. Wild times.

 

When using the C100 mk2 recently I fell in love again with the body design and, honestly, the image looks good upscaled to 4K. I could very easily take three of those bodies and do my multicam work with them, upscale it to 4K and it'd be fine. Most people wouldn't notice or care. There was some voodoo going on, too, when it comes to that codec. 8-bit at 28Mb/s or whatever it was shouldn't have been as thick as it was, but you could do some pretty heavy color grading on such a small file. The only thing that I would miss is IBIS, but with a body like that it is less of an issue.

I know sites like Lensrentals sell them used for under $700 now, and you could probably find them even cheaper on eBay if you wanted to risk getting something that had no warranty, exchange, etc. It's a testament to the kind of workhorse that camera is that there are so many out there still going strong all these years later.

Crazy thing is that your friends' co-workers probably think he is a snob shooting with his fancy DSLR while they're shooting with their iPhones.

I actually have a friend that shot a feature film on a t3i that got distribution and was released in Wal-Marts.

[Django]

You must consider most network channels in the US (ABC, NBC, CBS & FOX) still use 1080i; 720p HD resolution. This opens up or rather holds back quite antique video shooting standards versus Europe that has vastly transitioned long time ago to FHD and even 4K with 10-bit 422 requirements. Of course cable TV & streaming services in the US have higher requirements too.

[newfoundmass]

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

IF I was in his shoes, I'd still be getting something like a FS5 / C100 on the cheap, even if the local TV market is not demanding anything better from me. For three reasons:

1) providing a bit higher quality footage than expected will help reduce the odds he gets fired/cut at some point over the next 5yrs+, even if it just improves the odds slightly by 10%, that still makes it worth it 

2) this next point is kinda the same as the previous point, because having a proper video camera means there is less fluffing about, and he'll be able to get the shot / get better shots when under pressure, thus "getting better quality shots" (in terms of content that is, not just image quality)

3) he can diversify out and dabble in doing videography work too for local companies / events

With the way the journalism industry works, especially in television, in five years he'll probably be in Wyoming or some other small market, assuming he doesn't become one of the anchors or lead reporters!

1 hour ago, Django said:

You must consider most network channels in the US (ABC, NBC, CBS & FOX) still use 1080i; 720p HD resolution. This opens up or rather holds back quite antique video shooting standards versus Europe that has vastly transitioned long time ago to FHD and even 4K with 10-bit 422 requirements. Of course cable TV & streaming services in the US have higher requirements too.

I haven't had cable in 8 years, but yeah, I think a lot of them are still in 1080i. I think you have to pay extra for anything that is 4K, including on streaming services like Netflix.

[IronFilm]

15 hours ago, Django said:

Sony's dominance comes at a price, to me they are the overpriced and under spec'd cameras today.

Sony has turned into what Canon was, overpriced for the specs they're deliverying. 

12 hours ago, MrSMW said:

If I did, it would more likely be the FX30's over the FX3. 

I kind of got the price when it came out, but now... Seems over-priced IMO.

Rumors are of a FX6mk2 later this year. 

If so, then a FX3mk2/FX30mk2 comes out afterwards? Next year? 

Might be what it takes for a FX30mk1 to truly become affordable enough for me to consider. 

[Ninpo33]

Fun to see the difference between festivals. Your original topic of Sony vs Canon definitely continues in Austin for SXSW.

*Side note - No Film School sure has fallen off hasn’t it? Quite the clickbaity shit show now. 

https://*banned URL*/cameras-of-sxsw-2025

[MrSMW]

10 hours ago, Ninpo33 said:

*Side note - No Film School sure has fallen off hasn’t it? Quite the clickbaity shit show now. 

Probably run out of topics.

Make a list of 10, 20, 50 key topics to cover and when you have been through them all, without repeating yourself, where is there to go?

Gear reviews, opinion pieces and more gear reviews!