Cinema EOS Announcement on 19th Jan - EOS R5C

ahalpert said:
But every stills camera has a base iso of around 100 for stills and a LOG base iso of 800 for video. And gets more DR from the raw stills. No?
Click to expand...

No? i don’t know.


i haven’t done a lot of testing with raw stills. From what i recall about the 1DC, the highlights and shadows shifted when switching from C-log to Standard or Neutral picture style. So, the highlights were better in C-log, but the shadows weaker, and the overall equivalent Dr ended up being closer than i would have liked. but the noise to highlight difference was only about a stop push. so, i’m assuming that with the 1DC they gave it an under exposure and pushed it up for c-log. I remember that because it was annoying switching from video to stills and then needing to change my exposure by a stop to avoid a bad exposure.

but you are talking about a 3 to 4 stop push. i just can’t see that going unnoticed.


if you look at DXO mark dynamic range for the A7s3, the DR score around iso 800 is a bit closer to 13stops than the Canon R5, which again is almost identical to the CineD DR ratings for these two cameras.


But i never tested raw stills for DR at iso50 or iso100 before.

it should be simple to test for, because 14.6 vs 12+ is a big difference, and one won’t need a Xyla chart to be able to tell which has more DR.
 
ahalpert said:
Dunno. But they measure 13.9Evs for the a7siii. Let's assume the methodology is pretty different...
Click to expand...
DXO rates the A7s3 closer to 12.5 stops DR at iso800

Again, striking coincidence to CineD numbers (SNR2 12.6), or a data point?

you have an A7s3, you can test it out to see if you can get close to 13.9 stops DR at iso100 in raw stills, as that is enough of a step to be noticeable without better tolerances.
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
i’m thinking of starting a go fund me so that i can fly to Japan and knock on the door at Sony, Canon, and Panasonic and talk to the engineers and marketers, and possible division leads, and tell them what people want and what they are doing wrong
Click to expand...

If you're planning on telling Canon that the C70 is the way forward for small-IL-video-camera ergonomics please let me know so I can crowdfund a competing delegation or possibly snipers.
 
Crimson Engine seems to be first out of the gate with a nice summary and some early thoughts.


I haven't seen the official launch information, but it looks like he has, as he is stating this as fact. Price only $400 more than a R5, which I guess means sub $5000.

The small Canon battery seems to be somewhat of a limitation. For all day video use or productions, people will most likely want to rig this and maybe feed it from a V-mount or similar.

Overall, this wil lbe a popular camera. I'd be hoping to see a bit better sensor performance in video mode than the R5. That camera stands out a bit in CineD's tests with a measured patch range of 16.8, but with a steep drop to below 11 "usable" stops due to noise. Hopefully, the cooling will allow Canon to clean the signal and allow for closer to 13 clean stops. I'd like to see this camera deliver DR equal to something like the P6K.

Absence of Canon Log 2 in the compressed formats would be a non issue to me: use raw if you want to start from Canon Log 2.

It's good to see Canon offer various compressions levels and data rates in raw. That was missing in their first take of raw. It's also good to see them offer sensor-crop raw for those who what that—compatibility with cine glass and so on, without extra data overhead.
 
AndreeOnline said:
Crimson Engine seems to be first out of the gate with a nice summary and some early thoughts.


I haven't seen the official launch information, but it looks like he has, as he is stating this as fact. Price only $400 more than a R5, which I guess means sub $5000.

The small Canon battery seems to be somewhat of a limitation. For all day video use or productions, people will most likely want to rig this and maybe feed it from a V-mount or similar.

Overall, this wil lbe a popular camera. I'd be hoping to see a bit better sensor performance in video mode than the R5. That camera stands out a bit in CineD's tests with a measured patch range of 16.8, but with a steep drop to below 11 "usable" stops due to noise. Hopefully, the cooling will allow Canon to clean the signal and allow for closer to 13 clean stops. I'd like to see this camera deliver DR equal to something like the P6K.

Absence of Canon Log 2 in the compressed formats would be a non issue to me: use raw if you want to start from Canon Log 2.

It's good to see Canon offer various compressions levels and data rates in raw. That was missing in their first take of raw. It's also good to see them offer sensor-crop raw for those who what that—compatibility with cine glass and so on, without extra data overhead.
Click to expand...

very cool. Ok @Cleremond we can start discussing ROI!
 
if it's sub-$5k then it seems to me that it upsets the apple cart in terms of what you should expect from a mirrorless camera at $4k. And as far as I'm concerned, if it had internal ND, there'd be little left that I'd need a real camera for. I'm usually doing dual system sound anyway
 
If it's $500 more than the R5 then that's $4400 and that sounds impossible, but I don't know anything anymore.

Might have to get a R3...it's no slouch either... :2vrolijk_08:
 
ahalpert said:
if it had internal ND, there'd be little left that I'd need a real camera for.
Click to expand...

Internal NDs seems to be real differentiator between actual cine cameras and crossovers these days.

And while this doesn't have internal NDs, the ND-adapter you can use with EF-glass kind of gets you half way there. At least you can do quick lens swaps without having to fight stuck filter threads and I prefer 'behind the lens' to 'in front of the lens' for reflection performance anyway.
 
NorBro said:
If it's $500 more than the R5 then that's $4400 and that sounds impossible, but I don't know anything anymore.

Might have to get a R3...it's no slouch either... :2vrolijk_08:
Click to expand...

Yes, i’m quite surprised by Canon here
 
Last edited:
Having no power left from the camera to work an automatic lens in 8K/60p RAW is the craziest thing I've ever heard.

The whole point of my interest in the camera is because I want it to be beyond superior and future proof and that is not it.

That's why it's $4400 or cheaper than predicted. And no IBIS and probably other little things we don't know about yet.

___

And his C-Log2 reasoning for that room is the opposite of what C-Log2 is good for...definitely not dark interior shots. It's for bright exteriors!
 
NorBro said:
Having no power left from the camera to work the lens in 8K/60p RAW is the craziest thing I've ever heard.

The whole point of the camera is to be excellent and future proof and this is not it.
Click to expand...

It is a very unexpected issue issue. Seems to give credence to @DLD’s comment about the R5C being an after thought reaction to the Sony and Nikon options.

Because i use vintage manual lenses and was planning to add a gold mount system or batt grip option anyways, it has little effect on my choice, but i can see this as a nice little addition to the Cripple Hammer Wall of Fame.

Anyways, yeah, hate curve balls like that in a camera announcement. They are getting really close to making no complaints cameras, but alas, they find a way.
 
AndreeOnline said:
And while this doesn't have internal NDs, the ND-adapter you can use with EF-glass kind of gets you half way there. At least you can do quick lens swaps without having to fight stuck filter threads and I prefer 'behind the lens' to 'in front of the lens' for reflection performance anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, behind the lens ND preferable. A few issues with that system though -- you can't use RF lenses. Vari-ND is still vari-ND with its color and vignetting drawbacks. (Well, I don't know about the vignetting but I assume. Color issues must be a given, although some filters are better than others.) Single strength NDs and you're still swapping them out instead of pushing a button.

eND is such a step in the right direction that every camera is worse off for not having it

But I admit that if it's $4400, it's got me doing arithmetic for how much it would cost to purchase my current sony set-up in canon and how much I'd lose in resale value. I like IBIS a lot though
 
NorBro said:
And his C-Log2 reasoning for that room is the opposite of what C-Log2 is good for...definitely not dark interior shots. It's for bright exteriors!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say Canon Log 2 has a preference for dark or bright scenes—it doesn't care about that.

What it does is it allocates more data values to areas of the signal that normally get less priority since it's expected to be compressed in grading. But now that we are getting 12-bit codecs and higher bit rates, we can afford to encode, or start from (in the case of raw where it isn't baked in), the most evenly distributed 'light to data' profile.

Sure, recording in raw without noise reduction, and starting from Canon Log 2, will need some cleanup. And as stated previously: I hope the signal is a little bit cleaner than the regular R5 this time around.

For an easy workflow, I'd be great if it would allow for FF internal scaling 8K to 4K in 10-bit HEVC with HDR PQ. Otherwise, if going compressed, I think Canon Log 3 is a great choice.
 
I only care about how it looks and C-Log2 works better for me with brightness. And I think it's the better choice which is why they don't put it in the other cameras. Even the C200 didn't get it at the time because it was too cheap.

Using it with CRL in CRD was never the same.

P.S. About the noise signal...I discovered that in the 1DX Mark III if you have the camera set to C-Log or C-Log3 while shooting RAW (video) the noise is unbearable. Even at 800.

But if you set it to one of the picture profiles there is no noise and it looks absolutely amazing, but it's still recorded in C-Log (FCP sees it as C-Log 2 but I don't agree).

The camera is likely engaging noise reduction but they should tell people this. I don't know if it's common knowledge, and many times you can't clean up the noise in RAW well, it's ruthless.
 
I think this sounds excellent. Maybe if I dint buy an r6 last year id get it.. basically it appears to be fairly free of gotchas. A good thing. But a game changer? not that I can see,

I dont feel I have to lose my r6 or c200 or both

if they did a big bottom with xlr sdi maybe. there is also the nd of EF which is pretty good.

Maybe the power thing is true! I run my r6 of dummy batt (sony bpu from the fs7!)

So.. when they are $1.5g second hand or I drop my r6 and get insurance this would be of great interest.

Chop in my r6.. unlikely but Id have a think... is my R6 worth anything - maybe ill make the call?

If Id bought two r5 last month (like my mate) id be pissed - because this looks a bit more solid.

As ever.. 500fps I have to have but once again it is not there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top