scorsesefan
Veteran
OK. Hope he's alright.
Cinema EOS Announcement on 19th Jan - EOS R5C
- Thread starter indiawilds
- Start date
OK. Hope he's alright.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
It really seems like DSLRs are getting more expensive. In an age where cinema cameras are really starting to dethrone DSLRs is this really a wise move? I realize the R5C may be targeted as more of a cinema camera but its still la DSLR at the end of the day. Do people love Canon that much to use Canon 8k raw over BRAW? $4,500 buys a lot of other camera options out there.
8k is neat but the P4k is $1,300 and the P6k is $2,000. For a cinema camera I much prefer to use a camera specifically designed for that purpose vs a hybrid. How many here really need a hybrid cinema camera? Is that really a must have? Even if so does that really have to be 8k video and 45MP stills? Wouldn't a 6k video and more manageable stills be a more desirable option for many at a lower cost? How many film makers that do occasionally shoot stills need 45 MP? I realize many today want good AF but if using cine glass thats not really an option anyway. How many film makers require 8k raw using stills lenses with AF?
I just see this as tough to compete with the Pocket and other cinema camera options out there. Unless one absolutely needs to have AF. We can kiss IBIS goodbye so it really comes down to AF and the ability to use the same camera to shoot stills. Not saying BMD is perfect but they have a pretty solid following now and I don't expect them to just sit still either. I'm sure we can expect a more affordable 8k Pocket from them very soon in response to this like they did to the Panasonic GH5S. BMD may even aim higher or improve on their AF options.
8k is neat but the P4k is $1,300 and the P6k is $2,000. For a cinema camera I much prefer to use a camera specifically designed for that purpose vs a hybrid. How many here really need a hybrid cinema camera? Is that really a must have? Even if so does that really have to be 8k video and 45MP stills? Wouldn't a 6k video and more manageable stills be a more desirable option for many at a lower cost? How many film makers that do occasionally shoot stills need 45 MP? I realize many today want good AF but if using cine glass thats not really an option anyway. How many film makers require 8k raw using stills lenses with AF?
I just see this as tough to compete with the Pocket and other cinema camera options out there. Unless one absolutely needs to have AF. We can kiss IBIS goodbye so it really comes down to AF and the ability to use the same camera to shoot stills. Not saying BMD is perfect but they have a pretty solid following now and I don't expect them to just sit still either. I'm sure we can expect a more affordable 8k Pocket from them very soon in response to this like they did to the Panasonic GH5S. BMD may even aim higher or improve on their AF options.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I still think the move to 8k was a bit premature for the R5 and it has held it back technically. Having only really nice but longer to unlimited 4K and IBIS in a normal R5 body is a much stronger product imho than this gray area chunky design. Obviously there are still limitations or the thing would have IBIS and maybe a full sized HDMI. Canon has carved up their line so much that I don't want any of them. All because of 8K generating too much heat. I was scared for a second but Canon was true to form once again, solidifying my happy choice with the two Sony Alphas.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
People love AF - if you work non drama - its basically a win. Bmagic lose there.. they are cameras for indy films and pop vids.
As for the cost.. basicaly it is a 'there too' camera to me with no ND no decent I/O ports.. its just (to me) not a grown up tool
And at that point well I paid $2.5k ?? to get my R6.. also not a grown up tool.. and I thought $2.5k is a lot for a there too device
So at $4.5k its super expensive to be a 'there too'
I mean my gh4 is pretty good.. I have a 12mm and i can trhow it on sticks and get a second angle and it cost .. $700
So if the r5 replaces the gh4.. sure its better but thats a major hike in money
Now to be worth $4.5k it needs to do battle with my C200 and frankly it seems that as a working tool (xlr batt life nd) it wont come close.
If it where a working tool $4.5k would be cheap.. cheaper than the fs7 was.. but whatever the blogerati say it is NOT a working tool
so yes it is expensive
buying a c200 is waaaaaay better. or even ( almost) a used alexa red or whatever.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Hey I bought a R6 because of the AF. Its a nice camera overall but yeah a bit expensive for what it is. The R5 was impressive but again too expensive for video that was not stable enough to use outside of a few random shots on YouTube. The R5C is the stability the R5 should have been and now it costs even more.
We shall see how well it sells. I still think its a rather odd priced option for what it is just to have 8k with AF. My whole argument is do people that need 8k and raw also need AF? There are times I really do want AF and there are times I really want raw. There are even times I may want both although I always debated if people truly need raw or if they just want raw. I'm not sure I need all three however.
I would still rather see the R6 get raw at 5.4k or whatever it could manage. I would find that a very impressive camera as would many others I think. I know a lot of Pocket users that would like a AF body to use at times and a R6 with raw might be a better option than the R5C.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
The Pocket 6k is s35mm and while I agree some have moved on to FF s35mm is still a common standard. I think the P6ks wil still appeal to more vs this $4,500 beast.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I see the A7Iv and the A7sIII as a combination. I would have both on a shoot so one can fill in any gaps from the other. The A7IV is a stronger still camera, but crops 4K60. The A7sIII the other way around but many features are pretty much identical.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Yes, so by that measure, it is basically filling the void of a GH6 as well while being a better still camera. A few different moves by Canon and I would have stayed in that camp (R5C included) but that is to be expected from them.
cyvideo
Veteran
Not needing the NDs in this case but doing a similar thing by putting an a7iv and a PMW-300 together using S-Cinetone on the a7iv and the age-old Matrix hack on Sony ENG cameras, the 135+10 Matrix setting and the cameras are surprisingly close. Close enough that very little tweaking in post brings them together. I think Sony is aware that a lot of XDCam users used to use the 135+10 matrix settings to improve the "look" of their cameras and I have a sneaking suspicion that's maybe where the Cinetone influence has come from. These two shots are straight out of the two cameras with only a white balance done to them.
Chris Young
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
So true! Cine tone always reminded me of thos adding mojo days of 2/3” and 1/3”
looks great! great match
High1ander
Well-known member
I think quality stills and video is pretty neat combo that many will pay extra for (the dream for hybrid journalists, that do video segment and needs some good photos too). On my last gig I used my G2 Ursa at 4,6k and Sony A7R3 for some gimbal and stills, in other words: The Ursa wasn't enough.
