Canon EOS RP SPecs are out - possibly?

That is so very not a reason, at all - especially when the cameras sell anyway.

As it is, this is a worthless bitchfest that serves nobody and nothing, but I guess that's what this forum is for - I remember these same kind of silly threads driving me away the last time I spent much time here too, it's all much too familiar :(
 
Last edited:
It's the EXACT reason.

And the conversation is worthless, but you (anyone) needs to know if you say that.

"Because it's a stills camera" is not a valid excuse anymore...truly, it's not. It's 2019 and we have so many really great STILLS cameras with awesome video features for $1,000-$2000, $2500-ish that I just cannot accept this reasoning anymore.

And I am not asking Canon for a C200 for $1,299. No RAW. No 10-bit. No IBIS. No crazy low-light. Not even C-Log.

But these other meticulous omissions product after product are just so infuriating.
 
lol NorBro (was that the biggest font? You could have gone further if you'd used Comic Sans (every art director's favorite font ;) )).

nothing- it's all good man, people love drama, and for this forum, it's good drama! Happens with every single Canon release (and to a lesser extent other cameras), right?


Kinda like mainstream news- what gets more attention, positive or negative news? I think the whole thing is entertaining. Also super happy I sold the "cinema camera" C300 II: the DLSR 1DX II has a better image plus does 4K60 vs. the C300 II inferior color and detail and was $10,000 more (when both launched). Sure, the C300 II is better for full time professional camera operators (more DR, NDs, > 8-bit, easier to edit codecs), focused on pure image quality and color. Plus the DSLR can shoot stills- super important for many of us.

For those invested in Canon glass- the 5D3 (when AF not needed), 5D4, 80D, (for some even the 6D2), EOS R, and 1DX II provide an acceptable solution for both stills and video.

For full frame (mostly)non-crippled 4K there's only Sony A7x III and Nikon Zx (latest cameras. A7S II still super popular (not True 4K though)). Sony's have a bit better detail, Nikons a bit better skintones.

With the mythical Sony A7S III looking to be released in 2049, the only camera on the horizon that looks marginally interesting is the A7 III with the new AI AF update in April (to replace the 80D. 1DX II would remain primary stills camera).
 
My preference would be for the camera manufacturers to completely strip video out of their photo cameras. As a person who regularly does audio as a freelancer, there is nothing I find more exasperating than discovering that a shoot is going to be using photo cameras.
 
cpreston said:
My preference would be for the camera manufacturers to completely strip video out of their photo cameras. As a person who regularly does audio as a freelancer, there is nothing I find more exasperating than discovering that a shoot is going to be using photo cameras.
Click to expand...

Audio folks complained, "I can't believe you raw-dogged a CMIT5U directly into the C300 II" (also committed this infraction with the CMC641). Sound quality was acceptable and there's a case to be made for simplicity. Now that I'm no longer using the C300 II as our A camera, I had to wire up a Zoom F4 (was going to replace with a MixPre6- reviews of too many issues prevented that action) into the 1DX II (new A camera). The 1DX II has line-level input and after adjusting gain stages appropriately, I was blown away in post after hearing the improvement in quality (CMC641). Someone else was using the editing machine and I heard the talent's voice- thought it was live at first (Scarlett 2i2 into 501a Tannoy monitors)! While I now agree that the C300 II preamps weren't that great (adequate), I still would have used that setup for what we shoot to keep things simple.

As a sound guy is your issue that the non-cinema cameras don't have timecode, since you're likely recording separate audio? I also get good results running G3's into DSLRs (rarely do separate audio for what we do (IIRC last time was using the Ambeo ambisonic 3D mic into the F4 (needs 4 channels)- AFAIK no cinema camera has 4 XLR inputs).

I've owned two professional/cinema cameras, the Sony FS700 and the Canon C300 Mark II. Neither camera produced better quality than the DSLRs of their time. Right now the C300 II is vastly outclassed by many DLSRs/mirrorless, even the $1400 Fuji X-T3, in image quality. For professional-group and broadcast shoots (or required codec formats), the C300 II is still the more appropriate (and even allowed) tool. For smaller productions, OMB, single shooter, DSLR/mirrorless provide superior quality and value. Ask Dan (puredrifting) how the video + sound quality of his X-T3 along with a MixPre looks and sounds compared to his C200 cinema camera.
 
I trashed the a6400 when it came out but then was awed by the new AF. I doubt that's going to happen with this Canon, though: it seems purposely underpowered.
 
It's funny, over on the Fuji X-T3 Facebook page I have joined, which is mostly still oriiented hobbysists, the general sentiment is that the EOS RP is set to completely take over the world and nothing can touch it it's so impressive.
For us, it's very hobbled but for stills, people think it's the second coming. Good example of perspective shift. This camera just re-inforces that I thnk video cameras are just a hobby for Canon, they are really a stills company
that happens to make a few video cameras, they are not a video company at all.
 
puredrifting said:
It's funny, over on the Fuji X-T3 Facebook page I have joined, which is mostly still oriiented hobbysists, the general sentiment is that the EOS RP is set to completely take over the world and nothing can touch it it's so impressive.
For us, it's very hobbled but for stills, people think it's the second coming. Good example of perspective shift. This camera just re-inforces that I thnk video cameras are just a hobby for Canon, they are really a stills company
that happens to make a few video cameras, they are not a video company at all.
Click to expand...

And a lens company. I don't know the exact market share of Fujinon vs. Canon, but it's gonna be one or the other on a live broadcast video camera...
 
Run&Gun said:
The "nat mic" sitting on my F55 is a Sanken CS-M1...
Click to expand...

Sanken's are pretty sweet too. I frequently committed talent mic shots on camera infractions (when a few feet away). On a recent shoot I would have gotten better audio with mic on camera: live event, talent thought wireless mic was for a PA, and when (yelling) into it and finding nothing happened, started waving it around like a baton while talking lol (someone finally told them it was for the camera). The footage was surprisingly usable after fixing in post with Audition's audio leveler (edited straight from PP CC- that was handy).

Since these cameras have 2 channels, mid-side shotguns would get the most of nat sound with mic on camera, e.g. Audio Technica BP4029 (also good for POV/verite- has a certain 3D element to it). On the high end (Schoeps level), need to use two mics: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1390411-REG/schoeps_minicmit_m_s_set_ccm_8.html (or if needing 5.1 etc. double mid-side (needs 3 channels though): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1390413-REG/schoeps_minicmit_dms_set_ccm_4_8.html ).
 
jcs said:
Audio folks complained, "I can't believe you raw-dogged a CMIT5U directly into the C300 II" (also committed this infraction with the CMC641). Sound quality was acceptable and there's a case to be made for simplicity. Now that I'm no longer using the C300 II as our A camera, I had to wire up a Zoom F4 (was going to replace with a MixPre6- reviews of too many issues prevented that action) into the 1DX II (new A camera). The 1DX II has line-level input and after adjusting gain stages appropriately, I was blown away in post after hearing the improvement in quality (CMC641). Someone else was using the editing machine and I heard the talent's voice- thought it was live at first (Scarlett 2i2 into 501a Tannoy monitors)! While I now agree that the C300 II preamps weren't that great (adequate), I still would have used that setup for what we shoot to keep things simple.

As a sound guy is your issue that the non-cinema cameras don't have timecode, since you're likely recording separate audio? I also get good results running G3's into DSLRs (rarely do separate audio for what we do (IIRC last time was using the Ambeo ambisonic 3D mic into the F4 (needs 4 channels)- AFAIK no cinema camera has 4 XLR inputs).

I've owned two professional/cinema cameras, the Sony FS700 and the Canon C300 Mark II. Neither camera produced better quality than the DSLRs of their time. Right now the C300 II is vastly outclassed by many DLSRs/mirrorless, even the $1400 Fuji X-T3, in image quality. For professional-group and broadcast shoots (or required codec formats), the C300 II is still the more appropriate (and even allowed) tool. For smaller productions, OMB, single shooter, DSLR/mirrorless provide superior quality and value. Ask Dan (puredrifting) how the video + sound quality of his X-T3 along with a MixPre looks and sounds compared to his C200 cinema camera.
Click to expand...

The problem is that I expect to show up on set and either attach a wireless hop or a break away cable to the camera. I also want to be able to jam sync although I understand that many editors don't mind just syncing with a decent quality audio track. With a camera with a single 1/8" audio input and very few places to attach a receiver, I'm spending a bunch of time working around the self imposed limitations of the camera choice. Or not running audio to camera and explaining to the producer why they screwed their editor.

I also carry around a Sanken M/S mic for an on camera mic. It sounds good enough, it's light, and I can unplug the side channel to add a wireless hop. If I actually care, I will put on the CMIT-5u since it sounds even better and it is really light. I'm not sure why anybody would ever give you grief for using a CMIT-5u. I would give you grief for the 641 since it is such a heavy mic, has wind issues, and would pick up way too much handling noise and camera sounds.
 
cpreston said:
The problem is that I expect to show up on set and either attach a wireless hop or a break away cable to the camera. I also want to be able to jam sync although I understand that many editors don't mind just syncing with a decent quality audio track. With a camera with a single 1/8" audio input and very few places to attach a receiver, I'm spending a bunch of time working around the self imposed limitations of the camera choice. Or not running audio to camera and explaining to the producer why they screwed their editor.

I also carry around a Sanken M/S mic for an on camera mic. It sounds good enough, it's light, and I can unplug the side channel to add a wireless hop. If I actually care, I will put on the CMIT-5u since it sounds even better and it is really light. I'm not sure why anybody would ever give you grief for using a CMIT-5u. I would give you grief for the 641 since it is such a heavy mic, has wind issues, and would pick up way too much handling noise and camera sounds.
Click to expand...

We work mostly out of my home studio and I take care of all production tasks. Every now and then I'll help with a shoot on location or in a film studio in or near Hollywood / Beverly Hills; my primary work is software development and/or consulting/management. From the point of view of a sound guy, camera operator, and director/manager, why are you not coordinating with the director and camera operator before the shoot? Any issues should be addressed before the shoot, right? I've seen plenty of disasters on set/location and it's typically the result of lack of experience and/or bad management (which in some cases is also lack of experience- but not always, lol). The point being you can use any camera, audio system, lighting system etc. as long as everyone communicates and plans ahead (provided everyone is experienced enough to not make promises they can't keep (such device compatibility and/or capability)).

I found the AT BP4029 good enough for YouTube level work, but not for anything higher end (figure 8 mic too noisy). How's the quality of the Sanken- is it the CMS-10? It appears to be about 1/2 the cost of the Schoeps mid-side solution with two mics.

As for the raw dog comment for the CMIT5U- I think their point was that the camera preamps aren't worthy for such a high end mic. After using the Zoom F4 into the 1DX II, I must say I now see their point. The quality is noticeably higher vs. the C300 II mic preamps. I've recorded at my desk with all my mics through the Sound Devices USBPre2 and also compared with the Zoom F4 in the same location. While the SD sounds fuller/better (and has much better analog limiters) vs. the F4, both are usable for high end recording with Schoeps level mics (F4 must be more careful to not clip). I never bothered to hook either preamp up into the C300 II since it sounded OK and no one made any comments about quality. I've never used the CMC641 on camera- it was hooked directly to the C300 II through a fairly long Mogami studio cable while mounted to a boom.
 
I think the C300 II preamps are more than adequate. I've found that they have quite bit more headroom than the Sony preamps. The Canon preamps start to get noticeably hissy above a setting of eight, though.

Except on the rare occasions where I am trying to get nat sound while getting handheld b-roll. I never run a mic directly into the camera and use the mic level preamp. I always run the mic either through a dedicated preamp with either a wireless or wired line level feed to the camera. I want the limiters and fader control of the preamp. Your zoom f4 would sound at least as good into the C300 as it does into your 1DX.

I misstated regarding my M/S mic. I have the AT mic as well. Not the Sanken, although I have been eyeing it for awhile. My understanding is that all of the M/S shotguns have a relatively noisy side channel just due to the design limitations. This makes it fine for nat sound in a live environment, but not any good for ambient noise in a nature environment. If you want to get nature sounds, you are forced to get something like the Schoeps figure eight/ cardioid set-up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top