Canon R5 Announced with 8k

As you know, most companies are heavily motivated by money...and this HDMI reconsideration wouldn't be one of them. I'm sure you have great ideas but companies will not care, quite frankly, unless it's something that will make them more money.

3rd party manufactures (like you pointed out) make a variety of great accessories to make $20K-$30K-$40K-$50K cameras better...so there will always be something that needs to be "better".

And HDMI re-routing on mirrorless' may very well be one of them for some people, but it's a personalized request.

Personally, I don't have a problem with HDMI on any mirrorless. But you do. So who's right or wrong?
 
We all wish we could order a camera to be built how we imagine it.

Checklists and fill-in-the-blanks of what we want to see and where...that would be nice.
 
NorBro said:
but it's a personalized request.
Click to expand...
Personalized? What are you talking about? Every video person I talk to doesn't like that. I know you are bother less by it, but I am not sure you prefer it.
 
NorBro said:
We all wish we could order a camera to be built how we imagine it.

Checklists and fill-in-the-blanks of what we want to see and where...that would be nice.
Click to expand...

There are levels to that. There are things we wish for, like stable wireless video in camera, and there are things that are beyond obviously poor design choices that are cheap and tangible fixes.
 
There is an idea floating around, and it is that now more than ever, the idea of brands striving to be the best for their industry, rather than the best in their industry.

I know NorBro is just trying to be pragmatic. Even if Black Magic released a camera with better HDMI placement, he'd no doubt see the good in that, but based on his needs, not sure he'd buy a whole new camera based on that one feature upgrade. What I don't get is the resistance to ideas that are needed today, and solutions that are available. I can't even think of any stills photographers that would hate HDMI going to another place. Stills shooters can just leave it covered up. So, from a fincancial perspective, seems like they could get the hybdrid customer and the still shooter.

It is just funny to be on a video shooter forum, and getting shut down for recommending video centric improvements that are essentially the most basic and obvious.

DLD or Paul F, you guys have any car metaphors? I was in an Audi, and the plastic bit that holds the sun visor up broke off with no force, just broke off. I immediately justified that Audi probably had a good reason for it, and no one buys a car thinking about how durable the sun visor is. Companies have to make things that we have to upgrade all the time. Planet won't pollute itself. I mean look at the air quality in this shut down.
 
I totally support criticizing camera designs! That's why I love reading EOSHD - that's basically all that guy says: "this is good, now improve it!"

I will admit that they could probably put the HDMI in a better place for little to no cost to them.

While we're planning design improvements, I like your idea of the port hub on top with video outputs and audio inputs. It could swivel in all directions, and upwards as well. I would put the EVF in the upper left corner of the camera back and on an extendable rail so you can position it over the side of the camera. The viewfinder would swivel 90 degrees so you could look into it from the side, and upwards as well. And the whole rail assembly could swing around to the right side of the camera, in case you need to monitor from there. Who hasn't run into issues with trying to get the camera a bit further back/up/down/left/right?

Honestly, though, I like the z cam box design. I haven't used it, but it looks like a dream to mount on a gimbal. If the z cam e2-f6 had the reliability and brand status/client demand of the C300/FS7, I would gladly sell my other cameras and buy 3 of those. I could leave one rigged for gimbal, one rigged on my zacuto shoulder mount, and one rigged for tripod/slider/etc. I love modular designs, they just take time to build and reconfigure. I think that camera can even monitor to iOs in a pinch.

But I bet that camera companies are conservative with design changes because they could put in a lot of effort and screw something up for the user inadvertently. They're sticking with the devil they know because we continue to buy them.

PS if companies are striving to be the best FOR their industry right now, it's probably because they can't survive with their current share of the market, so it's time to wow the consumer and grow marketshare. Someone is going bust, or at least the camera division of a huge company (Canon and Sony make lots of other products, of course.) So I'm not sure we can count on this pace of innovation in the future.
 
James0b57 said:
... DLD or Paul F, you guys have any car metaphors? .
Click to expand...
Not sure if it's a metaphor or a historical reference but a basic market analysis suggests that the strongest connection to the price of a vehicle is its engine power. In the 1980's, the affordable compacts had a 50-60 HP engine, mid-size sedans 70-100, premium sedans 100-120, Silver Spur 220. It's the same way with the cameras, albeit in a cartel controlled market, where the horsepower is replaced by the pixel count. The high pixel count is better for photography but can work against video. In other words, for video, 4K-4.5K as ARRI has in Alexa LF is basically enough but the consumer grade models exceed it! In a car market, it'd be akin to Honda Civic R having more juice than a Ferrari. But the market is still driven by the pixel count and not the HDMI post location.

But there are side effects. The US muscle cars, such as the supercharged Ford Mustang GT500 and Dodge Challenger Hellcat, actually do have as much juice as a $300,000 Ferrari but they don't handle nearly as well. This is what happens with the high pixel count camera, there's excellent resolution in stills but there's rolling shutter in video. A common sense approach in a competitive market would be to offer "horses for courses" but this is a managed market, where the big boys have an absolute control over their lineup. Meantime, the smaller independents overpower on some specs but can't compete in mass production and the R&D funds. Both markets allow for Koenigsegg/ARRI but one can't compete with the Camry/R5 unless by default.

On that last point, as well as Red has done over the years, it's going to have a hard time selling $30,000 cameras when one can pick up FX-9, C500 MKII, C300 MKIII and get a similar performance for half the price and with a greater reliability. The similarity with the car market is this (heck, I've mentioned this before lots and lots of times) - the resolution is finite as is car's speed and acceleration. Samsung claims that the human vision is ~ 500 MPX but that's due to the field of view. The eye has a very difficult time discerning images over 15-20 MPX is stills and 4K in video. Once you get to 4K, the further returns are marginal at best. Which is why Alexa LF is perfectly suitable for the highest of production levels. Likewise, the updated Toyota Supra at ~ $52,000 will have a 382 HP engine and a 0-60 time of ~ 3.5s. That's basically the limit of anything but the well trained professional drivers on a track. Sure, 911 handles better but it costs three times as much.

PS. Hyundai is throwing its hat in the ring and should come out with a 390 HP hybrid Veloster and that should bring the 3.5s acceleration into a sub-$40,000 category. The updated Nissan Z might do the same in slightly over $40,000. And Hyundai Sonata will come out with a 295 HP Sonata for $35,000 and Genesis G70 for $42,000 (Genesis will have an electronic limited slip diff). Sure, you can spend double on a Mercedes or BMW but the improvements are marginal at best. Likewise, R5 will supposedly have a 45 MPX sensor for $3,500. R7MKIV is at 61. Who then needs a $20,000-$40,000 medium format model with 100 MPX. The improvements will remain marginal but the prices exponential. And that's where things unravel and grind to a halt.
 
Last edited:
I’m having flashbacks.

HDMI port location debate 101.

It can go on the left or the right.

It can’t go on the bottom because you generally stick accessories there like battery grips and tripods that will foul.

It can’t go on the top because the cable strain on the port is increased on what is already a rubbish format, and it’s going to foul on operational controls like the dials and screens you want to monitor while shooting.

It can’t go out the back because that’s where your face goes or maybe a screen.

So it goes out the left or the right.

If it goes out the right then you can’t hand hold the damn camera.

So guess what. The least annoying least inconvenient place is the camera left side.

Really they shouldn’t be using HDMI at all it’s a consumer connector designed to only do a few hundred cycles.

Let’s not forget the way ONE thinks a camera should work isn’t the way OTHERS work with a camera. The vehement absolute totality of my way or the highway seems misplaced.

If we’re taking about Canon there are far worse sins they’ve long been committing. I don’t think the HDMI port position is one of them and I don’t think you’ll find consensus on it being a big fail as it is.
 
49824423601_06f2a04e54_n.jpg


49824441571_2ef1f13176_n.jpg


49824778737_b2cdee9356_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
John Brawley said:
HDMI port location debate 101.

It can go on the left or the right.
Click to expand...

I think you're saying that strictly for mirrorless bodies, but of course on C500mk2 etc it comes out rear diagonal. On z cam it comes right out the back.

Coming out laterally from the top center seems plausible to me. But honestly, coming out from the left is not a problem for how I use the camera.
 
It's a mirrorless-related only debate (not much of a debate) otherwise there's no argument, no conversation. If it's another classification of a camera then all bets are off; do whatever you want. Put 10 of them all around the camera, doesn't matter because it's not a stills camera body that's designed to be operated like a stills camera body.

But stills camera bodies are the exception and really have no ideal location based on how they are designed to be used for the majority of people that use them.

We also have no idea what the insides look like of any of these cameras; the boards, the wires, the arrangements of parts, the assembly. It's easy to demand convenience, but not always logical.

Z Cam's placement was an oversight too because you have to unplug the HDMI every time you take out a bigger battery from the back since it's directly over the battery and the battery needs to go up to unlock. And it can't go up if the HDMI is plugged in.

As I said it, as John said it, and as millions of people around the world would say it too; you'd be hard-pressed to find many who care about the HDMI port on their stills camera design.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
As I said it, as John said it, and as millions of people around the world would say it to...you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who care about the HDMI port in their stills design camera.
Click to expand...

But you won't be hard pressed to find video professionals and hobbyists that want a small ergonomic video camera with better SDI or HDMI placement for video. This is a video forum.
 
I absolutely agree...so then the conversation should be to build a camera that's dedicated for video professionals.
 
Right, but the pocket 4k has HDMI out the left as well and it's a dedicated video camera (albeit a cheap one). The S1H also has HDMI out the left.

Personally, I would love it if Canon built a mirrorless-sized body SOLELY for video use, but I don't see it happening. (Perhaps we can count the Canon ME-200S-SH multi-purpose camera which is a 4.5" cube and has HDMI/SDI ports on the back.)

I think James' point was just that the design irks him, for his purposes it could be improved, and wouldn't that benefit us all and sell more units to video people.
 
ahalpert said:
Right, but the pocket 4k has HDMI out the left as well and it's a dedicated video camera (albeit a cheap one).

Personally, I would love it if Canon built a mirrorless-sized body SOLELY for video use, but I don't see it happening. (Perhaps we can count the Canon ME-200S-SH multi-purpose camera which is a 4.5" cube and has HDMI/SDI ports on the back.)

I think James' point was just that the design irks him, for his purposes it could be improved, and wouldn't that benefit us all and sell more units to video people.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top