puredrifting
Major Contributor
Having shot both, the FS7 and FX9 are far apart in color science. Maybe if you shot SLog 3 and were a good colorist?
Canon R5 Announced with 8k
- Thread starter Ken1212
- Start date
Having shot both, the FS7 and FX9 are far apart in color science. Maybe if you shot SLog 3 and were a good colorist?
That would still classify it as defective under a "reasonable use" criteria.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Regardless of the outcome, this entire move is putting Canon into the same PR nightmare place that RED was in last year with the Jinnitech/RED media PR debacle. There is reality, then there is customer perception.
Canon's cripple hammer has long been complained about but as it becomes known that it was deliberately applied to the R5/6 simply to protect the upper line cameras, this will be terrible for Canon's public perception
and sales. Usually there are brilliant legal and marketing minds at work at a company like Canon, it's kind of amazing that together, they could have collectively failed so hard in 2020. This issue is frusrtating a lot
of people and that isn't good for Canon's business.
It's so sad too because other than the overheating issue, the R5/6 seem to be amazing cameras that make beautiful footage. They could have had a complete
industry dominator in the low end of the market, sold a ton more RF lenses.
Guess we still have the RF 300 class cameras to look forward to at some point?
Canon's cripple hammer has long been complained about but as it becomes known that it was deliberately applied to the R5/6 simply to protect the upper line cameras, this will be terrible for Canon's public perception
and sales. Usually there are brilliant legal and marketing minds at work at a company like Canon, it's kind of amazing that together, they could have collectively failed so hard in 2020. This issue is frusrtating a lot
of people and that isn't good for Canon's business.
It's so sad too because other than the overheating issue, the R5/6 seem to be amazing cameras that make beautiful footage. They could have had a complete
industry dominator in the low end of the market, sold a ton more RF lenses.
Guess we still have the RF 300 class cameras to look forward to at some point?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Have you heard of cinematch? Someone demo'd using it on the A7SIII to match to Alexa. I wonder if it could create painless matching between FS7 and FX9.
But it's certainly looking like the R5 matches super easily with the C500ii, and maybe c300iii?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
The thing is - their imagery is so pretty that people are willing to bend over backwards to try to make the cameras work.
Or you have folks like Liam who will just use the R5 as a B camera and not really mind the reduced resolution of the pixel-binned mode.
So while it's not the world-beater that it could have been, it will still be in demand among c-series camera owners, EF lens owners, people allergic to Sony's video look, and of course--photographers bigtime
Liam Hall
Veteran
I shot with my C500MKII and a C300MKIII as my B camera a few weeks ago, they matched seamlessly so there'll be no issue getting the R5 to match with the C300. I know a few people who are going the C300MKIII as A cam and the R5 (despite the temperature malarky) as a B cam. That's a great combo for less than the price of a C500MKII.
That was nothing. So Red used off-the-shelf components. BFD. So, they were getting huge markups on accessories. More BFD. Red, for a long time, delivered a very solid bang for the buck with their lineup of cameras. Everyone knew that their accessories were overpriced since there was no competition for them. Red still was a good buy, given their cameras performances.
Likewise, while nonsense like huge center-crops on Canon, lack of 10-bit codecs on Sony, lack of quality auto focus on Panasonic were clearly due to self-crippling, at least, the companies were upfront about it. In some occasions, stripping the high bit rate was highly unethical - C200, to take one - but still not criminal.
Destruction of the XT3 auto focus by the firmware upgrade was.
Limiting the recording times due to the nonexistent overheating issues is likewise criminal. Because it's theft.
John Brawley
Well-known member
I think they were very deceptive about it though and I do think that's a problem.
It's one thing to say, hey we certify third party media and re-purpose it. We're going to charge you a premium for that...compared to....z
They were effectively saying that there was other magic voodoo patent-able stuff happening that really wasn't and that it genuinely was made in the USA. And then pivoting to some pretty nasty name calling from RED themselves for want of a better phrase even though what he was saying was apparently correct.
Is it ? They tell you the limitation before you buy it. Whether the underlying hardware can or can't the choice is with you to buy in or not.
JB
Peter C.
Veteran
This thread could be summarized by peoples desire to buy this camera based on its specs but frustrated by video heat limitations. Whether it's Canon fault is subjective. I've worked at big companies and they have marketing/sales divisions that's sole responsibility is to increase sales and profit, not try to talk you out of purchasing it. They also use a universal tiered structure which higher end products have more desirable features. People on forums get illogical and emotional. I remember someone exasperated saying "Why doesn't Canon sell a camera with x, y, & z?" and I replied they do, its called the C500. His reply was, yeah but I want those feature in a sub $3k dslr. LOL. I can understand users wanting features but I also understand the manufactures charging as much as the market will allow for those features. This is called reality.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Yeah...not true anymore. Some lower-priced cameras have more desirable features than the $10K-$15K ones.
That's old ideology that doesn't apply as much as it used to back in the day (aka 5+ years ago).
Peter C.
Veteran
No it still applies and is the point of contention with the R5. Whether YOU can get away with using the camera for your very selective purposes doesn't represent what most video professionals would want/need in a camera. Technology and features improve and are available at a lower price but there is always tiered pricing structure.
Yes, Canon never told anyone about the recovery time. You shoot for 17 minutes in 8K, let it rest for 5, shoot for 17 more. That's hardly a problem. But a two hour long lockdown is indeed a problem.
"How long of a imposed lockdown is OK and how long is not OK?", one might ask. Well, if enough people decide to contest this, it will be decided in a court of law.
PS. Granted Red was quite obtuse about their "superior components" but that's still on the puffery edge. One could argue either way. What they did with their message boards as a reply was pretty pathetic but, obviously, not illegal.
PPS. I am not an Andrew Reid fan either. But he's on the right track here.
NorBro
Major Contributor
No. What you said above about price/features simply doesn't apply anymore as much as it used to.
With your logic, you'd mostly be paying for no overheating in the more expensive cameras (which is true), but the R5 has features or does things better than the C300 Mark III and C500 Mark II.
So more money doesn't always = a better product for everyone.
If Porsche offered a 911 with a 100 hp engine, the market would have a hearty laugh and wonder if there's an engine replacement option.
If Porsche says, "Don't drive this car over 35 MPH or it will explode", and then someone drives it over 35 MPH and the car does explode, there would be criminal charges against the company executives.
Peter C.
Veteran
If you've been following the camera industry in recent years you'd be aware of the on going heat issues with using mirrorless cameras to film video. Manufactures have dealt with it in different ways. Cropping the sensor, not allowing higher frame rates, limiting record time, etc. So in light of that it's not that surprising about the R5.
John Brawley
Well-known member
I’m not sure I follow.
Canon have declared that the camera can’t shoot continuously in certain modes. Isn’t that the end of the story ? It’s up to the potential buyers of that camera to decide.
And frankly, any car that you are warned not to drive above 35 or it will explode and indeed it does when someone does do that only has themselves to blame ?
I dislike artificial market stratification, but it’s been happening like this for years with the traditional players.
Well, I think that’s what the case he launched against RED is about. Slander...? Defamation ? Libel ?
As in, the operating management of RED, on the forum that RED promote as their way of directly communicating with RED management and support and being accessible to their user base, basically said he was a patent infringing thief ? Now if that’s not true that is the company making a defaming statement.
It does seem like his case against RED may stick as the shenanigans with trying change the ownership structure of Landmine media who also operate this board, sure makes it look like they’re worried he may have a case that stands up.
Again, I don’t begrudge Canon for being oblique with the feature stratification because they have more or less declared the limitation. I mean it also doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling either, but I’m also not their market. I think ethically, RED’s situation is a little different.
JB
Not necessarily. It's about the product liability disclosures, as I had posted earlier today/last night. If you got 911 and then busted it while offroading it across rocky terrain, then Porsche is pretty much in the clear. If you got a Jeep Renegade and busted it while doing the same, then you'd have a legitimate gripe with a manufacturer. A lot of this is assumed by the "reasonable use" doctrine.
In the case of R5, "reasonable use' would likely be interpreted against the two hour thermal shutdowns while five minute forced shutdowns might not. What will not work in Canon's favor at all is their failure to disclose the length of shutdowns in the brochure. They might argue that all the YouTubers did mention it but this would have to come from the company itself and not the third party testers.
PS. I mentioned draining the non-volatile memory on the camera to test whether or not it's a pure firmware problem. Here's what a poster CrazyRunner33 wrote on EOS HD a few hours ago.
PPS. I agree on Red insofar as the potential slander goes. But it's difficult to prove in the US, much easier in the UK and I have no idea about other jurisdictions.
With the difference being that R5 programming seems to defy the laws of physics.
Insofar as the overheating problems go, a few years ago, there was a case with C500's. Their prices were lowered significantly at the very end of their run and it became quite a buy. But it was not suitable for a documentary/interview type shooting due to the overheating. There was an external fan solution offered by a third party, which was out of stock at Abel Cine, IIRC, and then one of the forum members offered to mod anyone's C500 using an off the shelf fan for a few hundred dollars + parts.
In that case, no one had anything bad to say about Canon. The camera was limited by its technology and no one was surprised by that fact. The R5 situation is very different.