Canon R5 Announced with 8k

The papers only matter in providing you a corporate write-up about technology.

Do you personally think every camera is worth what it costs and what it claims to do or be?

Start reevaluating and rethinking ASAP if so. lol (I know they teach critical thinking in the IVY leagues.)

___

And, yes; there is no comparison of CRL and REDCODE RAW.

REDCODE RAW destroys it. It's not even a conversation. (Coming from someone who doesn't use RED cameras anymore nor will I ever buy one again.)
 
Haha ouch! I don't agree with everything you said, but I agree that all that matters at the end of the day is a performance evaluation, regardless of what specs the company reports.

I'm not arguing the R5 will have the best RAW implementation in town, just that it may be adequate for my needs. I'm pretty happy with the 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 150mbps long-GOP codec on my S1. I can work with it. But there are situations where the bit depth is inadequate for what I want to do. The 12-bit LOG codec plus the price point of the R5, plus good AF that works with my lenses, plus the FF 4K slow motion capabilities plus 8K may be enough to move me to purchase it. Many of these options I will not use often, but it's a lot of tools to have in your swiss army knife.

I would probably not need to upgrade my R5 or my FS7 for years (unless my corporate/doc clients stop taking the FS7). The R5 could be great for b-roll, commercial, MV, narrative, etc.

I would have bought the pocket 6K already if it had an RF sensor so I could speedboat my EF lenses and bring back the full FOV (I know lucadapters makes one but I don't think it's cheap and I dont know much about it). The reliability of the pocket 6k is also a real deal-breaker for me.
 
ahalpert said:
BUT Canon cameras do have very fine still photos. It's not as if the sensors are incapable. So much quality is lost in the video processing.
Click to expand...

The half-assed approach to video Canon's been adopting probably had a lot to do with that.

AND white papers DO matter in the sense that every camera you referenced has some tech specs advantages. ARRI with dual gain output from high-bit depth ADCs. RED with 16-bit RAW. Blackmagic with high dynamic range sensor choices + minimally compressed codecs and 12-bit RAW capture.
Click to expand...

As far as the final look of the image, that all probably amounts to around 10%. The other 90% comes down to lighting, art direction, lens choice, and color grading.
 
ahalpert said:
Therefore we anticipate that the R5 can shoot 30fps 12-bit LOG 8K RAW video? Seems like a viable competitor to the BMPCC6K for RAW recording, no? Is there something I'm missing, JB?
Click to expand...

I haven't shot Canon's version of RAW.

But it seems to me it's a pain. I started to download some files, and then I realised I can't open them in anything BUT canon's own software that then turns it into something else. What's the point of that. Stupid stratified and proprietary decisions like this are what holds these guys back.

I'm actually not a huge fan of the 6K. I do use the 4K on occasion, but I much prefer the dynamic range and much shorter rolling shutter of the G2 over the pocket cameras. They have their place for sure, but they don't cut as well with my main camera as a G2 will. So I most of the time use the G2 for the offbeat work.

If I really need small then a 4K Pocket (because it's MFT so I can put almost anything on it and I don't care much about resolution)

I can only imagine "wanting" this camera maybe for AF or some specific shot....but most of the time, the workflow and image is going to better from other options. Never say never ! I'll happily test it onw day if all you lot say it's good....but I'm not expecting much :-)

JB
 
NorBro said:
Here's the lesson I learned in my late 20s after blowing a small fortune on chasing cameras:

It doesn't matter what the white papers say.
Click to expand...

PREACH !!

You have to find out for yourself and dont believe a word anyone tells you ! Even the manufactures I have a working relationship with, my friends that build cameras ! I still go out and find out for myself !!

It's the only way to really know.

JB
 
John Brawley said:
PREACH !!

You have to find out for yourself and dont believe a word anyone tells you ! Even the manufactures I have a working relationship with, my friends that build cameras ! I still go out and find out for myself !!

It's the only way to really know.

JB
Click to expand...

haha, for sure.

P.S. I've been wanting to tell you for like the past 4 years that we share a birthday...maybe a good time now, lol.
 
John Brawley said:
But it seems to me it's a pain. I started to download some files, and then I realised I can't open them in anything BUT canon's own software that then turns it into something else. What's the point of that. Stupid stratified and proprietary decisions like this are what holds these guys back.
Click to expand...

Seriously? They're THAT closed? No SDK, nothing like that? What the hell are they thinking?

Sigh. Oh well... their loss.
 
Tamerlin said:
As far as the final look of the image, that all probably amounts to around 10%. The other 90% comes down to lighting, art direction, lens choice, and color grading.
Click to expand...

That may be so, but then what's the point of debating camera performance at all? I want to get the most beautiful, versatile, forgiving, and marketable camera in my price range.
 
John Brawley said:
I haven't shot Canon's version of RAW.

But it seems to me it's a pain. I started to download some files, and then I realised I can't open them in anything BUT canon's own software that then turns it into something else. What's the point of that. Stupid stratified and proprietary decisions like this are what holds these guys back.

I'm actually not a huge fan of the 6K. I do use the 4K on occasion, but I much prefer the dynamic range and much shorter rolling shutter of the G2 over the pocket cameras. They have their place for sure, but they don't cut as well with my main camera as a G2 will. So I most of the time use the G2 for the offbeat work.

If I really need small then a 4K Pocket (because it's MFT so I can put almost anything on it and I don't care much about resolution)

I can only imagine "wanting" this camera maybe for AF or some specific shot....but most of the time, the workflow and image is going to better from other options. Never say never ! I'll happily test it onw day if all you lot say it's good....but I'm not expecting much :-)

JB
Click to expand...

I will download some test CRL footage and try it in FCPX. Maybe the workflow has improved.

The UMP G2 seems really nice to me. My problems with it are:

1. Reliability
2. Cost getting high for a camera I can't market like an FS7
3. Wont go on Ronin-S
4. Can't speedboost the edges of my FF EF lenses back into the frame and gain a stop of exposure

No need to lecture me on the disadvantages of gimbals or stills lenses. They're the tools I have and they serve me well. If a new camera doesn't play well with the toys I already have, the cost will be much higher than the body alone.
 
You can open CRL in FCP X but originally you had to use Canon's software. The last time I checked, you still had to use that software to make some minor changes (like WB, codec conversion, etc). Nothing like R3D support or CDNG/BRAW in Resolve for those users. (I don't know much about the Premiere world.)

That was my biggest problem in the beginning. I was very excited to hear about the C200 and CRL in 2017, and then they release this format that can't even be manipulated in a traditional RAW workflow manner (at least with FCP X which may be Apple's fault too).

IMO, RAW video should be like RAW stills and you should have access to all of the same great parameters you have in photo software like Photoshop, Lightroom, etc in one window/page/layout.

Although I did use Resolve (back when it looked and functioned nothing like it does today), my favorite RAW workflow is RED's and how it's implemented in the inspector in FCPX.

Just a nice little window with a variety of controls that can have a major impact on the look of the footage, especially if they are all used together. Very simple for basic "painting" and for those whom do not have the time or desire for advanced color grading.

(At the end of the day, you can essentially do the same thing with CRL from scratch in various ways, but it's more time, more controls, windows, clicking...things I wanted to do in seconds in one window.)
 
To be honest, I started down this rabbit hole today reading people on the FX9 thread complaining about how it lacks internal RAW. That got me thinking of the advantages of the new cinema eos cameras.

But the C500mk2 is very expensive from my point of view. It's too big to mount on the Ronin-S with a broad range of lenses, and it lacks some features of the c300mk3.

The C300mk3 is still expensive, but very marketable. But it's not full-frame and still can't go on my gimbal.

The R5 ticks all those boxes but marketability. But maybe that's ok because it's not that expensive and might still kick ass. The big question is if the IQ lives up to the spec sheet.

The Komodo may have even better IQ, but the cost of ownership is higher and the reliability is unknown. Also, the global shutter may cripple its dynamic range. But the R5 may have unusably slow rolling shutter.

So here's hoping that the R5 delivers. In any case, it's more fun to fantasize about new cameras than to confront the grim reality that neither me nor my business may survive a pandemic.
 
John Brawley said:
PREACH !!

You have to find out for yourself and dont believe a word anyone tells you ! Even the manufactures I have a working relationship with, my friends that build cameras ! I still go out and find out for myself !!

It's the only way to really know.

JB
Click to expand...

Yep!

Which is why I say you can't "trust" on-line tests and videos of cameras, lights or lenses. There are just too many variables today. Did they shoot log, RAW or baked-in? Does the person know how to grade an image? Or did they use a million dollar grading suite with a "Hollywood" colorist? Did they WB or expose properly if it's baked-in? Or use/create a scene file worth a darn? Did they REALLY hit focus? Etc, etc.

Test the camera how YOU would/will use it. Test the lights with YOUR camera or camera you will use. Test the lenses on YOUR camera or camera you will use.
 
ahalpert said:
No need to lecture me on the disadvantages of gimbals or stills lenses. They're the tools I have and they serve me well. If a new camera doesn't play well with the toys I already have, the cost will be much higher than the body alone.
Click to expand...

Hey everyone runs their own race. You asked me what I thought. That doesn’t have to apply to what you do in the world and how you make it work. Everyone should do their own thing and you’re in the best position to judge what’s best.

JB
 
John Brawley said:
Hey everyone runs their own race. You asked me what I thought. That doesn’t have to apply to what you do in the world and how you make it work. Everyone should do their own thing and you’re in the best position to judge what’s best.

JB
Click to expand...

Sorry, that may have come off as more defensive than I meant. My point was just that I'm not seeking a theoretically optimal solution but a practically optimal one.
 
OOC, does anyone with BMPCC4K experience have a preference for the maximum ISO they would use on a shot that they don't want to look obviously noisy to the audience when viewed on a large screen?

6400? 3200? Avoid high gain mode altogether?

Also, does anyone have solutions or workarounds for image artifacts? As I understand, the BMPCC4K will randomly foul shots but it's not clear if the problem is related to temperature or what.

I'm posing these questions because I calculate that the bitrate of 8K RAW from Canon must be in the neighborhood of 4gbps, no? Very unwieldy, especially if you don't need more than 4K.

Meanwhile, most of the shooting on it will be 10-bit 4:2:2 4K, so I might as well try to work with the 10-bit I already have on the S1. The S1 is a reliable low-light beast. All I gain from the R5 is AF, RAW and no-crop high-speed 4K. AF I can (mostly) live without and the RAW will be massive. No-crop 4K 60p would be cool, but still.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty good with 10,000 on the 6K. (I don't know about the 4K.)

People use it much higher though. (Images need to be graded crushing some of the noise.)

No workarounds and I regret getting it into your head! Don't worry about it...people all over the world are producing amazing images with it.

Again...look at the big picture and think about your overall work and if you could possibly edit around any potential artifacts. Obviously if you used the camera and it happened consistently and ruined many of your shots you'd never use it again, but I recommend letting go of the fear. Just don't use it on something that has one camera rolling and is very, very, very important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top