Canon R5 Announced with 8k

DLD said:
Knowing Canon's history, it's quite possible to have a C200 Part Deux, where the codec options are either Raw (or Raw Light) or a heavily compressed HEVC (8-bit XAVC on C200). Since the bit rates have not been announced so far, the above scenario seems almost guaranteed.
Click to expand...

It's confirmed R5 will have 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 HEVC (along with RAW and anything else thrown in there).
 
If the A7SIII has a better non-RAW video codec, that would make it an easy decision. But I'm not sure it will. It seems like Canon is battling for marketshare by pulling out the stops. And their RF lenses are expensive but not going anywhere without a successful body. And as NorBro mentions, they have confirmed 10-bit 4:2:2 (but not sure about the bitrate).

You guys were the 8K advocates - now it doesn't matter to you? Or is it still too distant to be useful now?
 
I think we both feel the same in that it's coming (it's here) because that's just how technology works; not because all people are necessarily asking for it.

Out with the old, in with the new.

New chips. People will get used to it and adapt (eventually)...and life goes on.
 
My feeling is that well-designed cameras can have a 10-year lifespan. (Or longer - people are still using the HVX200 or the F35.) The EX1 would still get a lot of play if it had 4K 60p. I bought an FS7 after the FX9 came out. The FX9 is definitely a superior camera, but the FS7 has the same codecs and my clients still want it.

So, a camera with 8K RAW could have longer legs than a camera with 4K HEVC. Media and storage will only get cheaper while computers become more capable. Maybe the 8K RAW will be a piece of cake to work with in 5-10 years. Come for the 4K, stay for the 8K? Or will there be technological developments that render a 2020 camera functionally obsolete? Seems like diminishing returns in terms of extra DR, faster readout speed... (If the readout speed is good enough for my purposes now, it will always be good enough. If it's not, I won't buy it in the first place.)
 
It goes back to those individual situations I mentioned...

Some people make millions of dollars on YouTube using 1080p cameras.

Your clients may want the FS7, but my clients don't get to decide which camera I use. The only "clients" that would get to decide for me personally are ones with $50K-$100K contracts ready to go.

It's like...you have a FS7 and a S1, do you think another camera will make you more money? Or will it just make your job easier/more fun?

Maybe both, but at the end of the day you're planning for longer legs in a market that may not exist. Especially for a stills camera that shoots video.

A Komodo would be a better investment - at least for the short term - if you're looking for a name that could carry weight.

That's one of the main reasons why people invest in RED cameras.
 
What you're saying makes sense, but there's another question of product quality. I wouldn't/couldn't (though I'd like to) use an R5/A7S3/S1/BMPCC6K/Komodo in place of an FS7. It's not what they ask for, it doesn't look like a video camera, it doesn't have built-in XLRs, etc. (The clients I have who ask for an FS7 are typically corporate production companies or businesses like Christie's who own an FS7 and want it to match. Or docs who have shot already on FS7 and want a match. Basically, I have clients who care what camera I use and clients who don't.)

But for the work where I get to choose my camera or where a DSLR is acceptable, there are feature upgrades that would improve the quality of my product. Namely, good AF (for those situations where I'm tracking someone with shallow DOF or tracking in on an object and quickly approaching the MFD) or RAW/12-bit for high-contrast situations or narrative/commercial shooting with adequate post-production resources. Yes, maybe a Komodo would be a better option for making $ in this regard because it can do RAW and has a desirable brand name. But no continuous AF, and I mostly just want the best performance that comes with a certain feature-set. (That being said, I'm not immune to considerations like whether or not I can market this little body as a B cam to an FS7 or an eventual C300mk3.)
 
I was renting an FS7 or C300mk2 when necessary until I bought an FS7.

I bet you millions of people will be rocking either a C300mk3/R5 or an FX9/A7S3 combo...
 
No doubt about it...but only if they are in the position for people to really pay them for it.

No one is purchasing $15K-$20K+ worth of cameras (nothing else included yet) to make an entry-level salary. At least I hope not.
 
Well, that goes without saying, no? For entry-level rates, one will purchase only the R5 or A7S3 I imagine
 
If you ever want to study the market (not during these current times), post gig listings on CL all over the country and see what people are willing to work for with their REDs and ARRIs.

Over the years, I've seen a lot of camera selling on REDuser when people found out they actually have to look for the work after they buy the camera.
 
Yes, clients aren't paying for the camera, they're paying for the skills of the operator (unless you're working for free). I wouldn't buy an FX9 or a C300mk3 unless I had proof positive of client demand. (I quizzed a corporate production client on his interest in the FX9 and he told me he didn't know it well and still preferred the FS7. That told me that the FS7 would continue to work until later this year at a bare minimum.)

The S1 was a camera for me that was cheap enough that it didn't need to earn an extra rental fee. It was enough that it lets me shoot in darkness and handle those doc/events situations I was struggling with.
 
They used to pay for the cameras...that was a big part of the entire business. You'd take out a second mortgage and buy a $60K Betacam because you'd know all of your clients would pay a grand or whatever as a rental fee on top of paying for your "skills".

People still try to get away with it today.

I'm bouncing around with the posts...but with the one above, I just meant that people get cameras when maybe they had work lined up at one point but then it dried up. And then they are forced to work for lower rates to not only make any money they can but also because of the overall competition and industry changes.
 
Oh aha. Yes, clients will pay for cameras - I just meant that you shouldn't expect that people will hire you just because you own an Alexa Mini (except maybe as an AC).

Someone said that some other dvxusers were getting $500 rental fees on the C300mk1 just last year. I never got that much of a kit fee for that camera alone (which I bought used in 2015) which made me wonder if I'm a worse negotiator or if it's that NYC is a saturated market with less owner/op bargaining power.
 
ahalpert said:
Oh aha. Yes, clients will pay for cameras - I just meant that you shouldn't expect that people will hire you just because you own an Alexa Mini (except maybe as an AC).

Someone said that some other dvxusers were getting $500 rental fees on the C300mk1 just last year. I never got that much of a kit fee for that camera alone (which I bought used in 2015) which made me wonder if I'm a worse negotiator or if it's that NYC is a saturated market with less owner/op bargaining power.
Click to expand...


It all depends on the area, the market being served(TV, corporate, etc.) and the individual client. In my over two decades experience, the low-ball calls generally come from NY and CA. Because those markets are heavily over-saturated and people will knee-cap their own mothers for work and clients are able to name their own price.

And yes, owning a certain camera can get you calls that you may not have gotten otherwise. Same for certain pieces of other gear, too. When I bought my original C300, I immediately started putting it out there that I had it. Started getting calls and extra work because of it. Same thing with my F55. And 17-120. These weren’t willy-nilly purchases and I was buying them anyway, but they did bring in extra calls/rentals/work JUST because I had them.
 
Right but you had the skills to match, I assume. I meant you're not going to get hired with a camera but no experience. Interesting what you say about NY/LA
 
Yep...have had producers say, "But in LA, our shooters show up with (names insane list of cameras and gear) all in for $400/day!"
 
The latest rumors indeed suggest that the A7S3 will be more video-oriented in design than the R5, with a thicker body and a cooling vent. And supposedly it will do 4K120p and no 8K. I do wish it would have internal RAW though - I mean, you Pocket 6K users are the ones who rave about shooting BRAW! But I don't think Sony has any internal RAW on any camera, so I won't hold my breath.
 
NorBro said:
It's confirmed R5 will have 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 HEVC (along with RAW and anything else thrown in there).
Click to expand...

(oops, the dog ate my homework ... i.e., DVXU doesn't save the text in the post)

Anyway, the bit rate isn't specified, which means that it could discard a lot of info to achieve a "manageable file size". Or, as some may opine, adhere to the cartel rules. Or even own rules, so to protect 1DX III. So, a lower bit rate in 8K - say, under 200 Mbps - might take it out of the consideration for many visavis a 6K A7SIII with a similar or higher bit rate.

For reference, Samsung Ultra records 8K at 600 MB/min but Red Raw (at ? compression) is 7 TB/hr.

PS. Today, S1H was supposed to receive that long promised ProRez Raw upgrade to Atomos Ninja V. Oops. Dog ate their homework.
 
Nah the 8K RAW bitrate will be 1 or 2 Gbps - look at their bitrates elsewhere. Plus, I think it's really marketed to photographers who want to achieve something like the quality they're getting in their stills for short video clips
 
Canon Raw Light (a 3/5X compression) is 1 Gbps or ~ 512 GB per hour in 4K on C200. So, 8K would be roughly 1.5-1.7 TB/hr in CRL. Which can be 5-7 TB/hr, if there is no CRL, as the early announcements indicate.

CFexpress cards currently run ~ $900-$1,200/TB. On C200, early "off-brand" CFast 2.0 prices made it manageable in relation to the camera's own price tag. In R5 case, the uncompressed 8K Raw may only be financially feasible in a couple of years time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top