Canon R5 Announced with 8k
- Thread starter Ken1212
- Start date
So, spinning inside the same circle again, how many photographers need 8K video at this moment and how much extra are they willing to pay for it?
I'd say, most portrait/landscape/interiors photogs would rather have a higher pixel count of A7RIV, which also has a pixel shifting 240MPX mode. And you still get 4K video, albeit in 8-bit.
And, presuming that 4K suffices, how does R5 get there? Oversampling or line-skipping? Or would shooting in 8K make the 4K deliverable easier? And what is the workflow in post like?
Et cetera, et cetera.
I'd say, most portrait/landscape/interiors photogs would rather have a higher pixel count of A7RIV, which also has a pixel shifting 240MPX mode. And you still get 4K video, albeit in 8-bit.
And, presuming that 4K suffices, how does R5 get there? Oversampling or line-skipping? Or would shooting in 8K make the 4K deliverable easier? And what is the workflow in post like?
Et cetera, et cetera.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I don't think photographers necessarily need 8K (although it might help if they're handing it off for a pro video editor to retouch - or it might be helpful for cropping - these shooters haven't worked with 8MP for a long time)
I think they're more interested in RAW and higher bit-depth. They don't want to flip the switch from stills to video and then say, "why does my image suck now? Where did my highlights go? This video quality pales in comparison with the still I just took."
Nikon always figured photogs would use the Ninja V to up the quality of their video and record RAW from the Z series.
Whether or not photographers take the bait is another question. But I think that snappers who are used to the latitude and flexibility of 14-bit RAW have a hard time operating within the limitations of 8-bit essentially JPEGs (even if they're flat LOG files), especially if they're switching back and forth in the same shoot.
I shoot photos secondarily to video, so this argument doesn't apply to me. I'm just trying to grasp Canon's logic and marketing strategy
I think they're more interested in RAW and higher bit-depth. They don't want to flip the switch from stills to video and then say, "why does my image suck now? Where did my highlights go? This video quality pales in comparison with the still I just took."
Nikon always figured photogs would use the Ninja V to up the quality of their video and record RAW from the Z series.
Whether or not photographers take the bait is another question. But I think that snappers who are used to the latitude and flexibility of 14-bit RAW have a hard time operating within the limitations of 8-bit essentially JPEGs (even if they're flat LOG files), especially if they're switching back and forth in the same shoot.
I shoot photos secondarily to video, so this argument doesn't apply to me. I'm just trying to grasp Canon's logic and marketing strategy
NorBro
Major Contributor
Besides flexing some muscle because they always could and should, Canon's logic and marketing strategy is simple; 8K is a power word. People are immediately drawn to learn more.
With that said, we also have to take a step back and realize all Ks aren't created equally. Technically, the C300 Mark II is a 4K camera but it's extremely lackluster compared to other 4K cameras. I would go as far as saying there is visually zero difference between its HD and its 4K (IMO).
On a PowerPoint slide, the R5 may be 8K but we have no idea how it will look.
Even Blackmagic's 1080p can keep many 4K cameras on the shelf.
As far as photographers, I think the only ones who will care are the ones on YouTube. If you/anyone ever work any real high-end professional events, most of those people are using 5-6 year old cameras. Of course many will upgrade, but for many it's also nothing more than another gimmick that they have witnessed before.
Personally, I don't think 8K is a gimmick - but I don't take it very seriously in this stills/hybrid camera. At least as of right now even without seeing it yet.
Trust that for $4000 I want to be very wrong. I want to see a new revolution from this camera, but it's very hard for me to imagine the output looking nothing more than like a very high-quality video camcorder.
I linked to a camera test for something else yesterday, and I ended up re-watching the video again and even just a simple scene from the test (linked to the time below) looks so cinematic.
That's what I want from these Canon/Sony mirrorless cameras.
https://youtu.be/XZPa3yp7lsQ?t=152
With that said, we also have to take a step back and realize all Ks aren't created equally. Technically, the C300 Mark II is a 4K camera but it's extremely lackluster compared to other 4K cameras. I would go as far as saying there is visually zero difference between its HD and its 4K (IMO).
On a PowerPoint slide, the R5 may be 8K but we have no idea how it will look.
Even Blackmagic's 1080p can keep many 4K cameras on the shelf.
As far as photographers, I think the only ones who will care are the ones on YouTube. If you/anyone ever work any real high-end professional events, most of those people are using 5-6 year old cameras. Of course many will upgrade, but for many it's also nothing more than another gimmick that they have witnessed before.
Personally, I don't think 8K is a gimmick - but I don't take it very seriously in this stills/hybrid camera. At least as of right now even without seeing it yet.
Trust that for $4000 I want to be very wrong. I want to see a new revolution from this camera, but it's very hard for me to imagine the output looking nothing more than like a very high-quality video camcorder.
I linked to a camera test for something else yesterday, and I ended up re-watching the video again and even just a simple scene from the test (linked to the time below) looks so cinematic.
That's what I want from these Canon/Sony mirrorless cameras.
https://youtu.be/XZPa3yp7lsQ?t=152
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yes, that camera comparison looks nice.
There are numerous facets of camera sensors and image processing that do not get reported on spec sheets and may even be difficult to quantify. I imagine it has something to do with noise being introduced at various stages, and that noise being minimized by more expensive manufacturing processes with higher quality control and lower error tolerances, but I couldn't say for sure.
I was talking to a 1DX photographer last year who claimed that the color on the 1D series was superior to the color on the 5D series, but he couldn't say why. That has been my experience with photographers - that they tend to buy the latest body (or multiple copies of it) in the series that they use, be that the 1D, 5D, or 6D series. I know a photographer who switched to the EOS R because he found the autofocus to be that much better than in their DSLRs, and now he's just waiting for a high-resolution R camera. He likes the RF lenses, too.
I imagine a big difference in apparent sharpness from camera to camera is the OLPF. The Pocket 4K/6K has no OLPF, right?
Personally, I don't really care about 8K (unless my client cares, in which case I probably just need to be able to CLAIM that it's 8K).
I'm more interested by internal RAW and would like various compression levels. The Pocket 4K/6K are attractive, although they lack other features I'm interested in (full-frame, possibly AF).
You may be right that Sony has a better strategy of pushing high-end stills OR video DSLMs and not trying to combine the two into one compromise body, as Canon is doing.
There are numerous facets of camera sensors and image processing that do not get reported on spec sheets and may even be difficult to quantify. I imagine it has something to do with noise being introduced at various stages, and that noise being minimized by more expensive manufacturing processes with higher quality control and lower error tolerances, but I couldn't say for sure.
I was talking to a 1DX photographer last year who claimed that the color on the 1D series was superior to the color on the 5D series, but he couldn't say why. That has been my experience with photographers - that they tend to buy the latest body (or multiple copies of it) in the series that they use, be that the 1D, 5D, or 6D series. I know a photographer who switched to the EOS R because he found the autofocus to be that much better than in their DSLRs, and now he's just waiting for a high-resolution R camera. He likes the RF lenses, too.
I imagine a big difference in apparent sharpness from camera to camera is the OLPF. The Pocket 4K/6K has no OLPF, right?
Personally, I don't really care about 8K (unless my client cares, in which case I probably just need to be able to CLAIM that it's 8K).
I'm more interested by internal RAW and would like various compression levels. The Pocket 4K/6K are attractive, although they lack other features I'm interested in (full-frame, possibly AF).
You may be right that Sony has a better strategy of pushing high-end stills OR video DSLMs and not trying to combine the two into one compromise body, as Canon is doing.
FWIW, according to rumor, gossip and unsubstantiated innuendos, Canon will release a high MPX (70-80) camera with the pro photogs in mind. R5, much like the 5D series, will then be a jack-of-all-trades while R6 will be more video-centric. Nikon is also rumored for a Z9 tier model. Sony isn't rumored for anything but, I believe, its duty to protect GFX 100 ends by the end of summer.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
That's interesting, although I heard the R6 is not so much video-centric so much as it's just cheaper. And basically both the R5 and R6 are a Jack of all trades, but the R6 has lower resolution, lower build quality, and lower stills fps (and possibly no internal RAW video). But I agree that its lower resolution may be better suited to 4K video.
As I see it:
A9 = 1DX = eventual R1
A7Riv = 5DS = high MPX R body
A7Riii = 5D = R5
A7iii = 6D = R6
What is the duty to protect GFX 100?
As I see it:
A9 = 1DX = eventual R1
A7Riv = 5DS = high MPX R body
A7Riii = 5D = R5
A7iii = 6D = R6
What is the duty to protect GFX 100?
Bassman2003
Veteran
I know you know that is impossible in the $4,000 price bracket. I found my eyes drawn to the Arri in that clip. Whatever they have going on at Arri, they are doing it right. No way a $4,000 camera can compete with such a high level image, but that does not say that the $4,000 camera will not make pleasing images. But it is not marketed to compete with cinema cameras.
Canon does have a history of looking a little more cinematic than other hybrid cameras. If they leave the cripple hammer in its case, let the detail shine through and are not stingy with the bit rates (hopefully some RAW) I think it will be quite an offering. I know I am getting tired of talking about it! Release it already, or at least the full specs.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Unless you (anyone) have been living under a rock, you'd know it's possible...the Blackmagics have been 95% there since 2012 for $2000.
In the case above, it's ARRI's newest camera so the bar is set higher, but RED and BM can still get there more than 80% of the way.
___
BMCC from 2012 (video's from 2014)...at a time when probably more than half of videographers in the world were either shooting on DSLRs or fixed-lens prosumer zoom rocking cameras:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvL9gn-wbTQ
There are dozens if not hundreds of thousands of more videos showing the quality of various BM cameras for many years.
Price only affects desired profit...because we could have much better cameras for less money.
Maybe we finally will have some more.
NorBro
Major Contributor
In general, it's still too expensive for most.
But if you're wondering about just the upper-end of the class then RED will more likely snuff out Canon and Sony.
If you don't need anything else to get it up-and-running (like modules), and it's really $6000, then that will hurt so many C300/C500 and FX9 sales once it's shipping.
But on the other end, IMO, if it's too good of a camera then they'll hurt themselves like they did for a year or two with the Raven before shutting it down.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Hmm not sure I agree. Isn't there a large segment of FS/FX/C shooting that must be ENG-style shoulder mount? (Especially FS7) and look like a video camera to the client? I don't see Komodo interfering there. Not to mention compressed non-RAW codecs.
As for Komodo vs UMP G2, the G2 has the frame rates and the ENG features. But if Komodo outperforms it in DR and low-light and can go on a gimbal, it gets my vote.
As for the cheaper BMs for owner/ops - no, I don't see the Komodo displacing them. But as a rental on a narrative shoot? The Komodo will be so cheap!
As for Komodo vs UMP G2, the G2 has the frame rates and the ENG features. But if Komodo outperforms it in DR and low-light and can go on a gimbal, it gets my vote.
As for the cheaper BMs for owner/ops - no, I don't see the Komodo displacing them. But as a rental on a narrative shoot? The Komodo will be so cheap!
NorBro
Major Contributor
Proper shoulder cameras that were built for electronic news gathering or field production were always the number 1 choice.
Once the C300 was introduced, the industry was disrupted as that camera pretty much became the #1 choice for everything. So a lot of people put that camera on the shoulder via rigs, and you made it work. [And it was and is terrible for shoulder use.]
As the world kept changing, people tried anything and everything on the shoulder no matter how much it sucked.
Eventually the AMIRA replaced everything. (And of course the ALEXA was used too.)
You can dress the REDs up (so they can look like a video camera for your clients, lol).
If you're a solo operator and you're contracted for 250 days of sports or reality work where you're running around with a camera on your shoulder 99% of the time; sure, the others may be a better choice and more comparable (and that's only if you're required to have your own camera and it's not already provided to you by the production company).
But if you're a solo freelancer whom doesn't always require a camera to be used on a shoulder, how many people do you think will purchase the $6,000 RED over the $11,000-$16,000 cameras?
The RED will undercut other systems like Blackmagic has. (I can't believe I just said that.)
IMO, price matters for 99% of buyers in today's world.
Once the C300 was introduced, the industry was disrupted as that camera pretty much became the #1 choice for everything. So a lot of people put that camera on the shoulder via rigs, and you made it work. [And it was and is terrible for shoulder use.]
As the world kept changing, people tried anything and everything on the shoulder no matter how much it sucked.
Eventually the AMIRA replaced everything. (And of course the ALEXA was used too.)
You can dress the REDs up (so they can look like a video camera for your clients, lol).
If you're a solo operator and you're contracted for 250 days of sports or reality work where you're running around with a camera on your shoulder 99% of the time; sure, the others may be a better choice and more comparable (and that's only if you're required to have your own camera and it's not already provided to you by the production company).
But if you're a solo freelancer whom doesn't always require a camera to be used on a shoulder, how many people do you think will purchase the $6,000 RED over the $11,000-$16,000 cameras?
The RED will undercut other systems like Blackmagic has. (I can't believe I just said that.)
IMO, price matters for 99% of buyers in today's world.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I get where you're coming from but I think your generalizations are too broad. There are many posters on DVXuser who praise how easily they can balance the FS7 with a zoom on their shoulder or who gripe about how excess rigging can slow them down and lose a shot.
I think for the C200 crowd, the Komodo would be the right tool (although possibly not even worth the cost of upgrading). Those folks aren't being asked to deliver 10-bit 4:2:2 and are already at that price point. I've never seen a C200 in NYC, but that probably says more about the clients I have (for whom it's generally not the right tool) than the camera. Sure, for the jobs I can shoot with any camera, it would work. But I bought cheaper adequate cameras for that.
Not having a non-RAW internal codec on Komodo may disqualify it from fast turn-around jobs (although I'm not sure if it definitely won't).
I think for the C200 crowd, the Komodo would be the right tool (although possibly not even worth the cost of upgrading). Those folks aren't being asked to deliver 10-bit 4:2:2 and are already at that price point. I've never seen a C200 in NYC, but that probably says more about the clients I have (for whom it's generally not the right tool) than the camera. Sure, for the jobs I can shoot with any camera, it would work. But I bought cheaper adequate cameras for that.
Not having a non-RAW internal codec on Komodo may disqualify it from fast turn-around jobs (although I'm not sure if it definitely won't).
NorBro
Major Contributor
Everything you say says more about the clients you have, lol. That's the beauty of video production and diverse experiences.
People here may like the FS7 and how it balances on the shoulder or whatever, but that's maybe the best they can do (for the shoulder).
Hollywood/TV productions will suffer with shoulder rigs and use better cameras. (If they are not already using the AMIRA/ALEXA.)
Today, the world's best camera is a box...says a lot.
People here may like the FS7 and how it balances on the shoulder or whatever, but that's maybe the best they can do (for the shoulder).
Hollywood/TV productions will suffer with shoulder rigs and use better cameras. (If they are not already using the AMIRA/ALEXA.)
Today, the world's best camera is a box...says a lot.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Totally agree with you.
I actually kinda hate the FS7. If it were up to me, I would shoot everything for everybody RAW and I would have a UMP G2 and a Pocket.
The only requests I see for BM are for no-budget shorts and MVs. But in those cases, it's the only brand they want.
It's really hard to buy a single camera, or even a few cameras, to meet every shoot's needs optimally. Nevertheless, you save a lot of money versus renting if you need the same camera repeatedly.
And at any rate, all I'm doing right now is editing - haven't shot anything in 1.5 months
I actually kinda hate the FS7. If it were up to me, I would shoot everything for everybody RAW and I would have a UMP G2 and a Pocket.
The only requests I see for BM are for no-budget shorts and MVs. But in those cases, it's the only brand they want.
It's really hard to buy a single camera, or even a few cameras, to meet every shoot's needs optimally. Nevertheless, you save a lot of money versus renting if you need the same camera repeatedly.
And at any rate, all I'm doing right now is editing - haven't shot anything in 1.5 months
Last edited: