Canon R5 Announced with 8k

This camera, if expectations and current specs aren't compromised, essentially represents the DSMC concept Red tried to do with the Epic. Huge resolution raw video with the ability to take/pull still photos. Except this will actually be a stills camera with dedicated stills design and control and megapixels. I remember Red touting its use on a handful of magazine covers, so they were successful in the concept to a certain extent. A lot of caveats to how that was used versus how an EOS R5 might be used, but the capability will probably actually represent that concept in a way that no other camera has yet achieved.

I think one of the biggest things I'm curious about is how the video latitude looks. If the raw 8K or clog 10-bit footage can improve the dynamic range of the EOS R slightly and get close to say, a blackmagic pocket 4/6K, I can't imagine looking further than this camera.
 
Jaime Valles said:
This is exactly my reasoning for wanting to use the R5 for video. I can probably fit 3 of them in the space that one C100 takes up in my camera case. I don't need the new RF lenses, because all my EF lenses will work perfectly with the adapter. And I get IBIS, DPAF done right (like the 1DX Mark III) and the option to shoot 8K Raw when needed. If there's no 30 minute video recording limit I can use 3 of them to record theatrical events without dealing with external recorders.
Click to expand...

Heard on two rumor sites that there definitely are multiple recording time limits. You didn't think Canon would fulfill ALL of your dreams did you? The only time the X-T3 clip limits bug me are when I am shooting solo and I am the interviewer
and I go past the 29:59 limit and don't even notice it for a few minutes. Not a problem when I am operating and have an interviewer, I stay on top of it. But solo, it can be challenging. But I consider myself spoiled because I did shoot S16 and Betacam SP for many years with 10 minute film mags
and 20, then 30 minute Betacam tapes. Even when I shoot RAW with the C200, I only get 34 minutes from each 256Gb card. I was going to upgrade to the 512Gb cards but it seems they are problematic so I stick with the 256Gbs.
 
ozmorphasis said:
Putting the 8k aside for a moment:

It's the first camera to combine all the elements that have up until now been spread across different manufacturers.

Ibis, Canon's AF, Internal Raw. If having those in one place doesn't matter to you, then you are right. There are other choices.

However, if you look at most comments from folks who are bought into a system, you will hear complaining about one of the above features missing from their otherwise beloved camera.

Panasonic's crappy AF is a perfect example. Lots of complaints there.
BM's lack of ibis.
Canon's _________ (long list there with previous cams)

But yeah, the RF mount part of the equation is definitely a thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, we rented the S-1H to try it and that was my main complaint, the AF was pretty poor.
 
NorBro said:
I think you've hit that old grumpy age, lol.

Camera is very refreshing and very necessary for the industry as a whole to motivate other companies.

Even if YOU can't use it, look at it as a selfless step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely grumpy these days. This not making any money thing combined with California EDD not even giving me a lifeline until the 28th, maybe, is pissing me off. But I digress, I guess it will depend on price. If it's $4k or above, hmm...BMD Pocket 6K is impressive at a lot less. But essentially no AF.
If this cameras has great AF and sharp 4K, robust without a ton of artifacts, then it might be something interesting, especially if it's $3.5k. I just see 8K as dumb but I must be in the minority, I guess it would depend on file size and compression. But I don't think the majority of "normal" edit
stations can even handle 8K today, mine's only a year old and can barely handle 4K with maxed GPU and RAM. 8K just seems like a hindrance rather than a desirable feature, unless they compress the snot out of it so it's manageable. But then why shoot such a ridiculous sized raster?

So far, I am distinctly unimpressed with the RF lenses. I don't see great physical designs, I see a lot of strange omissions, focal lengths, super slow zooms all at a VERY premium price, just can't understand why everyone's all aflutter about them. Yes, little bit better MTF but so? It feels like Canon is
being Canon and not building what their customers REALLY want as far as RF lenses but maybe I'm wrong? I havent done more than casually look at all of the press releases and a few reviews.And I don't have an RF mount camera to evaluate them.
 
You will adapt as you always have if you choose to do so.

For years, you weren't ready to fully accept 4K and the C100 was good enough for 90% of your work because "my clients don't care about 4K". Now you would probably never shoot HD for anyone.

CRL initially was overkill on your C200 but now you probably wouldn't recommend any other format on the camera.

You hated mirrorless' for as long as I can remember (and you still do in ways), but your X-T3 has opened you up to the idea of shooting with one more than ever.

If you continue to do this for another 10-15 years, 8K's media management and workflows will be nothing compared to what's coming.

___

As far as RF lenses, most are expensive but not more (or much more) than some L lenses.

The line will fill out as the months, years go by. But your thoughts on them are conflicting because you have mentioned using Canon's EF adapter yourself if you needed to, and that is what many other people will do as well.

___

The bigger picture is what I mentioned above...the overall motivation.

This camera will set a bar and allow for greater things to come from all.
 
Last edited:
Like I said before, I'll be buying it for stills and the video is just a bonus, BUT my big question is how bad will the rolling shutter be? It's usually pretty rough with stills cams.
 
puredrifting said:
If this cameras has great AF and sharp 4K, robust without a ton of artifacts, then it might be something interesting, especially if it's $3.5k. I just see 8K as dumb but I must be in the minority, I guess it would depend on file size and compression.
Click to expand...

8K IS kind of dumb. The vast majority of the people who "need" 8K will never make particularly good use of it, and the rest will explode when they realize how big it is.

I'm curious about it because I'm interested in a compact high resolution stills camera, and I've heard good things about the RF lenses.

mine's only a year old and can barely handle 4K with maxed GPU and RAM. 8K just seems like a hindrance rather than a desirable feature, unless they compress the snot out of it so it's manageable. But then why shoot such a ridiculous sized raster?
Click to expand...

Use an offline workflow... but 8K is still kind of pointless for the vast majority of the people who think that they need it, because most of the people who think they need it believe that it will improve their cinematography somehow.

:)
 
Sorry, but the thought of buying an entirely new line of lenses is as about as enticing to me as going fishing in my bathtub.
Which is about all one can do right now anyhow.
 
Looking at the spec sheet, I'm excited because this is what I expect the R5 would give me:

- I can shoot RAW if I need it. It has to be 8k though (I consider this a downside).
- Otherwise, I can get very sharp 4k 10-bit 422, and it goes up to 120fps, probably without any loss in quality.
- It's full frame, which means I can take full advantage of my vintage Leica lenses (I've been missing them on the p4k, the 2x crop makes most of them useless)
- I can also get new lenses and go for AF, which is a bandwagon I'm ready to jump into
- IBIS
- Swivel screen
- Also a very nice stills camera (and this time that 8k res is a plus)

The first point is a tie with my current p4k, but on all others this is better. Also a lot more expensive, and I'm not happy about buying new lenses, so I don't think I'm preordering, I will wait a bit to see if Sony or BM have an answer to this.

The time limit doesn't bother me. Possible overheat doesn't either, I've had an RX100IV and I worked just fine with that one, I hardly ever shoot a five-minutes take.

The biggest change for me is that it seems they went all out: no artificial crippling anywhere, the camera does everything it could potentially do. You know, like Blackmagic.
 
But if R5 doesn't crop in 4K, it has to either oversample or bin. And I am not betting on the former.

And 8K Raw has gigantic file sizes. They could have gone the CRL route there. Even that would have been over 3 Gbps. HEVC file size should theoretically be fine but this is where it depends on the bit rate and the camera processing power.

Which reminds me of a line Victor Chernomyrdin was famous for, "We tried our best but it came out the same way it always has".
 
Note that the R5 will work perfectly well with regular Canon EF lenses you already have. You don't have to purchase any new lenses, just a simple adapter.
 
Samuel H said:
Looking at the spec sheet, I'm excited because this is what I expect the R5 would give me:

- I can shoot RAW if I need it. It has to be 8k though (I consider this a downside).
- Otherwise, I can get very sharp 4k 10-bit 422, and it goes up to 120fps, probably without any loss in quality.
- It's full frame, which means I can take full advantage of my vintage Leica lenses (I've been missing them on the p4k, the 2x crop makes most of them useless)
- I can also get new lenses and go for AF, which is a bandwagon I'm ready to jump into
- IBIS
- Swivel screen
- Also a very nice stills camera (and this time that 8k res is a plus)

The first point is a tie with my current p4k, but on all others this is better. Also a lot more expensive, and I'm not happy about buying new lenses, so I don't think I'm preordering, I will wait a bit to see if Sony or BM have an answer to this.

The time limit doesn't bother me. Possible overheat doesn't either, I've had an RX100IV and I worked just fine with that one, I hardly ever shoot a five-minutes take.

The biggest change for me is that it seems they went all out: no artificial crippling anywhere, the camera does everything it could potentially do. You know, like Blackmagic.
Click to expand...

Just buy the Canon Adapter. They have four, with the least expensive being $99. The smart play, to me, to anyone getting an RF camera for video would be to keep using their EF glass and get the $399 adapter that has variable ND.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?q=Canon%20EF%20to%20RF%20adapter&filters=fct_brand_name%3Acanon
 
That's a great solution for many users, but I don't have any EF glass, I would have to get new lenses, and that probably means waiting for Sigma to bring RF versions of their 35mm f/1.2 and the rest of that family

BTW I assumed the raw video in the R5 would be CRL, is there any info going against that?
 
NorBro said:
You will adapt as you always have if you choose to do so.

For years, you weren't ready to fully accept 4K and the C100 was good enough for 90% of your work because "my clients don't care about 4K". Now you would probably never shoot HD for anyone.

CRL initially was overkill on your C200 but now you probably wouldn't recommend any other format on the camera.

You hated mirrorless' for as long as I can remember (and you still do in ways), but your X-T3 has opened you up to the idea of shooting with one more than ever.

If you continue to do this for another 10-15 years, 8K's media management and workflows will be nothing compared to what's coming.

___

As far as RF lenses, most are expensive but not more (or much more) than some L lenses.

The line will fill out as the months, years go by. But your thoughts on them are conflicting because you have mentioned using Canon's EF adapter yourself if you needed to, and that is what many other people will do as well.

___

The bigger picture is what I mentioned above...the overall motivation.

This camera will set a bar and allow for greater things to come from all.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention. In my abundant downtime, I did a few spreadsheets. 2019 deliveries to clients were 62% 1080, 38% UHD or DCI 4K. I stand by my assertion.
If I was a better businessman, I would have kept the C100 MKI and the C300 and just rented or borrowed a 4K capable camera for those 4K projects ;-)
One of our biggest clients, a healthcare provider, owns three C300 MKIs and we use them pretty often still. They won't hire my C200 because "it's all 1080 work anyway".

I prefer CRL and only shoot that for my own projects, but also last year, shot the "crappy spec but good looking" XF-AVC for clients 55% of deliveries,
Prores 1080 via our ancient Ninja Blade for 18% and CRL for the remaining 27% of deliveries.

I wouldn't say I "hate" mirrorless or DSLRs, I just think they're lousy for anything video/cinema not gimbal, drone or slider. Even though I built out my X-T3 handheld rig
and it's functional, I will almost always grab the C200, C300 MKII or FS7 for handheld/shoulder mounted work instead because they just work better for that.
OTOH, X-T3 on the gimbal is pretty useful. And we covered an ultra marathon and a race in Oregon called The Gorge last year with only two X-T3s, that's how I know.
Two solid weeks of shooting with nothing but mirrorless was "interesting". We got some good footage but oofa, the constant rigging, unrigging and awkwardness of the
form factor was painful. But it worked.

I am curious how well EF lenses will work on the R5? What will we be missing using EF and an adapter versus RF? It's probably kind of like using the Fringer Pro and the
same lenses on the X-T3 versus our XF lenses. The Canons sort of work, in varying degrees with some malfunctioning and weirdness with some lenses in some situations.
The Canon would probably work better because it's all Canon, adapter included. The adapter with the built-in NDs is cool.
 
Samuel H said:
That's a great solution for many users, but I don't have any EF glass, I would have to get new lenses, and that probably means waiting for Sigma to bring RF versions of their 35mm f/1.2 and the rest of that family

BTW I assumed the raw video in the R5 would be CRL, is there any info going against that?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I guess we just all presume that everyone has some EF glass.
 
puredrifting said:
I am curious how well EF lenses will work on the R5? What will we be missing using EF and an adapter versus RF? It's probably kind of like using the Fringer Pro and the same lenses on the X-T3 versus our XF lenses. The Canons sort of work, in varying degrees with some malfunctioning and weirdness with some lenses in some situations.
The Canon would probably work better because it's all Canon, adapter included. The adapter with the built-in NDs is cool.
Click to expand...

They will work well. No comparison to the Fuijfilm and Fringer because AF isn't as good and the adapter isn't as good.

In this case, both are optimized by Canon (if choosing the Canon one).

Seamless transition although native lenses will most likely provide the best results in the most demanding situations like sports photography and extreme video movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top