Canon R5 Announced with 8k

ahalpert said:
A7SIII would be best-selling camera of all time without internal RAW? I'm not so sure. But if they add RAW and electronic ND, they've got a stew going. (Especially if it can do all flavors of s-log; it seems like the R5 might be limited to regular c-log?)
Click to expand...

Once you (anyone) leave the forum world, you'll realize most people don't care about RAW.

A camera with great AF, a nice codec, 60p, and decent IS or lenses with IS goes a long way.
 
A7SIII, if it ever comes out as A7SIII, is likely to be a lower pixel count, video-centric camera. It's unlikely to have Raw or OCN, so HEVC is the likely choice of recordings codecs. Now, they could go 12-bit HEVC but that's supposed to be reserved for the high end cameras.

It might have Raw 6K out to Atomos a la S1H. Considering that the original A7S was able to achieve 4K only via an external recorder, the old business partnership may still be there. S1H was given 6K Raw via Atomos only in 2020 but A7SIII should have it available from the start.
 
I dunno. Having 8K RAW in-body is kind of a future-proof feature that also appeals for those shoots where you're rolling a half hour a day and want it to look dope. It makes it a more versatile camera, even if you don't use it often. Meanwhile, all the other features of the Sony will be matched by Canon. (Will Sony even have 4K 120p?) Definitely a better value for the Canon (unless Sony tosses in eND), as long as the rolling shutter performance isn't total garbage.

I'm much less interested in external RAW. Also it seems like ProRes RAW doesn't have the same color temperature manipulation options and other things (ISO maybe?)?
 
ahalpert said:
I dunno. Having 8K RAW in-body is kind of a future-proof feature that also appeals for those shoots where you're rolling a half hour a day and want it to look dope. It makes it a more versatile camera, even if you don't use it often. Meanwhile, all the other features of the Sony will be matched by Canon. (Will Sony even have 4K 120p?) Definitely a better value for the Canon (unless Sony tosses in eND), as long as the rolling shutter performance isn't total garbage.

I'm much less interested in external RAW. Also it seems like ProRes RAW doesn't have the same color temperature manipulation options and other things (ISO maybe?)?
Click to expand...

I mean...realistically most people probably can't even handle the 1DX Mark III's 5.5K RAW.

Many purchasing this camera (a lot of regular folks, and hybrid shooters/photographers) are not interested in these kind of data rates, especially at 8K. When you're buying an 8K MONSTRO or whatever, you know what you're getting into.

IMO, I think most people would easily choose a high-quality 10-bit 4:2:2 400mbps easy-to-work-with format over RAW.

It's all paper for now, anyway. I'll believe it if and when I'll use it.
 
Right well I suppose it's a question of if you want to use RAW regularly or occasionally.

Although that's one nice thing about the BRAW - that the bitrates are low enough you can use it regularly (yet they still even offer prores for even more convenience).

But also regarding bitrates - Sony has offered nothing but paltry bitrates in their DSLMs so far so I'll believe 200mbps and 400mbps when I see it.
 
It would be a triple-whammy as they haven't had 60p, 10-bit or high bitrates.

It's actually quite comical that its competitor would be an 8K mirrorless from Canon.

If you told me even a year ago that an 8K mirrorless from Canon for ~$4000 will compete with a 4K/60p 10-bit a7SIII, I wouldn't believe it!
 
Crazy times we live in. I'm sure they'll both sell well. I want to see performance tests. And the Sony may currently make more sense for me to pair with my FS7 (even though it probably won't match well in reality, but clients seem to like matching camera brands...) Either way, I probably won't buy anything until next year.
 
Maybe but isn't there such a thing as good enough for now? That was why I polled the crowd about 8K, which they basically convinced me would soon be a thing...
 
It's been good enough for years.

All that's left is everyone's individual situation(s) and what they want to do and end up doing with their own lives.
 
Hmm not sure I agree... if clients demand 4K delivery and 60p, you need at least that. If you want a full frame camera to match your lenses, you need that without a 4K crop. If you need/want AF, it has to have at least a certain degree of speed and reliability (and not hunting) to be useful. Readout speed must be adequate as well. Maybe you want internal RAW. Maybe you also need ND and XLRs...

Maybe NorBro's response is that not everybody needs those things. But my point is that they're running out of features to add, and if you want internal ND and XLRs, you may have to step up to the C or FS/FX series anyway. Once all your features are included, the camera can only improve by degrees (more DR, higher frame rates...) and if it was already sufficient for your needs, you don't NEED to upgrade.
 
I wonder where this is going...

Freelance since my 2009 BA. Making videos since 2003.

The features I'm talking about have been missing (at least all of them together) on a sub-$5k camera. In some ways, the BMPCC6K is more than good enough...but not full-frame, no continuous AF, no 8K...

I bought the S1 instead of the S1H because it was good enough for what I needed it for and met the 4K60p spec. Indeed, I may not upgrade to an R5 or A7SIII at all, but they may offer features that make it worth my while.

I suspect you may tell me that people will keep upgrading cameras no matter what and that they've been good for over a decade. Nevertheless, delivery specs have upgraded as well. If you have an 8K RAW camera, you can meet delivery specs for the next decade.
 
NorBro said:
It would be a triple-whammy as they haven't had 60p, 10-bit or high bitrates ...
Click to expand...
Sony's been the 8-Bit Generation now for, at least, half a decade but, at some point, everyone has to move onto to the next level of product crippling.

Oh and not so sound like a complete heretic here ... R5 may turn out to be a fine camera and all that but --- it looks like a jack-of-all-trade product that will get squeezed on the photo end by A7RIV and on the video end by A7SIII. And Sony can easily drop a few hundred off A7SIV price to make it even more competitive.

We'll see where exactly Canon prices R5 and which of its features look better on paper than in real life use.
 
DLD said:
Sony's been the 8-Bit Generation now for, at least, half a decade but, at some point, everyone has to move onto to the next level of product crippling.

Oh and not so sound like a complete heretic here ... R5 may turn out to be a fine camera and all that but --- it looks like a jack-of-all-trade product that will get squeezed on the photo end by A7RIV and on the video end by A7SIII. And Sony can easily drop a few hundred off A7SIV price to make it even more competitive.

We'll see where exactly Canon prices R5 and which of its features look better on paper than in real life use.
Click to expand...

It's taken so long. You know there was a time like 5 years ago when I called you crazy for believing in camera cartels?
 
DLD said:
Oh and not so sound like a complete heretic here ... R5 may turn out to be a fine camera and all that but --- it looks like a jack-of-all-trade product that will get squeezed on the photo end by A7RIV and on the video end by A7SIII. And Sony can easily drop a few hundred off A7SIV price to make it even more competitive.
Click to expand...

You're saying it will get squeezed by being undercut in price? Entirely possible, especially if they have equivalent performance and you don't need RAW (or if the Sony even has eND). Personally I have numerous AF EF lenses and none for E-mount, so that lubricates the move to an RF body and a generation of cameras that unlock video AF. It would cost way more than an A7SIII to replace those lenses (although you could argue I should be replacing them with new RF lenses anyway, but again - they're good enough for me for now).
 
I am speculating that, depending upon the A7SIII release, R5 will have to compete against a Sony camera that does better video and a Sony camera that does better stills - in fact, for photo, a 42 MPX A7RIII may be the best value at $2,800 - and one would have to wonder who the intended buyer of R5 is. Most shooters lean one way or the other but this one appears to do well for both. Or maybe, neither.

PS. "Better video" might mean 6K-to-4K instead of 8K with a better/higher bit rate codec and "better stills" might mean higher rez, higher FPS, etc. That's before accounting for any crop or line skipping on R5 or other odds and ends that are currently kept under wraps. 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top