Canon R5 Announced with 8k

ahalpert said:
Haha yeah I thought about re-writing that sentence for comprehension ease but said screw it.

But you get the point - if it only shoots RAW, then some shoots won't want it
Click to expand...

Yeah, I did understand, maybe only after two readings ;)

I was an English minor and am now a programmer, so I had a hard time resisting. Besides on other threads over the years, I have voiced my opinion on ergonomics and resolution into the ground. I didn't think y'all really wanted to hear me for the 40th time. So this was my contribution.
 
ahalpert said:
.... What is the duty to protect GFX 100?
Click to expand...

Sony makes the GFX50, GFX100, Hasselblad, Pentax and Phase One medium format sensors. (some Mamiya too, I believe, although it also uses a Dalsa sensor for their high end models) One assumes that, when Sony's protection of GFX50 expired, they released A7RIV, which has a higher pixel count and higher pixel shift option than 50MPX medium format models for Fuji, Pentax and Hasselblad.

Of course, they crippled a more reasonable pixel shift option of A7RIV, of four shots giving the double resolution, and went with the sixteen giving a four time increase. Unfortunately, the 240 MPX shot has a lot of motion/smearing artifacts, which likely would not have been there with only four sequential shots. As it is, it's useful for the architecture/interiors but will smear the clouds and anything with even a minor motion. In which case, you're stuck with a single shot and the MF cameras still deliver more.

PS. Naturally, Fuji cameras also cripple themselves, so to give Phase One the resolution supremacy with its 150 MPX single frame and 400+ off a pixel shift. They could have done, at least, a 2-off-4 but they might have to wait for it. Their managers were elusive in their comments.
 
ahalpert said:
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
Click to expand...

Canon did not have any logic, till now. They finally came to their senses because of market share lose to Sony and others. The features being introduced to the R5 will cannibalize (to an extent) their cinema line which indicates to me poor cinema camera sales the last few years. Canon has finally realized, to increase profit they must increase sales and to do so they must introduce a wholesome body with features that will sell. This could not be of a more perfect timing for them with the introduction of RF lenses $$$$. Canon management has finally understood what it takes to lead again which will definitely reflect on their gross sales and net profit as the market continues to shrink and struggles.

Concerning 8k raw, it is an absolutely smart move on Canon's part to lead with 8k even though most of us don't currently need it. But guess what, this is a feature that will safe guard peoples investment for many more years. Their goal is to sell lots of bodies so they can sell lots more lenses. 8k raw will attract many indie's which means Canon is not only going after Sony but also Panasonic, Blackmagic and others. Canon came to it's senses just in time before it becomes another Kodak.
 
Yes, a lot of logic in your post Ken, but the camera has not been released so lets not give Canon any awards yet! :)

I totally agree with the idea of Canon and the industry being in a corner. All any manufacturer can do is make the best out of the next 5-10 years before they disappear. Seriously, the industry is already talking about 8k video imagery. Does anybody see 16k as a driver of sales? 100 MPX stills? We are in diminishing return land already.
 
GFX100 has 102 MPX medium format sensor for stills. Phase One has 150 (+pixel shift)

Of course, Samsung has a 108 MPX smartphone sensor and is declaring its quest for 500. On a smartphone. They should not have dropped out of the camera biz.
 
I think they made the right choice to drop out of the camera biz. They will most likely be profitable with their 100+ MPX smartphone sensors in a growing market.
 
I think it was telling also, in that Arri 10th Anniversary Alexa video, someone asked if Arri would do a still camera and they said no, the dedicated still cam market is shrinking because everyone uses their (excellent) cell phone cameras and why would they go up against Apple.
 
Run&Gun said:
I think it was telling also, in that Arri 10th Anniversary Alexa video, someone asked if Arri would do a still camera and they said no, the dedicated still cam market is shrinking because everyone uses their (excellent) cell phone cameras and why would they go up against Apple.
Click to expand...

But supposedly you'll be able to check your email and browse the web on the Alexa soon, so they may be trying to tackle the problem from the opposite direction
 
Bassman2003 said:
I think they made the right choice to drop out of the camera biz. They will most likely be profitable with their 100+ MPX smartphone sensors in a growing market.
Click to expand...

Samsung is making huge money in the smartphone industry, as they're #1 with a bullet. They also make sensors and processors and not just for their own lines.

Howevah, they still left money on the table, as they could have made the high end point&shoots with their own sensors, they could have made webcams, they could have made camcorders. They already have the technology. The rest was repackaging. the only thing they couldn't do is to sell the mount.

PS. They could have also repeated what EZ Cam and BMD (even Panasonic) have done and offered EF/PL mount units or even joined the MFT or the L-mount alliance. As long as they chose not to play along with the cartel, they would have made decent money.
 
Run&Gun said:
I think it was telling also, in that Arri 10th Anniversary Alexa video, someone asked if Arri would do a still camera and they said no, the dedicated still cam market is shrinking because everyone uses their (excellent) cell phone cameras and why would they go up against Apple.
Click to expand...

I remember thinking that was a very interesting answer. It was probably mostly to pass on the question while avoiding simply saying "we don't have any plans for that". It didn't come across as very thought through, while the rest of the video was very nice.

A mobile device like a smartphone is obviously not a substitute for what an ARRI photo camera would be. No one would decide against an ARRI photo camera, because they bought the latest iPhone. Same goes for the 1Dx mkIII or R5.

I think it's fair and reasonable to assume that point and shoot cameras will go away. It's also reasonable to assume that some part of more serious hobbyist DSLR/Mirrorless will never get sold now that some aspiring photographers will settle for mastering mobile photography. A small part of truly professional photographers might sell all their pro gear and go smartphone only; I'm sure you can still get some traction with the tired "look ma, I only used an iPhone for these great pictures"!*

But I would think that no one interested in photography with a dedicated system camera would settle for a mobile phone. My iPhone and its tricks are great. I understand what it does and why. It does some things better than my 1Dx mkII. But it could never replace it.



*= pro tip: stand in front of something beautiful.
 
Leica is occupying the slot where ARRI would have been. And no one buys Leica stuff either.

(ok, technically, ARRI could have moved into the high end of the medium format ... which doesn't move many units at all ... and ARRI Point&Shoot? ... that'd be a good one)
 
For many years, many dreamed of an Alexa Micro...something between $10,000 - $20,000 (depending on the year it was)...but they would never do that.
 
I wonder why RED is stepping down to make Komodo at a fraction of their usual price points but ARRI won't do the same.

Is it because RED is getting squeezed at the high end? Is it because RED doesn't protect its brand by making sure crappy stuff doesn't get made with it (which, I assume, is why you can only go to 3200 on the Alexa)?
 
The Alexa sensor is said to cost $10-15K for them to make. A micro Alexa would not seem to make sense under $20K

Although, perhaps the volume of a lower cost model might bring down the price.



But Arri has to think about their customers differently than other brands. They serve clients often face to face, and aren’t in the faceless business that other brands are.

Even Cooke optics really stretched the trust of rental houses recently with all the alternative lens trends they put out in recent years. Cooke’s choices left some rental houses pretty high and dry.
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
I wonder why RED is stepping down to make Komodo at a fraction of their usual price points but ARRI won't do the same.

Is it because RED is getting squeezed at the high end? Is it because RED doesn't protect its brand by making sure crappy stuff doesn't get made with it (which, I assume, is why you can only go to 3200 on the Alexa)?
Click to expand...

This is their second time, although 2015 was a different world.

RED Raven was initially $5950 (although the Komodo will be much cheaper since it doesn't require modules & mags).

Then they jacked it up $3000 and shortly ended it some time later.

There could be a lot of reasons, but sometimes in business [in general] you create things because you want to shift the focus or spotlight somewhere else or back on you.

___

As far as ARRI (and BM), logical thinking is to limit the ISO rather than provide more in an unusable state. [Because what's the point of 6400+ if it's noisy as heck? You could just crank it up in post for it to look the same (noisy).]
 
[Re: BM] Only the Pockets have more. Their other cameras maxed out at 800 or 1600 (and one eventually at 3200 via FW).
 
James0b57 said:
The Alexa sensor is said to cost $10-15K for them to make. A micro Alexa would not seem to make sense under $20K

Although, perhaps the volume of a lower cost model might bring down the price.



But Arri has to think about their customers differently than other brands. They serve clients often face to face, and aren’t in the faceless business that other brands are.

Even Cooke optics really stretched the trust of rental houses recently with all the alternative lens trends they put out in recent years. Cooke’s choices left some rental houses pretty high and dry.
Click to expand...

Good points. Even $20k, though, would be a steep reduction in their price point and get new people on board. And hey if they toss out their quality control protocols (ahem BMD) I bet they could get the cost of their sensors way down.

And I suppose that ARRI has the Alexa M if you need a compact body for crash camming? (Or is that product made obsolete by the mini?)
 
ahalpert said:
I wonder why RED is stepping down to make Komodo at a fraction of their usual price points but ARRI won't do the same.
Click to expand...

Arri makes their cameras in Germany by hand. As expensive as their cameras are, most of their employees are probably just middle class. A drastic reduction in price would take a drastic redesign of their way of making cameras, perhaps outsourcing.

Red has a healthy respect in Hollywood, but Arri probably sells 10 times as many cameras. There it alone possesses the Aura of the Safe Bet. That is, it fills in the blank to the phrase, "No one ever got fired for choosing ___________."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top