Canon R5 Announced with 8k

I have also found that "new cheap batteries" beat "old expensive batteries", as long as those cheap ones are not the bad ones (do some research before you buy).

Now, about that new Toyota Supra... it definitely looks SWEET, but nowadays that's what you're buying: a sweet look. At $60k, at least this one has the looks without the crazy price. And it has decent performance too: on the Top Gear track, it's faster than the Lamborghini Murcielago, which is a $500k car from 10 years ago, and yes I will salivate if I see one on the street. But if performance is what you want, the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio handily beats those two by a wide margin, at $75k, despite the "normal car" looks. And if you're not a great driver, the $60k Tesla 3 AWD Performance is a match for the AlphaRomeo based only on its amazing acceleration (handling is waaaay worse but coming out of the corners these electrics are just crazy fast).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Top_Gear_test_track_Power_Lap_times

There must be a great "cameras" analogy lying down there somewhere: the Toyota gets you the looks and performance is not bad, the Lamborghini is for people who have more money than they can spend, the AlphaRomeo looks "normal" but if you're a good driver it's faster than most sports cars, and not-so-great drivers will match you by using the crazy acceleration of the Tesla 3. I'm going to say: C300-II, film, p6k... r5! (AF and RAW would be the camera equivalent of that electric acceleration; the last two require people giving you weird looks when they see the camera on a "proper set").

edit: and then macgregor has a BAC Mono, which is waaaay at the top of the list and did the track lap in 1:14, vs 1:24 for that Lamborghini Murcielago.
 
Last edited:
Samuel H said:
I have also found that "new cheap batteries" beat "old expensive batteries", as long as those cheap ones are not the bad ones (do some research before you buy).

Now, about that new Toyota Supra... it definitely looks SWEET, but nowadays that's what you're buying: a sweet look. At $60k, at least this one has the looks without the crazy price. And it has decent performance too: on the Top Gear track, it's faster than the Lamborghini Murcielago, which is a $500k car from 10 years ago, and yes I will salivate if I see one on the street. But if performance is what you want, the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio handily beats those two by a wide margin, at $75k, despite the "normal car" looks. And if you're not a great driver, the $60k Tesla 3 AWD Performance is a match for the AlphaRomeo based only on its amazing acceleration (handling is waaaay worse but coming out of the corners these electrics are just crazy fast).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Top_Gear_test_track_Power_Lap_times

There must be a great "cameras" analogy lying down there somewhere: the Toyota gets you the looks and performance is not bad, the Lamborghini is for people who have more money than they can spend, the AlphaRomeo looks "normal" but if you're a good driver it's faster than most sports cars, and not-so-great drivers will match you by using the crazy acceleration of the Tesla 3. I'm going to say: C300-II, film, p6k... r5! (AF and RAW would be the camera equivalent of that electric acceleration; the last two require people giving you weird looks when they see the camera on a "proper set").

edit: and then macgregor has a BAC Mono, which is waaaay at the top of the list and did the track lap in 1:14, vs 1:24 for that Lamborghini Murcielago.
Click to expand...

Lambo is like a DSMC2 camera. All power and outward looks and specs, but not really anywhere to go, but 20mph on Santa Monica Blvd. Supra is Black Magic, outperforming all kinds of petrol vehicles, but rather old school mentality. Electric cars are the Mirrorless and smart cameras that are doing crazy things that traditional designs aren't, but really can't go that long.
 
ahalpert said:
... A $1k iphone costs $100 to make...
Click to expand...
A $1,000 phone costs about $350 to make (in parts alone).

Clermond said:
As long as we have to wait for RL R5 tests I’d prefer going back to cars.
Click to expand...

Here's an electric car bit that relates. Over the last decade, the manufacturing cost of a car battery went from ~ $1,000 per KW/h to $$150-$175. That is reflected in drop of the electric car pricing. Has a similar drop taken place with camera batteries?

James0b57 said:
Hahaha! Let’s do this!

New Toyota Supra.... modern classic, or too little too late in a electric car world?
Click to expand...

The next gen Supra might have a 3L twin-turbo from BMW M4. Something in the 550 hp range (but the car itself might also be priced higher than the $52,000 US)

Car world, as I opine endlessly, does have a great similarity to the camera world. On specs, an average priced US automobile is reaching the edge of an average driver's capabilities. A standard bearer among sports cars - or any cars, for that matter - Porsche 911 broke a 5s 0-60 mark about 20 years ago and a 4s mark at about 2010 (turbo versions did it about a decade earlier but they were also priced higher). The new 388 hp Supra is ~ 3.5s for ~ $52,00 and the new 400Z (assumed name) will be roughly the same for almost ten grand less. These two and the Vette (2.9s) squeeze out the heck out of the upmarket sports cars.

But wait, there's more!

New Kia K5 and Hyundai Sonata (basically, the same car with a different tune) will have a 2.5L turbocharged model for ~ $32,000-$35,000 that can hit 60mph in under 6s. A 6Cyl Camry has the same specs for about $40,000. That's about a second slower than BMW's top 3's/4s/5's sedans But they're also $15,000-$25,000 cheaper. And this is a relative calm before the electric twinchargers/electric turbos come out. They're supposed to hit 200 hp per liter of displacement.

And, in the camera world, two R5's and a bucket of ice are going to be a lot less than the Panavision DXL/Red Monstro.
 
lol. I am! But that R5 could be cancelled at any point in the next 3 weeks.

If the a7SIII is around the same price, the Canon will stay. But if it's $1000+ cheaper...
 
https://www.personal-view.com/news/...can-learn-from-the-panasonic-s1h-and-sigma-fp

Very good analysis on heat management in cameras - Both Panasonic and Sigma managed to control heat, with the latter doing so without a fan - both are large full frame cameras which can deliver pure RAW and record endlessly without overheating.

Looks like Canon is still in the stoneage technology wise! Well done to Andrew Raid for the excellent article!
 
Liam Hall said:
So, is anyone getting the R5 or R6?
Click to expand...

I'm going to get an A7SIII if the footage doesn't look like crap somehow, the rolling shutter is OK, and (as expected) it provides a range of all-I and long-GOP codecs and framerates up to 4K60p 10-bit 4:2:2 internal. Anything on top of that (4k120p or RAW out which are both strong possibilities) is gravy.

If they screw up the A7SIII somehow (bad rolling shutter or new tech that has kinks), I'm leaning towards the R6. RS on the R6 doesn't look great but maybe I can live with it.

If the R5 comes out and the heat tests aren't all that bad outside on a summer day, I might still get it. I do like the fact that it has 8K RAW and 4K120p internal as that gives some really high-end options when appropriate. The AF system may be 2nd to none
 
ahalpert said:
I think one of my cheap lpe6 batteries doesn't hold a charge now. But neither does one of my c300 batteries (original canon) after taking a mild fall (true, it was several years old). Both of them "charge" but do not power

And look at v-mount batteries - there's no 3rd party because there's no 1st party (or is it 2nd party? "The party of the first part...")
Click to expand...

Sony
 
James0b57 said:
Yeah, any battery has got to give out eventually. Even at reduced capacity, though, the Vitec Anton Bauers still feel confidence and read accurately, like google maps freaky accurate.

What scares me is not reduced capacity so much as just randomly losing power, in particular under 30%.
Click to expand...

This used to be a big problem with AB HyTron’s. Right around the three year mark they’d start dying while still showing 20%-30%.
 
Liam Hall said:
So, is anyone getting the R5 or R6?
Click to expand...

I will eventually get an R5 for stills. If this was last year, I would have pre-ordered, but right now I’m not gonna just toss out almost $5K(cards, adapter, etc.) when I’ve only had nine days of work since early March.
 
NorBro said:
lol. I am! But that R5 could be cancelled at any point in the next 3 weeks.

If the a7SIII is around the same price, the Canon will stay. But if it's $1000+ cheaper...
Click to expand...

I'd happily pay a $1000 to never have to use a Sony menu ever again. Joking aside, I have an A7III, clever camera, but I enjoyed shooting with Canon and Nikon more than any Sony stills camera I've owned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top