Stronz

The R5 was primed to be near perfect - on paper it had everything people wanted for a reasonable price and then Canon went and throttled it.

So instead they offer this, “a proper video camera” with essentially the same form factor but smaller sensor, no ibis, no viewfinder, and looks like no flip screen?

So you’re paying $2,000 more for what? Built in NDs and the permission to use the camera without it locking down due to “overheating”?

I’m curious what about this C70 is better than what the R5 should have been?

The thought of spending $4,000 on a camera and having to deal with all this nonsense, just to get the features Canon markets on the box...it's appalling. What's even more tragic is the people still making excuses. Canon could have delivered the goods and made everyone happy but they botched it.  

Being able to save the clip is the critical next step but definitely looks/sounds more like a timer than true communication and limitations from a thermometer. Since we know the internals do heat up to 65C/150F, it'll be interesting to see who pushes this to the limit and the resulting damage (if there is any) after prolonged use. Perhaps with a timer exploit + proper thermal management via hardware mod, you'd actually have the functional camera Canon should have delivered in the first place.

Good to see more physical evidence validating the EXIF data

Whenever someone defends the R5 because of "45MP" remind them that the R6 is just 20MP and has the same issues.

The Canon R5 is the No Man's Sky of cameras.

It feels like the industry as a whole has some kind of collective Stockholm Syndrome with Canon. Why do we want them to be better? Why do we want them to fix their clearly intentional choice? Why do we want to pay them money when they clearly don't care to earn it?

Sony and Panasonic have been pushing the limits of hybrids for over a decade and yet many people are still hoping and praying Canon releases a patch or a fix for the R5 & R6. If you put your faith in Canon, prepare to be disappointed. 

Sounds like your blog name might finally start to make sense again, although the "HD" is starting to look a little small compared to 8K 🙂

Yeah I thought the 4K version was the same previous sensor and the 4.6K sensor is the new and improved one. That's how it's listed on B&H as well:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1137314-REG/blackmagic_design_cinecamursam40k_ef_ursa_4k_digital_cinema.html

What is this "EOSHD Cinema Profile" for the GH4? A settings breakdown for a current picture style or it's own original picture profile? I wasn't aware you could install custom profiles on the GH4.

​The tests Tony did were shot with well-lit subjects and most examples people showcase also feature lit or moderately lit scenes. I think where the large photosites really come into play is when you have very very very low light such as a crowd at a concert at nighttime, some wedding venues, documentary shooting at night, etc. Having used the A7s, I have yet to see anything that shoots that clean with that little amount of light. 

When scaled down , high-megapixel cameras can "combine" pixels which helps to reduce the appearance of noise but if those pixels are really noisy to begin with, they aren't going to combine into something clean.

I could be wrong since I don't have the cameras but I'd imagine the next version of the A7s will do better in true low-light compared to the higher resolution A7rII

Specs sound near perfect on the A7rII but I really wish sony would redesign the form factor. I really dislike the handling of the A7s and find it's short battery life and awkward ergonomics beyond frustrating. The form factor of the GH4 is much more to my liking but Panasonic needs to make a mirrorless camera with a larger sensor.

Sony fix the form factor or Panasonic offer something larger than MFT, whoever moves first gets my money. Canon and Nikon can keep living in the past.

Thanks Andrew! Loving the GH4 so far, so many awesome features and customization options in the menu. Did a shoot recently with the Nikon D600, Canon 5DmkIII (unhacked) and the GH4. Some people don't see a difference between HD and 4K, well the Nikon and Cameras aren't even shooting true 1080p, they are mushy and ugly compared to the crisp detail on the GH4.

 

The raw hack on the 5DmkIII is nice but the workflow is so slow and cumbersome. It gives beautiful result but is not user friendly at all. The GH4 gets you very close while being very easy to use.

Hi Andrew,

 

What are your color profile settings? Cinelike D? (0,0,0,0,0)? Doing anything with the Highlight/Shadow Curves?

Is converting ProRes LT to ProRes 444 going to actually give you more data to work with or "room to breathe" as you put it? Isn't it going to be the same data in a larger file size container?

How about cutting Cinema DNG files in Premiere? Feasible with this workflow?

Thanks for sharing this. I can't get too excited about the actual camera with 400fps at such a low resolution but I can get excited for the potential this brings. I know things aren't exactly linear but if you can do this for $300, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable that you could do 120fps at FullHD for not much more. Hopefully it's something we can see from the next GH or NEX cameras.

One thing to watch out for is that the D5200 doesn't have a built in focus motor so it won't autofocus with all lenses. Probably not a deal breaker for most but anyone looking to do both photo and video might want to know that bit of info.

Sensor size shouldn't really matter unless you absolutely crave shallow depth of field. What should matter is the dumb EF mount they paired with the smaller sensor. Sorry, but unless there is a mirror involved, no cameras should be shipping with an EF mount.

I'm sure it was a marketing decision to sell a small sensor camera to the indie filmmakers who already own a bunch of Canon glass because they crave full frame and shallow depth of field...oh wait...ahh now I see why everyone is complaining about sensor size.

Then again BM can't market a camera with an E-mount because then it's not "pro" :)

I think it's funny that, for the most part, these are the features people were asking for 4 years ago from the 5D and its other variants in the EOS line. It amazes me that after 4 years $2500 still buys you pretty much the exact same camera.

I think it's just a testament to the fact that Canon really screwed themselves over by introducing video into the 5DmkII. I don't think they've ever wanted to improve video at that price point. It completely undercut their "Pro" cameras and they've been trying to recover ever since. Time will tell but from their product releases it appears that Canon has no interest in the indie/low budget film market.

Sony, however, seem to be pushing ahead full steam. Panasonic seems like they are on the fence and don't know what to embrace.