padam

Yes, but it is a bigger body with no IBIS, they've disabled the AF for the 5.5k60p mode and in 5.5k30p it is running in a slower readout mode. The R3 may improve on these specs with much better rolling shutter using the stacked sensor, but it may also be limited by heat, although probably not nearly as much as the R5/R6.

The latest Intel processors will support 10-bit 4:2:2 H.265 hardware decoding which will work with DaVinci Resolve 17.1

I hope to see them side-by-side, but it looks just like R5 standard 4K to me.

So basically almost exacty the same as the R5 in all modes (except no 4K HQ).

4k30p binned goes long enough, I really don't need to shoot 4k60p for long (which is the same quality anyway, so it matches binned 4k30p perfectly), so it is flawless for me. The internal 30-minute clip limit is a little annoying and micro-HDMI are not great. But again, I don't consider these big enough flaws compared to the mountain of things that they've improved drastically for stills and video. For Canon, yes, this is a revelation, no doubt about it. The 5D IV or 1DX II had the same 30-minute limits (external output was useless) and yet many people used it for serious video without any issues at all. The simple truth is that there just aren't enough people out there to make this a real problem, even though they are the most vocal about it, it really won't matter at all in absolute terms. Whether something like a big feature comes out like 8K or an issue like overheating, the common thing is they get blown way, way out of proportion. Good for writing multiple articles. This is the same with the A7SIII by the way, I might say it is too specialised and limited for stills, but other professionals will buy it without hesitation because it is flawless for them.

Others left around the time of the EOS R, which already came after the A7III and initially received bad press, thinking Canon does not take mirrorless seriously at all. Even though they've already showed with their amazing lenses that they indeed do. I guess Sony A7SIII will come closest then (I expect it to offer DCI 4K), it is great to have choices and none of them will ever be perfect in absolute terms. I am not happy with some of the crippling they did with the R6 (But also not surprised and based on the past, I expected much worse), but the R5 seems almost flawless for the things it manages to offer, maybe they will improve this and that via firmware, I don't think they held back on it overall, and fixing some of these issues would have made it worse in other aspects, I really don't want it to be any bigger and heavier (or more expensive) than it already is. I was slightly squinting towards a Leica SL2. Yes, it is insanely priced, but it should perform best with my old lenses and it provides great looking images, that should translate well into video as well. But an R5 seems smaller, much more modern (swivel screen...) and cheaper, and it's certainly not worse in terms of overheating and battery compared to the Leica, that was a bit of a letdown considering the SL2 asking price. The R5 still costs three times as much as the EOS R, so it is a question of diminishing returns and I really need to think about when it is the time to get one - if I actually do.

Well the binned FF 4K on the R5 matches that very well in every sense (including rolling shutter) and it goes about for 1 hour 30 minutes. Could be more of an issue on the R6, yes, but again, apart from the S1 with the cropped 4k60p weak AF and big body, there is no FF camera to be mentioned alongside it. Personally, I'd just rather have overheating and AF than a big and heavy camera body. I simply don't need it to run non-stop (if someone would request it, I'd just go down to 1080p, better for file size, too) And of course it kills the GH5 (S1) for stills too, before we'd just forget that. I guess other people are just annoyed as they thought that they got the bare minimum from Canon in the past, like the 1DX II with cropped MJPEG and no Log, the 5D IV / EOS R or the 6D II / RP in the lower tier with an even worse crop factor, soft 1080p, etc. and it is suddenly a massive upgrade (with IBIS thrown it at the 'right time' as well for good measure) that no one predicted, so they might have left the system at the wrong time.

It probably sucks, if all the good stuff with the new firmware update like BRAW or Prores RAW are going out via HDMI.

I think the A7SIII will rely on taking the 4K120p raw feed out of the camera to an Atomos recorder, it won't be able to record it internally. At least that would be my guess, we'll see. The PXW-FX9's features should provide an overview about how it's going to do some things. And the PXW-FX6 (or full-frame FS5) can't be very far either, I think it will rely on an external recorder for a lot of things as well just like how the FS5 did.

I've yet to see a C200 user that is not raving about the camera for the most part. Not perfect with the codecs and stuff, but it is just really good in almost every way and the price has been dropped. A lot. Canon is first to admit about when they cameras overheat and how. Their representatives are laughing because they know that they are not really lagging behind in that area compared to the capabilities of that camera and it is just a huge upgrade over what they've had and other companies didn't make the same jump ahead. The A7SIII could be the 4KFF camera for video for the moment. It will rely on using that external recorder, but that has its good points for sure. However for stills, it is not on the same page and for video, that 1.6x 5.1K crop (with 60p) on the R5 provides a lot of flexibility, great for run and gun shooters. Also, IBIS is important for a lot of people, Canon is looking to have the clear lead there as well with some strong RF lenses for good measure, they have equipped all their f/2.8 Pro zooms with IS, unlike Sony. I think the previous A7S and A7SII cameras were a lot more special considering how the industry looked at that time, Canon had absolutely nothing at that point (besides the colour science, DPAF, familiar ergonomics and the EF lens system to go with it). Cropped 4K, no IBIS, DSLR form factor, etc. Now suddenly they have nearly everything, they did not start with a weak IBIS or crop factor or AF limitations or 8-bit codecs etc. etc. This new A7SIII is still going to be great I'm sure, it is just not alone anymore and some people might have to skip it because of the low megapixel count or the lack of support for EF lenses, ergonomics or other things.

While everybody is criticising Canon for various things - which is questionable in practise, like: why would you ever need more than 4k30p to record for hours? Serious question here. They should also criticise everybody else as well. A lot. Why? Because Canon really do not need to do anything better if they don't have any cameras that are comparable. They just don't, they seem to be at least one generation behind at this point without uncropped 4k60p 4k120p, etc. and still remain as full-on stills cameras, not go low on megapixels aka A7SIII. When they actually do, they might have exactly the same issues, except that they were also somewhat late in comparison. And yes they are protecting their cinema line, but they also have them as options, they are getting more and more affordable, Blackmagic, etc. and people seem to loose sight of that. When a stills camera has to be fully rigged up to have the appropriate battery life ND XLR and stuff, you've gotta ask: why not a C200 without dealing with all this shit? It might still need some things, but it's just a whole lot easier to use and realistically speaking, a 4K sensor is quite plenty already.

If I see it right, it was re-started after the 20-minutes on the first one so no time to cool down, it won't be nearly as bad in practise for short clips. The crop mode is 1.6x and who wants to shoot upscaled 4K, it does not make that much sense sense for me. Much better to save up for the R5 if this is important and have no crop at all. If we look at the stills side of things though, apart from the 12fps mechanical shutter over 20fps and the tough build quality, it provides everything that the 1DX III LV mode does with IBIS and a flip screen for 4000$ less, not bad at all.

What all this overheating going on, people tend to look over the fact that the footage and the IBIS actually looks really good. ISO is a noticeable improvement, too. The rolling shutter is not great (as expected). If you want longer recording times, you probably want the R5 over the R6.

It's all about pricing. The S1H is almost twice as expensive as the S1. So they have the R6 as-is at the S1 price level or they could have made the video-optimised version for 4000$+ Or with the R5 optimised version with the better sensor, it would be 5500$ or more. They have the 1DX III at 6500$ to fill in some uses as well. They chose the versions that sell better, easy. And they have factored in that video may not be that important for some people, they just want great mirrorless cameras for stills. So they don't have to hide anything because they know what they are providing at these price points. Quite a bit more than the competition, actually. The actual criticism of these cameras are way less than the excitement and they really don't have any problem with people choosing the S1H instead, they could have chosen it even when they didn't have these cameras at all. But now they do.

A Cinema camera is inherently more stable without any IBIS (but they do have it electronically now) AF system on the FX9, C200, etc. are rock-solid. The upcoming FX6 will have it as well with a smaller form factor. On the other hand, built-in ND's (especially variable ones like on the Sony cameras) are way better to have than IBIS. So the A7SIII is quite a step down for sure, but it is also cheaper and more compact, it has it's uses for sure.

They claim the same here, 90 minutes for line-skipped 4k30p recording

They do have an R5 for dual recording and an external recorder can be used to lift up the 30-minute limit, although the micro-HDMI connector may cause an issue here. With a non-cinema type model and a relatively cheaper one at that, it is really not surprising to see these limitations, it has been like that ever since the company existed and we need to compare against what they've offered in the past. And it seems a huge revelation in comparison to that. If people find it not acceptable and don't buy it, then their plan could be simply to drop the price to 2000$ instead of 2500$ But for 4000$ less than a 1DX III that has the inconvenient DSLR form factor, it could very well be a huge hit, lots of creators have pre-ordered it. As you say the GH5 is far from perfect, just like any other camera, but everyone can choose something that's as close to perfect for him as possible. All the Panasonic users can express their dismay about the company being adamant about using contrast-detect AF or larger bodies. etc. etc. this can go until the end of time.

Basically it is best to wait for more impressions, the capabilities are laid out quite clearly, we just don't know how it is in practise. Canon only told people that EF lenses with IS are working together with the IBIS on the sensor. But they've only given the stabilisation figures for RF lenses, which will work even better with the gyro sensor in the camera with the faster communication interface. The RF 24-105mm f/4L IS kit is especially appealing with great IS (better than the EF versions) and almost no focus breathing or AF noise for a relatively low price if bought as a white box item or as a kit together with the camera body. But again, we'll need to wait to see how they compare, maybe the IBIS is already really good with EF lenses as well, so anybody with EF lenses are likely to be happy with this release.

The A7s was the camera I've used to most, mainly because it was a revelation for low light and street photography with the silent mode, no other FF camera could do it. The A7sII looked good, but the cost of upgrade was too much for me to buy it. But 12MP is not enough for me anymore when there are 24MP cameras that do the same thing. I also had the 5D Mark 1 that camera is dirt cheap and also 12MP bad dynamic range but it is quite a bit sharper than the A7s and also much nicer colours. No video so the AA filter is almost nonexistent. I guess they got the colour part sorted out on the A7sIII and silent mode works seamlessly so it has is uses. But you've got to wonder if they could have just taken a new version of the 24MP A9 series sensor and not limit it for video at all. That would have been the clear and big upgrade over the big hit, the A7III that people would want, not just a 'facelift'. For BOTH stills and video. But no. Instead, they have the A9II the future A7IV and A7SIII, three models instead of one, all with different strengths and drawbacks (and with regular updates). Sony and Canon both being equally smart in 2020.

Even the 1.33x crop Cinema 4k60p RAW with AF would be nice - to dream about... The most I expect is that they will have the R5 recording menu instead of the huge array of recording options, but I wouldn't even hope for that. They didn't even bother to add touch functions to the 1DX II...

My guess is as good as anyone's, but I think they won't - or at least they would say something about it. They've only promised to add 23.98p, which they did with firmware 1.1 Because they offer 12-bit 5.5K Cinema RAW recording, as opposed to "just" 5.1K UHD 10-bit 4:2:2 IPB in the R6, I don't think they are going to offer it. Only they know, but they really like to segment all their cameras - as we know only too well...

Hi John, I think this is for EU only and the dealers are not allowed to ship to the US. You can still try to e-mail each of them to see if this is the case. Or if there is no other solution, you need to ask someone nicely who is located in the EU to ship them to you 😉

They should be pretty close in terms of sharpness since they are both using nearly the same 5.1K readout, 1.6x crop area on the R5 versus the FF on the R6 So the R6 should be slightly sharper, since it is not as magnified and also about a stop better in ISO and maybe dynamic range. However, the R5 has a faster sensor so in crop mode the rolling shutter should be better. (how much better? we'll need to see that measured) The reason why I would choose the R5 is because I can still go FF as well as APS-C, I would not use it sorely as an APS-C crop camera for video, I would have both options at all times at my disposal. And of course, the R5 is Cinema 4K aspect ratio or 16:9 UHD aspect ratio, while the R6 is always 16:9 UHD aspect ratio. So, on the other hand, the R6 limitations make it a lot more straightforward to use, no need to choose from a dozen of recording options.

Me too, because it just feels like a newer generation sensor that is able to read out faster than the 1DX III or R6 And it looks to be a fully fledged FF as well as an APS-C 4k60p camera in one package, it will be interesting to see rolling shutter measurements.

No such promises, I guess it is not classified as "high-end" like the r5...