padam

https://www.canon-europe.com/press-centre/press-releases/2020/04/canon-eos-r5-specs-revealed/

Funny that an older press release started with: Canon reveals further EOS R5 details – shutting down speculation that some specs are ‘impossible’ Non-cropped, internal recording 8K video capture – up to 29.97fps in 4:2:2 10-bit in Canon Log (H.265) or 4:2:2 10-bit HDR PQ (H.265) Non-cropped internal recording 4K video capture – up to 119.88fps in 4:2:2 10-bit in Canon Log (H.265) or 4:2:2 10-bit HDR PQ (H.265) I expect the image to soften at every higher frame rate (does not matter since it leaves rival behind by far) and maybe some crop will be available as well. But I don't expect great rolling shutter, when it reads the whole sensor. Maybe the IBIS will help to combat some of that, we'll see.

https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Mark-III---Beste-4K-EOS-ohne-Cinema-Logo--FullHD--25-100fps---Rolling-Shutter---Fazit-Signalver.html#Fazit According to this test the 1DX III rolling shutter is 32ms in full sensor mode up to 30p (according to a different measurement, it is 28ms and the EOS R measured on that is also 28ms, so it is exactly same as the R) Interestingly, it does improve to 16ms when switched to full sensor 60p and the AF gets disabled (so twice as good as the EOS R). Not sure how it affects things, but the R5 will have the AF enabled, so if it runs is a similar mode as the 1DX III, the rolling shutter could be very severe in 8K and even worse than the 1DX III, unless it is something very special compared to the 1DX III. If not, they may not use the full sensor in either of the 4K recording modes to make the rolling shutter much better.

I am perfectly fine with 20MP over 30, IBIS is huge for video just on its own, two card slots perfect for shooting weddings and even if is has the 1.4x UHD crop (same as the 1DX crop mode just not cinema 4k), it would still be a big improvement over 1.75x Even if it has worse dynamic range and no Canon Log at all, I would still consider it, if it is priced right.

Maybe have changed their thinking and it will have the same dynamic range as the 1DX III and only the readout speed is lower and the IPB codecs and the 20MP 45MP gap is now wide enough to differentiate. Sounds way too good to be true to me, it's Canon who would rather cripple it harder to have more headroom to cut prices in the long run, so I have my doubts, and it would kill my EOS R, I guess I have some time to sell it on, but they would also kill it for the future as well. And the 4k30 uncropped rolling shutter will be very bad and worse than the 1DX III, it would be just like the EOS RP in cropped 4k mode (33ms, very severe) or maybe they disable the AF and run in it a different mode. Interestingly, enough the 1DX III FF4k60p (raw 60p) has the AF disabled, but the 14ms rolling shutter is really good, the FF4k30p (raw 30p) with AF is 28ms, same as the EOS R crop 4k, not great, but it is full sensor. They could have enabled that mode for uncropped 4k30p manual focus, so it would be closer to cinema cameras, but they just decided to leave it separate.

The last known rumors were saying "lower your expectations, the sensor is not a 1DX III sensor at all, etc." Well, Ok, I would rather pay more and have all these features, but from Canon's point of view, it makes no sense at all to kill their own market and we know how they are keeping the 5D line and 6D line well-separated from each other. In my opinion: The R5 has IBIS dual cards CF-E plus SD 8K 4k60p 4k120p 10-bit Canon Log, better low-light than previous-gen Canon cameras The R6 has IBIS dual cards SD plus SD 4k60p (cropped I think) 1080p120p 8-bit no Log, but also better low-light than previous-gen Canon cameras They are both have much better video specs than their older ancestors, but they are also not stepping on each other's toes. Also, the cheaper cameras are much more simplified easier to use with a mode dial, simpler controls, etc. that's just how Canon designs its products.

Yes, it is still going to be a huge jump up overall, it just won't be nearly as unlocked as the R5 and some features won't be as good as the R. Owned the RP for a short time, kept the R in the end but not because of image or video quality. If an RP came again at a low enough price, I would probably buy it, just to cheap for what it is, I use small rangefinder lenses and the weight is better suited to the RP and they look great with Canon colours. 1080p a little bit softer on the RP but still Ok, the RF 24-105/4L IS has excellent stabilisation and sharpness, works great for the RP. The cropped 4k looks really great, if you can manage manual focusing and the really bad rolling shutter. It won't like high contrast situations, dynamic range not great but if the subject is exposed well, it looks pleasing. So yes, not nearly as bad for video as some think it, the built-in picture profiles of all Canon cameras are known to be great, but I guess sharpness is generally overrated.

The S1 series are permanently crippled with their AF and lens ecosystem which have to be priced high because they will hardly sell any of them (besides the size of the camera body, but they've promised smaller cameras at least) Canon is not stupid to kill their own cameras, this camera will lack both the internal processing power and the sensor dynamic range to shoot C-Log. Even their C200 is 8-bit or RAW only. This was exactly how it went with the RP when only the partial specs were disclosed and then they've found out what's actually the entry-level camera. It will be improved, but no way it's going to step on it's bigger brother's toes. Would they scale it up to 3000$ and get less buyers because they are not looking at these specs? I don't think so. People just love getting excited and then angrily disappointed.

It may have it (on some recording modes) without the better internal codecs and Canon Log. And the uncropped 4K rolling shutter is probably bad. But being in the Canon ecosystem with 4k60p and IBIS means it will sell well, no matter what.

Only the S1H is worth mentioning from this list which is both huge, heavy, and also very expensive variant of an existing camera tailed for video needs specifically. All the others are not stills cameras, therefore totally different category. They have always been, so they can be pointlessly compared all day long. Most of the FF competitors record 6K downsampled and compressed down to 4K. This camera is recording 8K without any downscaling from a next generation sensor using a next generation processor. Is that really such a huge challenge in terms of processing power if the CFExpress can handle the speed required to transfer the data? Same with the H265 8K encoding, provided the hardware specifically supports it. I am not sure about full sensor 4K (what if it is binned in all 4K modes to be great at rolling shutter) but at least it is at the ideal downsampling size compared to 6K.

For sure, but it also costs close to twice as much money-wise, and used prices will drop even further beyond that. Yep, that is the other option, although the cheaper build quality over the R might be an indicator that Canon is thinking it would sell it in much greater numbers, if they just price it under the competition and cripple it more, while also being ahead in other areas (the main headline of the A7III is still price per features)

Yes, but I can't see Canon putting C-Log in a lower-tier camera, unless they want to cannibalise their own EOS R and 5D IV I can see them saving costs on the sensor as well and leave it with the lower dynamic range, so it would be really noisy in the shadows anyway, even if it did come with Log. This is something they can still decide on via firmware, like they did with 5D IV or 1080p24p recording, ugh... It would also suck somewhat for 1DX II owners, if it did come with better dynamic range besides other DSLR related things like fixed screen, no EVF, no IBIS, no low-bitrate 4K codec, etc. all is well-known. I'm still seeing great-looking 1DX II footage even with custom-made profiles, this camera could make that level of video performance much more accessible in a very light and compact camera body.

From the 1DX III, full sensor RAW video looks to be truly amazing, we already know the bitrate will be a new record (but the H.265 should be a lot lower) The main question is how bad the rolling shutter is going to be. The crop factors, record limits are really critism over a vast amount of great specs around a camera that has all the bases well-covered. It seems very powerful and may not cost over 4000$ as they want to sell it to the "5D-class" users, even if they don't use video at all. I think it is not a feature most people are going to use, but it helps with staying relevant for a long time, it is a glimpse into the future, where media is cheaper and it is easier to process. In the past, people were stunned, when they saw prints from image frames taken out of a 1DC, cropped 4K with 8-bit 4:2:2 MJPEG, the standard CF cards were ridiculously expensive then (as well as the camera itself), now we have 8K with a RAW codec with AF and other goodies for many times less. That's progress. Other point is exclusivity, it's not not expected from other manufacturers. Because to match this, other manufacturers basically have to copy it (which they don't tend to do, they all stick to their own formulas and model lines, etc), it does need the exact same number of megapixels and it makes the most sense on the FF category as well, on a smaller sensor it seems like a bigger compromise, and the ecosystem of medium format options is too small at this point, EF is still the biggest and it's perfectly integrated. I am afraid the R6 will be crippled regarding video to keep it "safe" from the 5D-level of cameras, so it won't be a direct competitor to an A7III or A7IV, it will be better in some ways and worse in others.

As the expectations because more realistic, it looks more and more clear that this camera will be a considerable step down over the R5 targeted at different users. It is much more simplified with a mode dial, and no top LCD (maybe they can add in a joystick since they did add that to the 90D as well) and it is how a 6D Mark III would be imagined in a mirrorless body with IBIS. So they can still make the 1DX III in a mirrorless body or maybe they will wait for the next generation of sensors and more complete lens line-up for that. Yes, they could be lowering the megapixels to the original 6D level, but with that they can add useful video features without driving the cost up too much. I also probably does not need Digic X for processing. I am betting will have 1:1 crop UHD 4k60p and the rolling shutter is going to better than the EOS R but not at 1DX Mark II levels. I also expect it to omit 10-bit and Canon Log profile (not great, but expected to differentiate it) So it would be 8-bit 4:2:0 H.264 IPB compression internally, and 8-bit 4:2:2 externally (like the EOS RP) It would not have DPAF in 1080p 120fps (like 90D or M6 Mark II) and I am not sure if it has it in all 4K recording modes either. It would also keep the EOS R "semi-protected" and as the cheap available option for people who want a B-cam with 10-bit 4:2:2 external Canon Log recording. Now the question is: are they going to limit the dynamic range of the sensor only for video usage (like the 1DX Mark II) and it will be much better for still images, or it is going to remain low to being with? Because it is still 6D-class camera, not a 5D-class like the R5, and they can keep the price as low as possible? For the longevity, it would probably be better it to cost more and have the sensor with the better dynamic range and Canon Log for video. That would step over the EOS R for video for sure and it's not that old yet. I guess many will be unhappy about most of this, but even with all this crippling it looks like a decent photo/video camera, it would have some the video feature set of the 1DX Mark II with more modern codecs, flip-screen, EVF, IBIS, it does have dual card slots, etc.

And also the lens lineup, best is to have IS+IBIS together, and electronic IS can be added on top of these. I'm guessing even EF lenses will be fully supported, but RF will be more effective.

I am not saying it has many limitations, but taking away 4k60p AF is there to protect the cinema line. And it is going to continue with the flagship R stills camera as well in one way or another, which will probably be cheaper than the 1DX III, therefore more limited in terms of available options. Yes they want to move RF lenses and they will do that also by releasing RF-mount cinema cameras as well.

The way they've decided to limit this camera suggests that they will limit that camera even more. (IBIS adds more heat anyway) Or they might not even bother releasing a lower megapixel R at all this year, keeping the R Mark II around 30-40 MP (8-bit internal codecs) and do a separate video-oriented model instead and get back to this one in 2021.

After the firmware update the tracking Eye-AF on the EOS R works very well now, not much to complain about (they've also improved the banding, although I've never noticed it). I can't see this camera beating the R for stills(apart from the IBIS), just does not have the lenses (either new or old) or the AF system (in AF-C) to compete with it, it is much stronger for video (and for tougher conditions or manual focusing). And the price is much higher here, 2000$ seems like a more reasonable deal. After re-selling the kit lens(which is also very good just like the Panasonic), the EOS R cost me only 1450$ grey market, and the EF adapter is cheap, too. Can be considered as a "weak" camera body to start with, but as a system it is still looking strong. I expected more "true native" (not re-modeled) lenses from the L-mount alliance. Canon (or Nikon) as a single company will have more RF (Z) glass as a single company within a year, even with EF-mount not taken into consideration.

Looks good, 0.71x would mean going back to 1DC levels of 4k crop and the extra stop makes it more similar to the 1DXII in low-light as well (but one stop brighter in daylight, it is fine for the trade-off, really)

No one is happy about the crop or the rolling shutter (I am sure you were very happy about Log in the 1DXII), it is just what one gets from Canon at this price range and it still looks quite decent, simple as that, the RP is just way too limited in every way for not a whole lot less money. Panasonic Sony or Nikon all do FF 4k with internal stabilisation, but somehow I just don't prefer how they look. They also don't have the lens selection and support that Canon has. Looks very solid to me, rolling shuter or not. I think that this external raw thing could be completely bogus anyway, since originally it was offered 10-bit 4:2:2 external recording(4k only, so no 1080p FF to fight the trolling shutter), but maybe it is one of those rare cases, where they do actually react to what's out there (but it could take a fair few months to update the firmware anyway, even ver. 1.2 is a month away). If someone would crack the RF code and release a fully functional RF-EF focal reducer, for the EOS R (just like there is one for the M50), it would probably sell like crazy.

Moaning is always the easiest thing. That rolling shutter is probably measured for FF stills, it is around 30ms for 4k, quite close to the 1DC which is of course quite severe, but if I search around for 1DC footage, I don't see it looking like crap, the opposite. And it uses 8-bit 4:2:2 MJPEG, which is very far from Prores RAW (which is what the 1DXII also uses without Log btw, can't wait to see someone doing a dynamic range comparison on that) This is not destined to be an A-cam, it has its limitations but it's looking like an even better B-cam for the C200 now. Yes, they will release a much better video-stills camera with probably a similar sensor to the 1DXIII (I guess around 24MP and 1.5x 4k60p crop, I would forget about FF but we'll see), but it will be bloody expensive. It well and truly buries 4k ML raw in the 5D III for good, that's really not bad at all for around 1500$ grey market plus the cost of the recorder (after reselling the kit lens, which is also rather decent). Personally, I just use the 1.8x(1.9x with IS) cropped 1080p internal recording on the R (sometimes in FF, but the crop is downsampled, so not really degraded with electronic IS), and for now, it is perfectly fine for my needs, and I don't move the camera around like crazy. I liked how the 6D Mark II looked in comparison to the A7s, but it was very soft, and now I am fine with cropping in (and with more rs, similar to the A7s) for fixing that, but still have pleasant looking 1080p footage (with AF, although I think I still like MF better, after using it for long).

That comes with its own drawbacks, because it is 3rd party SB, it drains the battery even harder, the 4k crop is 1.81x vs 1.6x (same difference for the full sensor mode) , the 4k and ISO doesn't seem to look as good, and you cannot use the same crop lenses for photography without changing the adapter(with SB FF lenses for stills, the quality is really not that great either), so two adapters, more accessories to buy for a depreciating system(the RP includes the adapter so it's not exactly double the cost), a speedbooster can still come to the other as well. And I also mentioned the body differences, the RP looks better in that regard. I am not saying it is that much better, but it is certainly an alternative. Of course there will be the M model with 4k DPAF enabled, but it will be very close in terms of cost or weight (new batteries again, etc...) maybe they will might give that something else to keep the system appealing.

Of course, I just feel that even if it does have it, I might still consider moving up to the next model anyway, because it doesn't heat up as much, the AF is not compromised in Log mode (that is actually less than the specs sheet) the battery becomes stronger, etc., I don't feel like it is so much more future-proof because of that. This also applies to the external recorder as well, needs to be less toasty and less power hungry, with cheaper compact-sized media, etc. or maybe better internal recording can reduce the need for it. Being an early adopter vs. waiting it to mature a little bit. Each has its own advantages.

Let's break it down a bit more then: they are all the same modes effectively(some differences with processing as I mentioned with the 1080p), only more cropped in by the M50 by default, because it is already a crop sensor. I think the 720p 120fps which is the only real difference, is almost completely useless, even softer than the already very soft EOS R in the with the same frame rate. I also don't think it is really necessary to use any kind of EF-S glass on an RP (most of them are not constant aperture zooms, why would you want that for video anyway) EF just works just fine for photo and video (if you are vlogging for instance and want a wider angle 10-18mm f4.5-5.6, it is definitely unusable in 4k - even if there was downscaled cropped 1080p like on the EOS R, it wouldn't matter that much. So much more logical to stick to 1080p and use EF glass anyway, not EF-S) Apart from a really excellent value 11-22mm f4-5.6 wide-angle zoom, and generally being very compact for an APS-C camera, the M system really doesn't offer anything special (yes, the recent 32mm f1.4 is also quite nice, but not cheap and there will be an RF 50mm f1.8 with IS included...)

You can find M50 footage on the same channel, I think the RP 4k image looks crisper, 1.6x crop vs 2.56x total crop is pretty significant to me and the low-light is no contest. Yes, you can add a 3rd party SpeedBooster for more monnies, but why not just go for this one instead, especially when it comes bundled with the 100$ adapter (or you can add the control ring or even ND, cheap EF glass, etc., etc.) So as some suggested, while they are in different price categories, it certainly pushes the M50 back a little bit (keeping the EF-M system slightly separate from the rest doesn't help either) Tried it for a short time, I don't have big hands but it feels too small for me, not the same level of controls. For 1080p it is more complicated, better low-light with different look on FF versus better quality 1080p on the M50 but with more limited lens choices.