zerocool22

Color, aliasing free, motion cadence, smoothness. incredible. That's where the money is atm. 4K , 6k, 8k are worthless without those.

It is. Pro cameramen don't go to a gig without a couple of cam units at least anyways.

Same with the Canon R5 $3800 in the U.S and about $5500 in the UK
To compare Panasonic S1H is $4000 in the U.S. and about $4700 in the UK 
Sony and Canon marketing teams in Europe are taking the piss

Am I the only one who got buffled by a A7S3 US vs Europe price tag difference? Its 3500 vs 5000$ if we do the conversion, a 43% difference! Are they out of their fuckin minds? Yes, I know that the US price doesn't inculde taxes, but they are not even remotly close to 43%. 

Then just buy an EOS-r and spend the rest on a nice holiday. Or me for giving you this top tip  

So we can get the worst AF in the industry? Thanks but no thanks. 
Canon should just put a passive cooling system à la A7S which is much easier for them to do than for Panasonic to have a great AF. 
Unfortunately for some weird reasons Canon decided not to cool the R5. Pretty sure someone at top management said « well at least that recording limitation will differentiate with our Cinema line. »

What if the R5 did not overheat would you still go the A7S III route?

Btw I read in a previous post about the canon RF cooling adapter. Found some article about it ==>
https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/canon-designs-additional-adapter-to-fix-canon-eos-r5-overheating-issue-1705356-2020-07-28

Quote from Clermond on dvxuser:
I was in the field for about 1.5hrs at about 37°C. The camera was in the very hot car before.
My iPad case melted on the dashbord. I was shooting 4K25 HQ and 4K50 HQ. 28 clips from 30sec to 3mins,
125GB in total. The only thing that overheated was I myself. The CFexpress card was very hot when I out it out.
I just checked some files mostly for focus. I really like what I see. 19hrs on the feet. Time for some sleep.

I don’t get this idea. The person that knows they need a C200/300/500 are not going to buy an R5 in place of it!
They are separate markets.
Typically someone that is in the market for a R5 isn’t going to be like, shit, I’ll spring and spend an extra $10,000 for the C500.
If anything they will buy what they need, C200/300/500 and get a couple of R5/6 in addition not in replacement.

Not asked of me I know, but if it was not for the overheating controversy (and whether that would even be an issue for my own hybrid needs I don’t know at this time), it would be my first choice right now.
A pair of them matched to the RF 28-70 f2 and 85mm f2 and I’d be set and never need to change a lens or use a monopod as I do now.
That 28-70 is a beast...but it’s a featherweight compared to my current combo of; Sigma 18-35, Fringer Pro, Anker powerbank and monopod (with XT3). Replace all 4 of those items with the 28-70 f2 would be a dream.
And that is my consideration, - the sum of the whole kit and not just the camera body.
The Sony looks good as a pure video tool, but has 3 strikes against it for me; colour, IBIS, 12mp. Could I live with it? Maybe, but only if it was the best option out there and for me it isn’t.
My hope is they either sort the Canon or at the very least it turns out to be OK for my needs.
The XH2 will need to have zero compromises to beat a sorted version of this Canon. And I’m a Fuji fan.

No camera is perfect. We all have different needs.
S1H is Netflix approved as it is one of the only large sensor hybrids that check marks their capture requirements ie. Timecode, high bitrate 10-bit 4:2:2 Log, DCI 4K, Anamorphic support. Of course the fact it has an active cooling system and won't overheat doesn't hurt. Narrative work rarely requires AF lenses so AF simply isn't an issue. It also has all the cine cam features like LUT assist, vector scopes etc.
But for hybrid shooters, solo video shooters, vloggers, youtubers etc. AutoFocus is crucial, especially in FF which rules out the Pannys.
R5 vs A7S3. Tough call. On paper, R5 should destroy A7S3. It has 45MP, 8K, DCI 4K, Better IBIS, better ergonomics, internal RAW.
..but in the real world, all that means nothing if your camera can't operate because it overheated.
so by default, it would seem A7S3 wins. However if you're an outdoor shooter in warm weather, A7S3 may overheat even faster than R5. 
and when A7S3 overheats, it completely shuts off while it appears R5 allows you to switch to pixel-binned 4K.. but HQ recovery times are long.
A7S3 does appear to be the safer bet if you're hard pressed for an upgrade. But if you already have an A73, is 12MP non-oversampled 4K really worth the 4200€ investment? Maybe for the HFR & 10-bit. I'll let you be the judge. Personally I'm not rushing in to buy either, hate being a beta-tester to first gen e-products.
 

What if the R5 did not overheat would you still go the A7S III route?

I should have posted the link : https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS R5,Sony ILCE-7RM4
 

Not to stir things up, but is the overheating an issue with the a7siii as well? I’ve seen some issues people had. Is this just marketing that everyone bashes Canon but not Sony? I don’t own either and don’t plan to, but just curious why everyone got hell bent on destroying Canon but it doesn’t seem to be discussed with Sony. Or is it not an issue with Sony? 
 
https://youtu.be/tgcp8wXAUZY

Yes, these EOS R5 footage looks incredible.
I only use the ACES CLog conversion, no grading at all, and already looks fantastic.

Really wish someone upload some nice footage from the A7s 3 like that one, so we can play with it.
And hope that Canon come up with something that doesn't take 5 years to do.
At least sony throw their best codecs into a mirrorless.
But for now I will keep my pocket 4k.
Its not full frame but colors and codecs are really nice to work with.
 

Unfortunately I tend to believe that future of m43 as looks dictated with position in Panasonic's plans is pretty bad. Panasonic team simply don't wish - or don't dare - to offer m43 camera that is far above in--the-field capabilities of their FF line, let alone EVA line... but moment of technology is quite such. All that FF line still severely struggle to bring even at lower (I mean mostly mostly capable LSI and codec and bit/bitrate wise) level, m43 already matured. Simply, Panasonic team IMO is also captivated in some sort of market autism that today is common for all Japanese manufacturer.
There's simply no wide place for 4000+ euros prized photo-body cameras. There also was no place for highly restrictive GH5s for 2500e without daring to give RAW but with daring to cut off IBIS because of task of gluing camera to moving car - and even more for such long keeping price at that level. Population of younger and aspiring dreamers or even more ambition travelers (even at Western countries that rapidly lose their previous standard) has no money for overheated price lust - they don't want to endlessly dispute about specs, salivate about sensor size, 10% more or less Bokeh, DOF, etc. - but to learn, create and promote themselves as distinctive creative individuals.
And at the moment when Japanese manufacturer finally are forced to drop their lust for more than 200% profit margin, BM's clever, more spec wise friendly and more honest in offering products already eat up most of the wider circle (out of die-hard AF users) market. 
Also unfortunately, after several misleading states about GH5s (totally false or deliberately misleading quoting of true usable DR, about cheap reason for omit of IBIS, misery of argument for stubborn keeping destructive NR algorithm etc) by mr Frazer, I concluded that he is just logically and predictable boastful front man without any decision relevance.

Not really.   I never asked for 8K... or even 120fps 4K.. maybe some did, I didn't.  In fact, what I was hoping for was a Canon version of the S1H camera with their own colour science and AF.  
Still waiting.... 

Yes, I believe it is going to work on many machines.
But on his video it didn't playback realtime on a Mac pro with the vega 2 card and 12 core CPU. 
 

So I decided to try for myself on my humble Ryzen 1600 with RX570 card.
Resolve and all drivers are the last updates.
And it didn't playback realtime, but the footage from A7s 3 works really well since it is H264 10bit.
In this fast test I set the timeline to 29,976fps for the Canon R5 footage. 
A7s3 footage is in 50fps.
In the end I add a pocket 4k footage BRAW 24fps.
Playing R5 H256 the CPU was maxed out at 100%, then it droped to 25% with the A7s3, and finaly 15% for the Pocket 4k BRAW.
 
 
I don't know for what kind of machine I would have to upgrade to play these H265 files realtime.
Dont know if you guuys have tried any of these footages, but if yes, let us know about the performance.
 

So, with all this talk about 8k RAW, it's got me thinking, and I'm contemplating going back to 1080p.
I've been thinking about all these cameras with high resolutions and ferocious data rates, and why they don't implement higher bitrates and bit-depths on the lower resolution modes.  
Noam Kroll just shot a low budget feature in 2K Prores HQ on his Alexa Classic.  In 4:3 no less!  https://noamkroll.com/playing-against-filmmaking-trends-on-our-feature-with-arri-alexa-classic-2k-prores-hq-43-aspect-ratio/
His pipeline was RAW -> Prores HQ -> storage.  Prores HQ in 1080 is around 176Mbps, is All-I, and is 10-bit.  It sounds lovely.  Uncompressed 1080 10-bit is a whopping 1490Mbps, so the 176Mbps of HQ is quite a saving of data rates.  
But what do I actually want?
So I made a list:
I want more bit-depth than 10-bit
10-bit is fine if you're on a controlled set or have time to get your WB broadly right in camera, but for some of the horrendous situations I find myself in, having more bit-depth would help (remember how with RAW you can WB in post - well, bit depth is what enables that) I want high bit-rates for a good quality image
A good quality image means that every portion of the screen gets a decent amount of data, so this is about bit-rate.  It's not about resolution, because a 100Mbps 4K file will still have half the data available for each square cm of the screen than a 200Mbps 1080 file I want files that are easy to edit in post
It doesn't matter if my 8K smartphone files are only 100Mbps, the computer still has to decode, process, display, and encode 16 times as many pixels as 1080 So, do I want 1080p RAW?
Yes, and no.  RAW has great bit-depth, much larger bit-rates than I care for, but also isn't the best that 1080 can get because it is lower resolution after debayering.  Do I want 2.5K RAW?  Maybe.  Problem is that RAW and IBIS are very rarely found together.  What I really want is some kind of compressed, but not too compressed, intermediary file.  
What I really want is 1080 Prores 4444 (which is 264Mbps) or Prores 4444 XQ (which is 396Mbps), because these are 12-bit.  12-bit would do me very nicely.
So, what do we get from the manufacturers?  We get ridiculous bitrates on the higher resolutions, and paltry token efforts on the lower ones.  My XC10 is a classic case - 305Mbps 4K but 35Mbps 1080p.  The 4K has 2.5 times the amount of data per pixel than the 1080p, and 10 times the amount of data per square cm of screen.
But I have a GH5, which is one of the exceptions, as Panasonic went for the jugular on the lower resolution modes as well as the higher ones, and so I'm down to the three "best" modes that will work on a UHS-I SD card:
5K 4:3 200Mbps Long-GOP h265 4K 16:9 150Mbps Long-GOP h264 1080p 16:9 200Mbps All-I h264 So I shot a test.  That test showed me that the 5K mode is far superior, even on a 1080p timeline, but uploaded to YT is a different story.  Considering I have partnered with YT for distribution share my videos on YT, that's what my friends and family end up seeing.
This lead me to the question about what is actually visible after it's been minced by YT?
Luckily I had done a previous test where I took an 8K RAW file, and rendered out various resolution Prores HQ intermediaries, then exported each of them from a 4K timeline.  That video is here:
So, I downloaded the above video in 4K, 2K, and 1080p resolutions, took screen grabs, and put them side-by-side for comparison.  Here they are - you're welcome.



So, what can I see in these images?
The 4K download is better than the 2K, which is better than the 1080p.  This is hardly news, each of these is more than double the bit-rate of the next one and they're all using the same compression algorithm, that's how mathematics works. Watching in 4K each lower resolution is subtly worse than the previous, except for 1.2k (720p) which is way worse.  That's to be expected, 2k - 1.2k is a bigger percentage drop than the other resolutions.  However, things don't get "bad" until in the 2.5k - 1.2k range, depending on your tolerance for IQ. Moving to the other extreme, watching in 1080 they are all very similar, except for the 1.2k version, which is interesting. Some of these grabs also have a lower resolution one looking better than the higher one next to it.  That's not an accident on my part (I checked), it really is like that.  As the original video has the resolutions all in sequence in the one video, I suspect that the frame I chose was differing distances from the previous keyframe in the stream, so that will introduce some variation. So, what does this mean?
Well, firstly, no point shooting in 8K RAW if your viewers are watching in 1080p on YT.  I doubt that's news to anyone, but maybe it is to some R5 pre-orders lol.
More importantly, if your audience is watching in 1080 then they're not going to notice if you used 2K intermediaries or 3.2k ones.
How can we apply this to our situations?
This is more complex.  In this pipeline we had 8K RAW -> X Prores -> timeline.  This meant that the Prores was by far the weakest link, and Prores HQ is pretty high-bitrate compared to most consumer formats.  1080 Prores HQ is 176Mbps, but UHD Prores HQ is 707Mbps.  I don't know of any cameras that shoot h264 in anything even approaching those data rates for those resolutions, so good luck with that.  
If you're shooting 4K 100Mbps h264 then that's the same bitrate per square pixel of screen as 1.4K Prores HQ, which is pretty darn close to that 1.2k that looks awful in all the above.  
Obviously if your viewers are watching in 4K then it's worth shooting in the highest bit-rate you can find.
What does this mean for me?  Not sure yet, I need to do more tests on the GH5 modes, and I need to think more about things like tracking and stabilisation which can use extra resolution in the edit.
But I won't rule out going back to 1080p.

Nothing wrong with that if it solves the problem. I have drilled a hole in a new 3-grand camera in the past with zero regrets.

Someone dissembled R5 and found barely any heatsink and shockingly there was no TIM (thermal paste).

You contribution to the forum is very very valuable thx to be here
 

No way this cam gets approved by Netflix. FX9 still blows it away: