kaylee

I don't like to be forced into this split personality way of working really.
Imagine if you're on location in some beautiful place and want to capture stills at the same time as video, quickly before the moment's gone. You can't ask nature or streets to pause like a video game whilst you reboot into Video OS 2000.
It's one of these things that you just can't justify being forced into.
Even things like separate GUI or exposure settings between video and stills mode should be a matter of choice.
Quickest way to shoot both is to have an all-purpose stills mode, with PSAM and then a video button.
Samsung NX1 got it right. Tap a button to instantly get 16:9 frame in stills mode and to shoot video.
No matter how technically interesting it is to have a Cinema EOS OS and Stills EOS OS on one camera.... the benefits don't outweigh the amount of missed shots there will be.
If you want an identical shot in video mode and in stills mode, and nothing has changed in the light from one second to the next why would I want to change exposure or have to set the same exposure twice for two modes?
I could be snapping merrily away in stills mode, nailing the exposure and all other settings, then switch to video mode and it will be completely off because it had been set earlier for a completely different scene?
Who wants that?
Does the EOS R5 C actually offer all of that or is it a crippled subset?
Assist tools, shutter angle, etc. is on the GH5 since like 4 years ago?
S1H and Blackmagic have LUT support, and so on.
So how about adding all that to the EOS R5 C in a normal way?... there is no need to hive it off into a Cinema EOS operating system that takes ages to boot up.
This thing is targeted at them!
EOS R5 C is a hybrid cam!
I completely accept it may be ok for you.
I can only say that from my point of view it's a pretty big flaw!

this is still a discussion on the hybrid camera with the 8 second delay right

this is still a discussion on the hybrid camera with the 8 second delay right

this is still a discussion on the hybrid camera with the 8 second delay right

this is still a discussion on the hybrid camera with the 8 second delay right

"Nothing unique or special about the look"
"They are all equivalent... APS-C, full frame, medium format"
*Stops down GFX lens to F3.5...."Same look to DOF as APS-C at F1.8"
FUCK
When camera store salesman become an authority on photography and video...
You get this!
Widespread misinformation.
Sad to see how many people in the YouTube comments just accept it.
Stopping down a medium format camera and then complaining it can't do anything different to an APS-C model at F1.8????
Put a Minolta MD 58mm F1.2 on APS-C, full frame and medium format and tell me they all look equivalent!
With same lens, look would be completely different on all 3.
Equivalency is being taken to mean there is no difference in the look of different camera formats.
It completely ignores the fact that lenses are matched to sensor size.
If you take one designed for one format and apply it to another, it looks different!
I wouldn't be surprised if they punted this out just to generate the heat.
It is after all quite chilly in Canada.

hi @webrunner5~!

this is the elephant in the room.
wheres my 5d3 raw color? "clay" is right, skintones seem flat with no depth or translucency

this is the elephant in the room.
wheres my 5d3 raw color? "clay" is right, skintones seem flat with no depth or translucency

this is the elephant in the room.
wheres my 5d3 raw color? "clay" is right, skintones seem flat with no depth or translucency

this is the elephant in the room.
wheres my 5d3 raw color? "clay" is right, skintones seem flat with no depth or translucency

I just don't think the Canon Cinema cameras are there in terms of skin tone, color depth, and dynamic range. Don't get me wrong, it looks great... But they're kind of cheating the skin tones. There's this kind of clay look, similar to the processing the iPhone does. I own the C70 and I notice this too. This is great for a lot of applications, but even with "8k raw" this is still the same image since the C300 Mkii. It is not leaps and bounds better.
That being said, eye tracking, 10 bit internal, dual ISO, full frame sensor. All of this is incredible to have. I think people need to pick the camera that makes sense for their shooting style. This is a killer gimbal or second camera. Obviously. 
The sun clips the same as it has since... probably any c-log on any Canon EOS camera.

I really think is wrong it does 12bit RAW video why it would do only 10bit RAW photo.... is a typo imo

How do you do run and gun without IBIS? You know.. I’ve come on here for years and listened to Andrew ask for the one thing that would have made Canon a champ all these years - all we wanted was a decent upgrade to the 5D Mark II - a perfect hybrid camera video shooter. All those years ago, Canon saw the potential when Hollywood was actually utilizing 5D Mark IIs on set. But rather than capitalizing on this moment and continue to create consumer-grade products that were so good - they could be used in Hollywood, Canon instead went the other direction - chose to “monetize” those Hollywood customers with Cinema EOS - purpose -built products specific for video, and much more expensive too!
In 12 long years Canon failed to recognize the need for a consumer-grade hybrid - a proper update to the 5D Mark II. Today - More than ever before - photographers are becoming videographers - it’s just the nature of the business. People still take photos, but people want video. 
In those last 12 years, Canon has only released two more products that are as “perfect” as the 5D Mark II as a hybrid shooter - the 1DC and the 1DX Mark III. Every other product Canon has released has had some sort of diminishing return - what we call “the cripple hammer”. But that cripple hammer is mostly thanks to Cinema EOS, and the mental gymnastics Canon continues to take their customers through in order to “protect” this Cinema market.
Yet I haven’t heard of any of those “Hollywood” customers purchasing Cinema EOS products - I certainly don’t see them at the top of the sales charts. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure ARRI and RED are more popular at the Hollywood level?
So then why the need for Cinema EOS? To me it’s just a ploy from Canon to force you into buying one product for video and one product for stills.
Knowing this past history I went into this R5C announcement with expectations that IBIS would likely be missing - looks like I was right.
Without IBIS I just don’t know who this camera is aimed for. In hindsight I guess we should’ve seen this a mile away. We have the C70 and the R5 - had Canon made a “perfect” solution then why would anyone buy the C70 or R5 moving forward?
And so perhaps the issue is that Canon has too many products with no focus? It’s no wonder that they’re losing money. Why do consumers always have to trade off with Canon in this manner? Especially when no one has to trade off when it comes to Sony or NIkon.
My current camera is a 5D Mark III. I haven’t upgraded not because of cost but because Canon refuses to release a perfect camera. And if I’m spending $10K on the camera, lens, batteries, battery grip, adapters and CFExpress cards - all required for the R5C - then we must demand perfection. 
 
Perhaps the R5 Mark II will be the true spiritual successor to the 5D Mark II? Would certainly make sense? But how many more years do I have to wait? And what features will continue to be omitted as part of a stupid effort to keep Cinema EOS “protected”?
 
 

I hope both of the customers for this camera each buy one.
#salestargetgoals

This is why if something has a micro-hdmi port treat it like it doesn’t have hdmi out. That port is so flimsy and shitty and it is directly mounted to the main board on the R5.

It depends on how you're using the camera.  I love the EVF / IBIS combo for vintage lenses on my GH5 but shooting low angles doesn't lend itself to using the EVF and high angles would require dozens of radical leg extension surgeries to enable me to use the EVF!
In-camera Electronic IS is handicapped compared to EIS done in post, because the camera can't predict future motion so easily but NLEs can easily do so.
With RAW files there isn't really any advantage to using the in-camera EIS so in that situation you can do a better job in-post, which if you have time to do it will always be a better option.  Plus if you're recording in 8K (or as I call it, ridiculous-o-vision) you can process the living bejeebers out of it and it'll still look fine once you downsample to 4K and run it through the YT hammer-the-shit-out-of-it compression and processing.
 

Neither ND nor IBIS? That’s a misstep. Not sure I buy the omission due to heat; there’s a…fan.

Completely and utterly horrid, confusing, and a waste of time. I didn't even make it through 20% of the video even after fast forwarding. I couldn't even tell if the whole thing was shot with the R5c or not.

Worst intro video ever, it is so bad and completely useless.

same 🤣

OMFG is right.
I'd say "what the f* did I just watch" but I only made it to 2:27s.  I haven't seen acting that bad in a looooong time.
Then I thought, "did Canon give a pre-production model to some random influencers and this is what they posted?".  Nope.  CanonUSA official YT channel.
*facepalm*

Cinematographers have long been using vintage lenses with digital on Oscar-nominated films.  Only relatively recently have shooters on smaller projects commenced utilizing the beautiful character of vintage glass.
Certainly, a lot of beautiful and powerful cinematography has been created in the square format, but it is perplexing why anyone would shoot an entire project with anamorphic glass only to crop it square in post.  To make such square imagery impactful, one usually must compose for that for that format while shooting.  If they did so using framing guides, then one wonders how they could reconcile all that wasted image space (and wasted sensor resolution).  Are linear flares and oval highlights worth the sacrifice?
In regards to Oscar-nominated films only using Alexas and mostly vintage glass, here is an interview with the DP of "Ex Machina" (2014), in which he explains why he used the combination of old Xtal Express glass with a Sony F65.

Interesting to see this trend.
LOMO anamorphic gets a nod!
Cameras used though not so interesting, a lot of ARRI as usual!