Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by independent

  1. It’s technological progress. All cameras today have hot chips and fishy algorithms in them too. 

    The iPhones will continue to devastate consumer photo cameras, but that’s a problem for manufacturers. Regardless, pro video is currently too far ahead for too many reasons. If anything, I see this accelerating innovation and features in the pro market, and I welcome whatever makes the job easier.

    I do look forward to better TikTok videos. 

  2. It depends on 1) what your projects needs are and 2) how you like to shoot. I really liked the Sigma 18-35mm so the 15-35mm RF feels very comfortable (shooting oversampled crop mode on the R5). So I'd recommend the RF 15-35mm for the C70 over the 24-70mm, which I'd prefer for full frame. 

    Why not speedboosted w/ EF? Because of Nano USM, which makes the on-top mic far more usable instead of just relegated to scratch mic. EF is dead to me.

  3. 6 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

    S1H ticks a lot of boxes of the X70 other than internal NDs and AF. Codecs and the image itself are of proven quality. Would love to see a comparision. The older Canon C300ii is infamous for its plastic look at higher isos and lowlight due to nasty noise reduction. S1H has an artefact free cinematic image which betters the C300ii easily in certain situations.  S1H might be the better choice for those who dont need AF or NDs and who want to shoot 6K on a virtual sensor size of approx. 50 x 34mm with a Pentax  or Mamyia middle format speedbooster or with its full physical size of 36 x 24 mm.                                                                                         

    The C70 and C300iii have a completely different sensor and image processing than the c300ii's--or any other camera's. The Dual Gain Output is the key technological advantage. Gerald Undone, Dave May, and Jake Ratcliffe from CVP all clearly showed how the DGO helps retain color and pull detail from the shadows or "underexposed" images, without the artifacts seen in other cameras.

    Even the new Sony a7s iii, while amazing for its high ISO sensitivity, is surprisingly noisy in the shadows, as noted by Brandon Li BTS/review.

    And internal NDs aren't absolutely necessary, but It certainly sucks to fiddle with screw-on filters, fight image degradation with variable NDs, or spend thousands on matte boxes and filters. 

    I think that's the biggest compromise w/ the R5. NDs (in the adapter) or the quiet, stabilized RF lenses.

    For the C70, the biggest compromise is Full Frame (in the speed booster) or the quiet, stabilized RF lenses.



  4. 2 hours ago, maxmizer said:

    It would not seem true that it mounts the same sensor as the c300mk3 ... Canon makes many sensors ...

    Arri's magic is in the electronics and the firmware behind the sensor !!!


    It's the same sensor. The magic is a dual gain output, like Arri. But not the same; Canon's advantage is in the shadows while Arri's is in the highlights. So you should still protect the highlights w/ the C300iii or C70 

  5. There's no video camera right now that checks off as many boxes as does the C70. That doesn't meant it's the right camera for everybody. 

    However, it is amazing to see how many people require a built-in EVF, SDI-port, and RAW. And must let the world know the tragedy of their unmet needs. We all know you twits shoot on iPhones. The C70 has portrait mode too you cunts


  6. The C70 is an interesting intermediate option during this critical turning point in lens mount. RF lenses, and the RF mount, are clearly the future; Canon is not making any more EF lenses. Also, technically the RF L lenses are superior, which matters. I've tested the EF 50 1.2 v RF 50 1.2, and the resolving power of the RF is significantly superior. For static shots, you will immediately notice the difference (shot in 8K raw, viewed on 5K monitor).

    Also, for some lenses, there's not a huge price difference between EF and RF (24-105 F4 retails for the same, RF 15-35mm v EF 16-35mm is $200 retail difference). 

    That being said, with the EF focal reducer adapter, you get the full frame look. It's not cheap at $600, but it's still way cheaper than the $11,000 c300iii that's still stuck w/ crop sensor.

    Then again, you could also just use the $100 EF/RF adapter and use the lovely Sigma 18-35mm and the Canon nano-usm zooms that are dirt cheap and silent for video. You can walk away with a $5600 ready to shoot package.

    It's a very flexible camera.




  7. 5 minutes ago, Mmmbeats said:

    In terms of a straight-up image quality shoot out - do people expect the C200 (with  RAW Light, but an older sensor) or the C70 (with DGO, but video compressed codecs) to win?

    I'm seeing the DGO sensor outperform the C200 in the chart tests.  Does C200 RAW still have any advantages (over the C70 video image)?

    More flexibility. You can still push the color grade much more w/ 12-bit raw. And with some post work, de-noising, you can probably get it to look closer to the shootouts.

    But the c70/c300iii 10-bit 422 XFAVC looks great straight out of the camera if you don't screw up too badly with exposure, white balance, etc. Faster turnaround, you don't have to spend as much time in post.

  8. An EVF is a great thing to have, but I've primarily used the LCD for the touchscreen focus on the R5, even in daylight - I just change the viewing angle. I've also used the Ninja V on top of the R5, which was quite good during daylight too. The availability of even higher nit monitors somewhat mitigates the issue. 

    To be honest, I never liked the EVF placement on any of the Canon cinema cameras, and I've either owned or operated almost every single one of them (not the C700). It's not very ergonomic to hold the camera in that position. The EVF is best placed on the side of the camera, for shoulder-mount. None of the canon cinema cameras were ENG ready out of the box. 

    For bigger productions, the C70 would be primarily used for gimbals, so no EVF needed. For indie shoots, I would imagine it would be used mostly on sticks or if handheld, with the top handle for cradle shots or on easyrigs. 

  9. Codecs are efficient, practical, professional, broadcast-ready codec that you don't need to clean up in post.  Following the c300iii, the shadows will be noise-free under ISO 25600, SOOC. True, you don't have all the flexibility of raw if you want to do heavy color grading, but you also have great color because of the the parallel readout of RGGB rather than debayer process. 

    Also, due to the efficient codec, you save a lot of cash on media and storage.

    If you're a one-man shooter who shoots fast, all this helps.


  10. GG bros.

    I'm not replacing my R5, but I am def picking this up as a personal A camera (goodbye c300ii). 

    This comes in half the price of comparable cinema cams with more features. Full frame (w/ adapter), DPAF, auto ISO, dual gain sensor, tiny size and associated grip package, cheaper media and associated storage/editing costs

    It also knocks off all the hybrid cams: Internal NDs, full featured audio (xls for real shotgun mics, physical controls buttons), all the monitoring tools, no overheating, handle + mic adapter for no bullshit cage....

    The only thing missing is IBIS, which is quite frankly overstated compared to regular optical stabilization. 

    I'm just curious about the dynamic range v. the c300iii...I thought the dynamic range reached 16 stops only in raw.


  11. 16 hours ago, Avenger 2.0 said:

    Guess metabones can fix this with a firmware update if they want to.

    I let metabones know when the Speedbooster didn’t work on the R5. Well it worked except for the autofocus. Anyways, that was very early in the shipments and MB didn’t have access to the new camera. I’m guessing a firmware update would be likely. 

  12. 3 hours ago, ntblowz said:

    Only 3rd party are not corrected , most Canon EF lens have correction done in camera

    Really? Such as?

    None of my EF lenses can be corrected in-camera on either the R5 or R. The option is simply grayed out. Also, the R5 manual states that RF lenses are corrected during movie shooting. No comment about EF, but Canon USA confirms the R doesn’t support EF lens correction.:



    Here is the info from the R5 Manual:12D82195-4075-42A7-9720-E6994E6C6E6D.jpeg

  13. RF 15-35mm is quiet, fast, stabilized unicorn lens. All you really need for narrative film in most cases.

    RF 50mm 1.2 is possibly the best image I have ever seen from a lens, better than any cinema lenses I have used. But it’s also the full frame and autofocus that probably play a major factor in that. But it is regular USM so it’s about as noisy as the regular EF lenses. 

    If you don’t need on camera sound, and watch distortion, I’d go with the Drop in Variable ND with way cheaper EF lenses. I think the EF 24mm 1.4 is stellar. 

  14. Overheating warnings without shooting anything is a sloppy implementation or a bug. It’s indefensible, and I think this will definitely have to be addressed in the firmware update. 

    As far as any other changes, I can deal with the continuous recording limits to protect the cinema lines, but the recovery times need to be greatly shortened. 

    How about this for a compromise?

    Canon revamps the algorithm to better reflect real use case of their R5 target demographic: content creators and indie filmmakers. For most, the average duration of takes ranges from seconds to only a few minutes, so Canon should offer a more usable ratio of shooting time to recovery time...

    Unlimited 30 second takes?
    30 second cool down for 2 min takes?
    1 minute cool down for 5 minute takes? 
    5 min cool down for 10 min takes?

  15. 6 hours ago, Ben i B said:

    I think the fact that the Canon overheats when recording internally could also mean that not oversampling is causing the heat but the compression. Cause that's the only thing the cam is not doing when recording to the Ninja V. Maybe there's a separate chip for H.265 encoding somewhere on the board that overheats quickly. But this would also not explain the long cool down times. But H.264 for example is meanwhile encoded by the GPU on computers and does not affect the CPU much. 

    Perhaps, but then the 8K raw should have longer recording times than the 8k H265 or 4K HQ.

    So there is some artificial (arbitrary?) limitation or there’s something else going on.

    The only other plausible explanation is that bitrate, the amount of data being written, creates the overheating, real or preventative or artificial, which explains why the 8K Raw and 4K120 have the shortest recording times. So maybe it does come down to the cards after all, directly or indirectly. And the HDMI out to the NINJA aligns with that. 

  • Create New...