independent

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

CVP shows that the dual iso also occurs in the R5. Strangely, the R5c has noticeable more chroma noise. Maybe they didn’t black balance.

The new RF lenses deserved a better housing, they've got the finish of an office printer.

Not obsessed, I think it has a lot to do with the network effect of EF lenses, which are compatible with all Canon and Blackmagic cameras. Many upgrade or rent R-bodies to use with their existing EF lenses. 
It’s just cheaper and easier using EF than investing in a different system such as e-mount, despite some gems there. EF is ubiquitous at rental houses in NY.
Red’s strategy (and success) with the Komodo can be attributed at least partially to the RF mount. I own the Komodo and the R5, and I can use the same lenses with the c300iii/c500ii we rent.
I like the Fx3/fx6 but they don’t fit.  

Not excited. Once you start adding more channels it become unwieldy, requiring a cage, then a handle, etc., then what are we doing here? Might as well go for a Sound Devices mixpre which offers more flexibility. 
I'd rather see Rode integrate the NTG w/ Wireless Go's

Try a mixpre 3 if you only need 2-3 channels; it would sit real nice on your cage. The 6 belongs in a bag. I do agree with the problem of "cables everywhere," which is why I think regardless of what mixer/recorder you have attached to your camera, more than a couple inputs ends up inescapably a mess. 
If it gets more complicated, it's more practical to focus on getting quality audio that can be effectively monitored and instead feed timecode or a sync track to the camera. 
Unless you're a one-man band live-streaming run-and-gun reality. Then ok, maybe
 
 

So much wrong with this. First of all, "this" IS happening. We are all witnessing a major shift on social media platforms from photography to video. Why? Simple: storytelling. 
Second, "waiting for the right technology" is missing the point. Human beings will mess around with things to create (See: 2001: A Space Odyssey). Apple is putting these filmmaking tools that nobody asked for into their iPhones and people WILL start using them. 
Intent doesn't matter. Steve Jobs didn't plan on iPhones revolutionizing the world through social media. Nobody intended phones to be used to disrupt the hegemony of traditional media corporations. But the technology was there. And out of a billion people, a good number will eventually start using them. Mess around enough, some kid from nowhereistan will make the best film of the year.
And you're mistaken about the democratization of filmmaking tech. First of all, traditional filmmaking is far, far still prohibitive for most people. You're still spending thousands - at least tens of thousands of dollars to make even a watchable short film. And by you, I mean you, trust fund kid who wants to make movies but have shit stories that doesn't resonate with any normal people.
So it is all about technology, in the same way that camera phones, inferior as they are, have disrupted the professional photography industry. 
And it's not just about the camera. It's about technologies (both hard and soft) that will reduce the need for gear and crew and any other prohibitive costs that have otherwise prevented billions of people on this planet from making their own movies, telling their own stories. Not cat videos, TikTok clips, or dick pics. But stories. That hasn't happened yet. But it will.
The obvious trajectory of this evolution is for ONE PERSON to tell a STORY, as we have always done for thousands of years. Except this time, millions will be gathered around the fire to hear the best ones.
 
 
 
 
 

Last year: Dolby Vision, LiDar, and IBIS.
This year:
Cinematic Mode: Continuous AF. Face-tracking. Auto-subject shifting. Rack Focusing. Changing focus/bokeh. 
These aren't consumer technologies, and most iPhone users will not use them (aside from touch-to-focus). Why bother?
Pros certainly won't use iPhones (not yet). But everybody else—in the near future. Apple is putting tremendous effort into laying the groundwork to crowdsource quality content. Offering these features that nobody asked for in the hands of millions? We are going to start seeing iPhone-generated narrative/reality/doc content (not TikTok videos) to hit the mainstream. Very soon.
For what? To sell more iPhones? Nah, that's a flatlined market. 
A capture-to-delivery scenario would likely be end game. Digital services, cloud, etc. is more important. I imagine there will be added incentives for users to deliver not to YouTube (google) but Apple TV. The ecosystem is more important. The Apple walled garden must grow, even if it be watered by your peasant blood.
Build it, and the mortal fools will come. This is the plot of 2001: A Space Odyssey. 
 
 
 

Last year: Dolby Vision, LiDar, and IBIS.
This year:
Cinematic Mode: Continuous AF. Face-tracking. Auto-subject shifting. Rack Focusing. Changing focus/bokeh. 
These aren't consumer technologies, and most iPhone users will not use them (aside from touch-to-focus). Why bother?
Pros certainly won't use iPhones (not yet). But everybody else—in the near future. Apple is putting tremendous effort into laying the groundwork to crowdsource quality content. Offering these features that nobody asked for in the hands of millions? We are going to start seeing iPhone-generated narrative/reality/doc content (not TikTok videos) to hit the mainstream. Very soon.
For what? To sell more iPhones? Nah, that's a flatlined market. 
A capture-to-delivery scenario would likely be end game. Digital services, cloud, etc. is more important. I imagine there will be added incentives for users to deliver not to YouTube (google) but Apple TV. The ecosystem is more important. The Apple walled garden must grow, even if it be watered by your peasant blood.
Build it, and the mortal fools will come. This is the plot of 2001: A Space Odyssey. 
 
 
 

Atomos firmware for 8k prores raw was just released for the Canon R5. Looks like overheating is greatly diminished (not recording internally) and 5K raw modes available. Damn son

I think smartphones are definitely playing in enthusiast camera market now.
Yes the Hasselblad / OnePlus branding appears to be nothing more than marketing, and they badly need to turn their sharpening down.
Yes Samsung is coasting along, in my opinion.
But iPhone 12 Pro Max is actually very nice and has some amazing tricks like the IBIS for shooting RAW in low light at low ISOs. Capable of amazingly filmic images.
Then we have the true innovators... Huawei and Xiaomi.
They are doing all sorts of interesting things and have superb folded optics. 5x zoom on P40 Pro is just a miracle basically.
Even Sony are getting their act together. Xperia 1 II and III are very capable devices in a lot of different ways. I am keen to try the variable optical zoom on the latest one

iPhone 12 Pro Max 
 

iPhone 12 Pro Max 
 

You'd really have to add the Atomos Ninja to the R5 at least to make it somewhat of an equal comparison

According to cineD, Alexa has a 1-stop increase in dynamic range over the c500ii or c300iii. 
What is everybody crying about? First, what are you doing, shooting the sun all day? 
Second, your audience almost certainly won’t see major differences between these cameras in properly shot scenes. If you see horrible clipping, that’s an exposure error. Or a poor creative decision. Somebody is getting fired.
Some of you think if you only had an Alexa, everything you shoot would look like roger deakins’ work. Sorry, a major reason why Alexa footage looks so good is that professionals know how to light and expose - for any camera. 
This is why we use dimmers on practicals, sheers on windows, and use lighting to control levels and contrast.
The differences among arri, red, and the best Sony and canon cameras are quite small on set. Yes, currently Arri’s highlight roll off is a bit nicer and has a bit more reach in the highlights, but nothing really changes the way we shoot with any of those cameras.
The truth is most of the current top cameras look very similar - properly exposed. Sure, you can stress test some cameras to show weaknesses - arri and red included, which would struggle in extreme low light. This is why these aren’t common for run-and-gun documentaries. 
If Canon produces new technologies (very possible) that ends up capturing more dynamic range than the Arri, I wouldn’t be surprised. Also, I wouldn’t consider the Arri trash for having a stop less of dynamic range. 
 
 

According to cineD, Alexa has a 1-stop increase in dynamic range over the c500ii or c300iii. 
What is everybody crying about? First, what are you doing, shooting the sun all day? 
Second, your audience almost certainly won’t see major differences between these cameras in properly shot scenes. If you see horrible clipping, that’s an exposure error. Or a poor creative decision. Somebody is getting fired.
Some of you think if you only had an Alexa, everything you shoot would look like roger deakins’ work. Sorry, a major reason why Alexa footage looks so good is that professionals know how to light and expose - for any camera. 
This is why we use dimmers on practicals, sheers on windows, and use lighting to control levels and contrast.
The differences among arri, red, and the best Sony and canon cameras are quite small on set. Yes, currently Arri’s highlight roll off is a bit nicer and has a bit more reach in the highlights, but nothing really changes the way we shoot with any of those cameras.
The truth is most of the current top cameras look very similar - properly exposed. Sure, you can stress test some cameras to show weaknesses - arri and red included, which would struggle in extreme low light. This is why these aren’t common for run-and-gun documentaries. 
If Canon produces new technologies (very possible) that ends up capturing more dynamic range than the Arri, I wouldn’t be surprised. Also, I wouldn’t consider the Arri trash for having a stop less of dynamic range. 
 
 

According to cineD, Alexa has a 1-stop increase in dynamic range over the c500ii or c300iii. 
What is everybody crying about? First, what are you doing, shooting the sun all day? 
Second, your audience almost certainly won’t see major differences between these cameras in properly shot scenes. If you see horrible clipping, that’s an exposure error. Or a poor creative decision. Somebody is getting fired.
Some of you think if you only had an Alexa, everything you shoot would look like roger deakins’ work. Sorry, a major reason why Alexa footage looks so good is that professionals know how to light and expose - for any camera. 
This is why we use dimmers on practicals, sheers on windows, and use lighting to control levels and contrast.
The differences among arri, red, and the best Sony and canon cameras are quite small on set. Yes, currently Arri’s highlight roll off is a bit nicer and has a bit more reach in the highlights, but nothing really changes the way we shoot with any of those cameras.
The truth is most of the current top cameras look very similar - properly exposed. Sure, you can stress test some cameras to show weaknesses - arri and red included, which would struggle in extreme low light. This is why these aren’t common for run-and-gun documentaries. 
If Canon produces new technologies (very possible) that ends up capturing more dynamic range than the Arri, I wouldn’t be surprised. Also, I wouldn’t consider the Arri trash for having a stop less of dynamic range. 
 
 

According to cineD, Alexa has a 1-stop increase in dynamic range over the c500ii or c300iii. 
What is everybody crying about? First, what are you doing, shooting the sun all day? 
Second, your audience almost certainly won’t see major differences between these cameras in properly shot scenes. If you see horrible clipping, that’s an exposure error. Or a poor creative decision. Somebody is getting fired.
Some of you think if you only had an Alexa, everything you shoot would look like roger deakins’ work. Sorry, a major reason why Alexa footage looks so good is that professionals know how to light and expose - for any camera. 
This is why we use dimmers on practicals, sheers on windows, and use lighting to control levels and contrast.
The differences among arri, red, and the best Sony and canon cameras are quite small on set. Yes, currently Arri’s highlight roll off is a bit nicer and has a bit more reach in the highlights, but nothing really changes the way we shoot with any of those cameras.
The truth is most of the current top cameras look very similar - properly exposed. Sure, you can stress test some cameras to show weaknesses - arri and red included, which would struggle in extreme low light. This is why these aren’t common for run-and-gun documentaries. 
If Canon produces new technologies (very possible) that ends up capturing more dynamic range than the Arri, I wouldn’t be surprised. Also, I wouldn’t consider the Arri trash for having a stop less of dynamic range. 
 
 

I don't get the complaints about dynamic range. All recent cameras (non-Arri, non-Red) get around 12 stops—including the R5 in raw. 
Raw is noisy, including Redcode, and NR is a necessary tool in post. If you don't want to shoot in Raw, there are other options out there that will give you a cleaner image with higher dynamic range. 
The tradeoff of course will be more artifacts, limited latitude, or worse color. It's your choice. 
Even the Komodo has tradeoffs. On image quality alone, it has relatively awful low-light and limited latitude with dramatic color shifts. 
If you just can't live without 13 stops of dynamic range or the world will be bereft of your creative potential and professional skills, you have a simple answer: C70. 
 
 

I don't get the complaints about dynamic range. All recent cameras (non-Arri, non-Red) get around 12 stops—including the R5 in raw. 
Raw is noisy, including Redcode, and NR is a necessary tool in post. If you don't want to shoot in Raw, there are other options out there that will give you a cleaner image with higher dynamic range. 
The tradeoff of course will be more artifacts, limited latitude, or worse color. It's your choice. 
Even the Komodo has tradeoffs. On image quality alone, it has relatively awful low-light and limited latitude with dramatic color shifts. 
If you just can't live without 13 stops of dynamic range or the world will be bereft of your creative potential and professional skills, you have a simple answer: C70. 
 
 

I don't get the complaints about dynamic range. All recent cameras (non-Arri, non-Red) get around 12 stops—including the R5 in raw. 
Raw is noisy, including Redcode, and NR is a necessary tool in post. If you don't want to shoot in Raw, there are other options out there that will give you a cleaner image with higher dynamic range. 
The tradeoff of course will be more artifacts, limited latitude, or worse color. It's your choice. 
Even the Komodo has tradeoffs. On image quality alone, it has relatively awful low-light and limited latitude with dramatic color shifts. 
If you just can't live without 13 stops of dynamic range or the world will be bereft of your creative potential and professional skills, you have a simple answer: C70. 
 
 

Why, how much do they pay at a Wendy's these days?

only work for 4 lens atm (70-200 2.8 RF, 100-500, 600, 800), other lens will need to be updated to support it.

Try Resolve. No issues w/ the Raw light files on Mac mini M1. 

Just updated. Wow, game changer.
Must test recording time. Overheating a thing of the past? If the only recording limitation is the 30-min recording time, practically speaking, then overheating might be a concern only in hot environments. 
The RAW LIGHT (a bit awkward to navigate so many options in the menu now) - I'm genuinely surprised. The regular raw bitrate is proportional to cinema raw light, so I doubted Canon could somehow decrease the bitrate-but they did! A new format that is nearly 40% reduced, even below the C500ii's 6k raw. This has a major impact on storage costs in the post-production chain.