independent

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.
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 

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.

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. 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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. 

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. 

They work well (AF and IS), except they aren’t corrected for distortion in-camera and are noisy (USM). If you’re looking to use an on-camera mic, go with RF Nano USM lenses. 

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. 

They work well (AF and IS), except they aren’t corrected for distortion in-camera and are noisy (USM). If you’re looking to use an on-camera mic, go with RF Nano USM lenses. 

One possible solution, will be to use a headless HDMI adapter and plug it into the HDMI port. These are basically a little plug that makes the camera think it has a HDMI recorder attached, then have a toggle in the @BTM_PixCDA TEK temp sensor monitor app that turns off the LCD image. It'll be interesting to see if this allows the camera to record internally for longer, but long term I see the only real fix being on Canon's side. It's up to them to step up to the table really.

You make my day! I'm in waiting line for R5 ... 😉 Thank you!

So maybe the HDMI out is somehow bypassing the artificial limits, or maybe it's bypassing the temp controls and damaging the camera. I don't know.
Regardless, and more importantly, the 8K Raw is the best I've ever seen. Point blank. Detail and color are next level - I think it's finally approaching what the eyes can resolve. Immersive, transparent, 3D, microcontrast, etc. 8K raw footage is truly a compilation of high res stills at 24 FPS. Can pull stills and send them to editorial—game changing in the way RED advertised w/ EPIC. But RED didn't have autofocus - this does. Every. Frame. Sharp. I was impressed by the BMPCC6K - the increase in resolution made a huge difference from 4k, and this R5 8K RAW is just as big of a jump. It's kind of staggering. You don't know what you've been missing unless you actually scrub through this footage, which you can in Resolve (good luck w/ the h265). 
Bottom line, the 4kHQ 24 seems viable w/ the Ninja (unless it destroys the camera). But who cares, you can get high quality 4K anywhere. More importantly 8K Raw is 100% the bees knees. That's the only news I care about from this point forward. Andrew, make it happen.

Just got my hands on a R5, tested w/ Ninja V. No cards, LCD display was off, I had mine closed to the body - recorded continuously at 4KHQ w/ autofocus (rf 50 1.2) and IS on. Recorded continuously until 1.5 hours - when the battery (regular LP-E6) died. No overheating temp indicator, but the body was HOT. Hotter than any body I've felt, and I've felt a lot of bodies.
 

The Blackmagic Video Assist 12G is very intriguing.
1) greatly mitigates or resolves overheating
2) cheap SSD and external media recording
3) XLR inputs and quality audio recording
4) professional monitor
5) potential BRAW support (currently supports C300ii and Panasonic EVA1)

The rumors about Canon considering BRAW would make a lot of sense here. I'd take this over the Atomos Ninja.
 
 

It’s not anybody’s job to help you. Some posters are giving you opinions. Some are giving you facts. Help yourself. 

The difference between 8.8 MP and 21.2 MP is objectively significant; it is 240% the pixels. But you do need monitoring capacities to resolve that difference. On a 5K monitor, the increase in detail of the 6K makes the 4K seem out of focus.
No complaints about the EF mount. Nearly every cameras can take EF lenses, from MFT to cinema cameras such as ARRI, RED, and Canon. We've cut BM 4K/6K footage w/ the Canon C200/C300 II and lens matching was a key consideration. It's been more practical to standardize lenses for flexibility on set or in the field and consistency in post. 
As far as media, the Samsung SSD's give you 500gb under $100, which I think is the cheapest for any camera system. And we’ve had no issues cutting the footage on Mac pros, Mac mini’s, or MacBooks. If you already work with 4K, you may not have to add anything to upgrade your RAID setup except to add more drives. 
That being said, 6K is not for everybody. But for commercial shoots, it's been very good to us. Especially for fashion - the ability to pull or capture 21MP stills has been a boon. 6K also gives a bit of peace of mind considering the push to 8K, knowing that your work will hold up better in the future.

6K for $2K? I think there's no competition there. 
For the record, our studio had access to both 4k and 6k cameras. Once you review footage from both on a quality 4K or 5K monitor, it's not close. The 6K doesn't give you a minor increase in detail, it's significant. Everybody in our studio was struck by how...transparent the 6K looked. It looks like still photography. You can pull great stills from this, and we did for several major commercial shoots before covid. 
Color, skin tones, were noticeable better as well. The 4k looked almost out of focus in comparison. If you're delivering in 1080p, who cares, but if you care about 4K, the 6K gives you much better 4K. We immediately cleared out the 4K cameras and replaced them with 6Ks.
The metabones speed booster XL on the 4k was deemed not worth it considering it pushes you close to the price of the 6K. With the 6K price drop, it's the same price now. 
 
 

Can't get better image quality than the pocket 6k or 4k for the money. 

I'm curious about any of these projected calculations of rolling shutter, because I've understood it as a spec that's released by the company or measured by various individuals and websites. Is there some formula for rolling shutter I'm missing? 
Speaking of logic, if the R5 and 1DX III share the same ADC (via androidlad above), shouldn't the R5's rolling shutter should be worse than the 1DX III's? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the quoted readout numbers are 30ms for 5.5K (1DXiii) versus 25ms for 8K (R5). All things being equal, isn't that illogical?
I can accept the notion that there are more variables to account for (e.g., the R5 has a different, more advanced sensor and processor than any existing camera, including the 1DX iii), and that people are just projecting and extrapolating. I just want to know how people are coming up with numbers.
 

Panasonic Varicam LT. Most compact, balanced shoulder cam I’ve ever used.
RED DSMC. Started the brain/sensor in a box flexibility.
Blackmagic Pocket (OG). Cinema in your pocket.