Django

Here is a link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/live/-xwAllKdSW0?si=idF9ndnB6oNJjzKb It's an interesting talk, the DP mentions how the camera opened up lens choices for their short, from high end Panavision anamorphics to FF, S35 and even S16 glass. In that sense it really behaves like three cameras in one. Sure, the R5C also has crop modes, but the C50 adds open gate, all the desqueeze factors, and a rugged screw mount cinema build. You can also record log master on one card and baked in LUT on the second. That makes it feel like a purpose designed tool rather than a hybrid you have to adapt around.

It's definitely not a typo! Several C50 reviews mention it and there is a B&H C50 talk with the DP of the short film I linked earlier and a senior Canon rep that confirms S35 has a stop more of DR, when pressed on how they achieved that he says its readout & ISO related. That seems to suggest Canon is using the reduced data load in the crop to drive the sensor differently, maybe a slower more precise readout path, or shifting the base ISO behavior to lower noise. Not unlike how Panasonic’s DR Boost works, though probably different sensor readout trickery.

Fair points, but I think you’re overstating the certainty here. None of us actually know if Canon is switching bit depth between FF and S35 on the C50. Canon hasn’t published that detail, so it’s speculation. What we do know is Canon are claiming higher DR in S35 mode, so whether that comes from pipeline tweaks, bit depth, or something else, the end result is what matters to shooters. Also, the CVP review actually concludes the opposite of “no improvements”: they specifically say the C50 has better DR, better AF, C-Log2, the XLR top handle, and a range of new photo/video features the R5C doesn’t have. For me, the 7K open gate, C-Log2, higher dual base ISO range, dual format recording, cine-oriented form factor, and XLR top handle are what seal the deal over the R5C. Neither are perfect cameras, but the C50 checks enough boxes for me to seriously consider it.

No indication C50 can do this either but they should definitely consider it if not already. I also hear they are releasing a bunch of "stylised" LUTs including day-to-night for the C50. As for open gate, if the R5C (or even the R5 II) sensor could actually handle full-height 3:2 video readout, Canon would have probably leaned on that already.. either through firmware or at launch. Instead, they built a brand-new lower MP sensor for the C50. That tells me the older 45MP architecture just isn’t optimized for it (whether it’s readout speed, heat, or the processing pipeline). So while open gate on the R5C would be fantastic, the fact Canon didn’t already enable it when they had the chance is probably the clearest sign it’s not coming. Also for product segment reasons. But you never know..

Something else no one seems to mention: the 7K 3:2 Open Gate mode should allow high-resolution stills extraction at a photo friendly aspect ratio. I’ve always struggled doing this in 16:9 or 17:9. In practice, it would be amazing to custom-set a button to grab frames while shooting video (FX2 apparently adds this feature). On the R5C, you can do it during playback, but I don't think live?

I'd say 60p video at 16:9 and the 40 fps max stills burst aren’t directly related. The camera drops to 7K 30 fps in 3:2, and stills use a separate pipeline with buffer/processing limits, so max burst is capped by the stills system, not video frame rate. That said, the difference in DR between FF and S35 mode could also come from the readout: fewer pixels in S35 can reduce noise, though it’s also possible Canon is doing something in the background we don’t fully know. Either way, it’s a clever and welcome addition to the camera!

This is getting tedious, you’re over-correcting things I never claimed. I didn’t say FF magically changes lens physics, just that for equivalent framing it naturally gives shallower DOF compared to S35, which is why focal reducers even exist in the first place. You basically repeated that back to me, so we actually agree there. Same with open gate: yes, 17:9 is technically “open gate” on many cinema sensors, but when filmmakers talk about open gate they often mean 3:2 / 4:3 full-height readouts because those give more latitude for aspect ratios and anamorphic use. That’s all I was pointing out. As for “character,” I never said every FF lens suddenly blooms with quirks on 44×33, just that bigger sensors can reveal parts of the image circle not usually seen, which some DPs (like Fraser) like to exploit. Whether that looks beautiful or boring depends on the lens and the shooter’s taste. No need to nitpick every word.. we’re actually saying a lot of the same things. At the end of the day, people are going to pick whatever tool makes sense for their workflow, budget, or taste. I never claimed MF was a magic bullet, just that it offers options and aesthetics some shooters care about. You prefer the practicality of the Raptor, others might be drawn to the Eterna 55. Both views can be true.

Somehow I missed this promo short film, its kinda brilliant in how it showcases a lot of the features in a pretty creative narrative, really liking the overall image from this new sensor:

@eatstoomuchjam Funny enough, the Greg Fraser quote you referenced actually underlines my point. He’s saying outright that moving to a larger format opens up creative possibilities precisely because you’re seeing parts of the lens you wouldn’t on a smaller sensor. The lens itself hasn’t changed, but the relationship between the sensor size and the lens’ image circle absolutely changes what’s captured. That’s all I was getting at: bigger formats don’t alter lens physics, but they alter what part of the lens’ projection you get to play with, which translates to a different look/feel on screen. This is similar to when you have open-gate (true 3:2 or 4:3, not just 17:9), you’re also opening up different aspect ratios and lens visibility. Whether you see the extra image area as flaws or character is subjective, but the distinction Fraser is making is exactly the one I was trying to point to. I know many GFX users like to put certain FF lenses for identical reasons, and the GFXRF & Eterna 55 use that high MP large sensor to open up multi aspect ratios which is why I don't think its irrelevant to the discussion.

Technically a sensor by itself doesn’t have a “look,” but bigger sensors change how lenses behave and how we can use the image circle, which is where the cinematic signature comes from. FF already gives shallower depth of field for equivalent framing and a FoV closer to classic 35mm photography. Open gate modes on 3:2/4:3 sensors take that further by giving you the full vertical readout, letting you reframe, use anamorphic, or extract stills without losing resolution. Medium format pushes this even more, however Fuji’s GFX sensors aren’t “true” MF like Alexa 65 or Hasselblad backs, but it’s about 1.7× the area of FF, which is enough to reveal more lens character, smoother falloff, and a slightly different perspective than FF or S35. So when you pair the sensor with fast primes and open gate capture, the format really does offer creative possibilities that smaller sensors simply can’t match. I'm loving what I'm seeing from the Eterna so far by the way!

Sure, I get what you're saying and thanks for making the distinction but I guess what I meant by "true open gate" is when a taller sensor (3:2, 4:3, etc.) gives you extra vertical resolution that’s actually recorded, not just the full width of a 17:9 sensor. On RED, if you want 3:2 or 4:3, you’re essentially windowing/cropping horizontally, you’re not capturing new image area above and below the 17:9 frame. That's what I mean by "pseudo open gate". That’s where cameras like ARRI LF, Alexa 35, or mirrorless bodies with 3:2 sensors have an edge: their open gate modes really open up more height for anamorphic or reframing flexibility. Different design philosophies, but that’s the distinction I was getting at. I dunno for a camera that’s marketed "Cinema Z" under the RED name, micro HDMI feels like a completely unnecessary weak point. Most modern mirrorless bodies (R5 II, FX3, Lumix, even Nikon Z) have full-size HDMI now. It’s not just about rigging the cam but it’s about having a reliable connection for external monitors or recorders when needed. For a camera that’s trying to position itself as a serious compact cinema tool, micro HDMI in 2025 looks like a surprising step backward. That said yes kudos on them for the bright 4" screen!

I get that RED cameras don’t offer media redundancy or true Open Gate, but in a small mirrorless form factor, some form of redundancy is more expected, especially with a hot CF/SD slot near the battery that could potentially cause failures. RED at least has RED Connect / IP streaming for backup, and SDI. All we have here is micro HDMI not exactly safe externally either. Even a “pseudo” Open Gate mode could’ve been implemented without needing a bigger sensor, just flexible readout. Maybe I’m being nitpicky, but these shortcomings feel like crippling.

Yeah I can't help but feel that Jarred tweeting "the Nikon ZR is not a replacement for any RED camera" gives the indication RED team wanted to protect their line and purposely not give the ZR too many pro features like redundancy recording, open gate, active cooling, proper I/O and media storage. Also the 12-bit non linear R3D code. I guess its all fair trade and still nice to see a $2K camera with REDCODE inside.. but now Nikon has a cine line to protect which may hinder them/us paradoxically.. I feel like Canon gave us the real surprise and actual FX3 competitor by not holding back on specs and in quite a few ways surpassing the more expensive C80/C400 (although I hear C400 will get open gate in an update). ZR is still a banger even if we were expecting a more pro body and Nikon is being very agressive on pricing.

There are some great things in this camera: R3D code, huge screen, 32-bit float audio, IBIS etc but then some real head scratchers like the micro sd, micro HDMI, battery card slot, no fan, no open gate and overall confusion with the dual color sciences that indeed makes this a Frankenstein camera. Clearly feels like a first gen collab product. I think I'll wait to see the next iteration but it's still very encouraging and solid effort.

There are some ISO comparison tests with the FX3 on YT that shows that the C50 matches if not surpasses the FX3 at ISO12800. And beats it at the more usable second base ISO6400. I think ISO6400 is a much smarter second base ISO and with the 7K oversampling and bypassable NR it makes it a better camera for low light situations. FX3 still has better rolling shutter but as you say 14ms is still decent. For me personally, C50 is very exciting because of open-gate, the new simultaneous multi ratio recording, the dual menu system taken from R5C & the various resolution and codecs. All that in a FX3 form factor with XLR top handle. It's a true hybrid. The only real let down is the lack of IBIS and mechanical shutter for flash photography. As I'm on multiple lens ecosystem (Canon, Sony, Leica) I was up to now set on either R5ii, Z8/Z9/ZR or FX2/FX3ii but the C50 may pull me back into Canon. Of course this means my Sony glass will remain on my FS7 but I love Canon UI, ergos, lenses and color science. I also find Clog is the easiest to grade and WideDR the best SOOC profile. Been getting gorgeous results out of the R5 ii RAW test footage. Again the 3:2 open gate is what's tipping the scale for me personally. I jut love having that full width 3:2 image to play around in post and being able to capture 16:9 & 9:16 simultaneously is a god send for fast delivery. May also venture into anamorphic now that the camera supports all the desqueeze factors. Lack of IBIS is a bummer but I'm hoping that with the top handle and primes, I won't get much micro jitters when shooting handheld. Hopefully the IS also performs well.