Django

I haven't found specific test numbers for R6 RS in FHD but they should be similar/identical to 1DX3: 11ms 25-60p & 7ms in 120p.

Sorry, scratch that I didn't drink my morning coffee: R6 does 20.3ms in S35 mode. It drops down to 15ms only at 4K50/60p.

@Simon Young R6 can do full DPAF in all modes including FF 4K60p. No 1.3x mode but S35 crop mode does also half the RS to 15ms.

I'd be curious to see A7S3 vs R5/R6/1DX3. Sony has the advantage in RS, DR, codec options & lowlight but Canon now has the edge in resolution, oversampling, internal RAW and still better SOOC colours, AF & lack of noise reduction.

I recently picked up an R6 which shares the same sensor and I'm honestly quite impressed by the (10-bit 4:2:2) 5.5K downsampled 4K IQ. To me it just strikes the perfect balance of file size / IQ ratio. Rolling shutter is pretty severe in 24/25p but somewhat mitigated by DIS+IBIS and indeed shooting in 50/60p halves the RS to acceptable performance.. The sensor also has something imo, which the previous 5DIV / EOS R lacked.. also noticed fine grain at high ISO compared to the banding issues in previous gen Canons. The R6 overheats though and doesn't have the 1DX3 5.5K Raw and most importantly just doesn't quite feel pro A-level. Same as the RF lenses, something feels lost in translation with the mirrorless line quality build wise. In the end, RF mount is the future for Canon (if only for the EF Vari-ND adapter & speedbooster for S35) and IBIS is just too convenient to go back to shaky handheld 4K imo. That said 1DX3 is definitely the last of the mohicans as far as I'm concerned and definitely deserves some kind of in-class award in that regard. Now let's see what R1 brings to the table.

As someone invested in both Canon & Sony systems I can assure you I quite realise the fact that you can get great IQ out of both systems, and that in 95% cases the end client/viewer will not know the difference. While these type of blanket statements are obviously true, they don't really advance the discussion within the filmmaking community that ARE aware of key differences that WILL make a difference in the actual shooting environment. And while native lens selection & ergonomics are subjective, other technical details like sensor size, resolution, codecs, raw support, ENDs etc are not. Getting back to the subject of sensor size (of which I might create its own thread) I think it's really interesting the route Sony took with putting FF sensors inside their traditionally S35 cine cams. I think this may be an advantage. The Canon R5 (and even R6 to some extent) is kinda proof that those sensors can actually output superior IQ to their S35 counterparts. It's kind of a an odd situation when you're consumer hybrid camera can shoot 8K Raw and you're $15K C500 II flagship can't !

I think you're missing the point here. There is something new here and that is that Sony has started placing FF sensors instead of S35 sensors in all their cine line. It's a pretty BIG deal and certainly changes a lot, including some of those factors you are mentioning such as noise. TC is present in both products so I don't even know why you are listing it as a difference. By the way, I already mentioned that in the end it's a question of ecosystem but that doesn't mean we can't compare two new cine cameras from competing brands in a similar price bracket. Yeah the Canon speed booster is interesting, I'm not sure its available yet though as I haven't seen a single review of it. That said, from my experience with Metabones, they are handy tools but the IQ does suffer a bit and its just not the same as having a native FF sensor. Lets not forget a FF sensor can also crop to S35. Now the FF/S35 DoF not changing can be seen as an advantage or disadvantage depending on your preference. Perhaps a FF hybrid (R5/R6) + a S35 (C70) cine combo would give you best of both worlds and hence be the most versatile solution. Definitely an interesting argument you are making there.

This test is kind of an eye opener. Seems Sony's strategy to fit FF sensors inside their cine FX line is the right move vs Canon. Better low-light, better AF etc. And with the E-ND the Sony really has a tech lead. In the end as he points out its a question of ecosystem but it does seem to me FX6 > C70. Any C70 users care to comment?

Damn someone got a sweet deal on an A7S3!! I agree though, I severely dislike Alpha bodies and rarely if ever use EVF for video. FX3 is the first Sony mirrorless hybrid that doesn’t look/feel like consumer grade photo camera. The active cooling is probably the most significant addition on such small high performance cameras. If Sony indeed adds a few missing cine features like DCI, scopes etc FX3 could be a bombshell!

@TomTheDP Canon R6 uses 1DX3 sensor and hence has abysmal RS in 4K25p (30ms) switching to 4k60p halves the count down to 15ms though, so for fast action better to shoot in that mode on that camera. R5 has much better RS performance. A7S3/FX3 are the FF mirrorless kings with a whopping low 8.7ms in 4K25p. This alone places them way ahead of the curve for fast movement shots. FX3 is growing on me, seems like a superb camera for stealthy run & gun.

S1H has 29.7ms RS in 6K and 24.2ms in FF 4K which actually places it around 1DC (25ms) & A7S (24ms). Definitely poor RS performance by 2021 standards.

@Dunjoye not sure what you mean, I find the IQ super clean. Much less noise than on any previous gen Canon tbh. Obviously high-ISO introduces noise, but I find the noise on R6 to be very fine grain and quite filmic compared to the horrible banding present on older sensor models. You can also turn NR off which is good. Re: AF Lens noise I don't have much experience with RF lenses but they do seem louder than their L counterparts. I've noticed quite few RF have open barrel front moving elements so that could be part of it. Fast F1.2 and hybrid macro lenses like the RF35 are going to struggle to be silent as well. Optically, the RF lenses are quite amazing though. I've got my eyes on the RF 15-35mm 2.8L IS. I don't do much telephoto stuff and like to shoot close to my subjects.

STM is much quieter and faster than adapted USM lens but there is an external moving element so if you're planning on using a shotgun mic, it could still pick up movement during fast focus shifts in a quiet environment.

The RF 35 lives on my R6 (as the EF adapter is back-ordered due to the Canon factory fire). I've come to really appreciate this lens as it is quite compact, versatile, sharp, aberration free and has macro & IS. For the price it's killer, I like it so much I'm thinking of adding the RF 85 1.8 Macro IS.

Putting the R6 through its paces during winter school break. Shot in 8-bit standard profile using a mix of 4K & (100FPS) FHD on a 2K timeline. Various AF modes were put to use (Face Priority, Face & Object tracking). Camera was set to Auto-ISO. Overall I'm pretty happy with this camera, given the sub $2.5K pricing. No fancy features just solid IQ, AF & IBIS. Zero overheat even at the beach today with 20 celsius. Of course I will keep testing but my confidence with Canon is somewhat restored, I will probably go with a C70 down the line for more pro work.

C70 is a real cine cam though with built-in ND's, TC, DCI 4K, shutter angle, waveform etc. Basically all the things people were expecting from FX3 and that are missing. That said yeah it's not a bad cam per se, pretty awesome even for a mirrorless, just not really worthy of the FX line imo.

Good to hear Stef. It seems Sony held back on some cine features we were all expecting on this FX3, probably to not cannibalise A7S3 too much. The S-Cinetone firmware "leak" for A7S3 seems to confirm this strategy. Typical from Sony, I just find it a little too sneaky..

According to Gerald the active cooling doesn't compromise the sealing. Personally I'd pick the FX3 over the A7S3. $400 isn't that much extra for all the ergonomic enhancements, active cooling & top handle. Still a lazy dick move from Sony, spitting all over those who just forked out for A7S3.

same everything spec wise. only the ergonomics, active cooling & accessories have changed. confirmed by GU:

So basically a rehoused A7SIII with tally lamps, active cooling, a top handle and S-Cinetone (which is coming to A7SIII in the next firmware). Such a lazy move from Sony and honestly not worthy of the "FX" moniker. That said, for $400 extra it kind of makes the A7SIII obsolete already no? I'd be heated (no pun intended) if I just got one. See ya in couple months for the FX4.

I had a sneaky suspicion it was going to be a rehoused A7SIII. The shutter release was an obvious tell. It's definitely a lazy move from Sony. That said, if I were in the market for an A7SIII I just might get the FX3 instead. I'll take a fan over an EVF as well as the mounting options. Hopefully they do give it at the very least S-cinetone..

Not really a fan of the design personally. Balance seems poor. No EVF, no IBIS. It better have a eND or I just don't see why you'd favour this over an A7S3. Is it even FF? I guess too many unknowns to really judge..

No 8-bit log option. The 10 bit is h265 so yeah I transcode it to ProRes. I don't think you need a state of the art computer anymore, apparently a $899 MacBook Air with the new M1 chip can cut it, but yeah that's still an investment. C-Log 3 is supposedly coming to the R5 this month, unfortunately I highly doubt the R6 will get it.

@plucas : Yes I use AWB, AF & maybe even Auto-ISO for run & gun shooting on mirrorless. For more narrative work or higher-end projects in controlled environments, I'll usually switch to a cine cam with all proper manual settings. So it's not so much about the year we're in but really what the budget/project requires. 😉 As for the Canon colours, in my humble opinion, the R5/R6 have the best IQ yet on a Canon. The oversampling,10-bit 4:2:2 and low-light capability on the R6 just gives an outstanding image and color. It definitely has the "Canon" colours but with every generation sensor, they are tweaked. The biggest gripe in my early tests was that warm yellow tint but since I have the AWB set to white priority I'm getting perfect colors. @ade towell The FHD IQ is the best I've seen on recent Canons. It almost feels supersampled. On my 5K iMac Prothe FHD looks so sharp I sometimes have to double check the resolution settings. So yeah, very impressed with the FHD which is definitely not Canon soft HD. I can also add that the R6 has really good low-light capabilities and the noise is fine grain like which gives it more filmic quality than the usual horrible banding of some Canon sensors.

@plucas: I found an easier method: hit info in AWB settings and switch from default ambient to white priority mode. this eliminates the warm tint under tungsten lighting. I picked up an R6 by the way, and so far so good! really impressed by the IQ.