SteveV4D

10 minutes ago, independent said:

Ironically, you missed the irony and the joke. And the irony. As well as the joke. 

Your last comment was a joke.... 

You need to work on your sense of humour... 🙄

Moving away from the laboured topic of Codecs.  I am interested in a few things in relation to the C70.

Does the camera offer punch in focus during recording?

Does the ef speeedbooster adaptor impede AF in any way.

What sort of lenses are there for RF to start off with and are there any crop given its a S35 sensor.  Any S35 RF lenses out there or just fullframe.  

I'm more familiar with Panasonic lenses than Canon; its been ages since I've seriously looked at one, though the R5 and R6 came close before disappointment again reared its head.

5 hours ago, herein2020 said:

 

With that being said, most people when discussing raw seem to think its only benefit is its ability to have more latitude in color grading. I had a long discussion with Blackmagic Design and the real benefit of raw is the fact that it is designed for editing. For this reason alone I wish the C200 and C70 had compressed raw options. I have no problems with the image quality out of the C200, C300, and C70, but I cringe thinking about trying to edit those files after adding titles, color grades, Fusion effects, and transitions.

To be honest, when I say RAW, I am just as much referring to ProRes or any codec that is easier to edit with than H264 and H265.  As I said before, these are delivery codecs not editing codecs.  Whilst I'd not argue that most here don't need RAW, many would benefit from a codec that edited easier whilst keeping file size to a respectable level.   So my wish is less RAW and more an editable codec other than H264 and H265.

8 hours ago, Kisaha said:

 

I have the P4K, I have never shot braw, and that camera has NO AF while the C70 may have the best AF at the price point, less audio options, terrible battery life, no ergonomics whatsoever, less I/O, a smaller sensor ofcourse, no ND - which is like number one priority for video cameras. Why don't you go to the P4K thread to complain about all the issues and omissions, I wonder? 

Discussing for ever what a product does NOT have, it is just a waste of time in my opinion.

Cheap raw solutions is more for hobbyists and semi-pros as I see it in real life. I literally have seen noone shooting raw in anything less than a feature, and definitely not on a C200 (par example), I believe using raw is a lot less important than we believe it is in some forums, and maybe Canon knows it.

I wasn't contributing to EOS at the time, but I have since expressed criticisms of the P4K in various related threads since despite owning one and it being my primary camera.  I did read the P4K thread extensively, and although preordered, even considered cancelling based on the negatives mentioned there.  And there were many discussed.  Especially soon after the camera was released.  Comments like the camera has a fixed screen and IBIS is as obvious as saying the C70 doesn't have RAW, but such unfiltered discussions meant that when I did get mine, I was fully aware of both pros and cons and what they would mean to my workflow.  Imagine if the thread had focused only on what the camera could do and how wonderful BM was, my early days with the camera might have been quite different.  Maybe frustrated to the point I didn't use it.  To me a discussion on how the R5 gets RAW and the C70 doesn't is relevant.

I appreciate that shooting RAW is still the exception, but if that exception means working with a codec I am happier editing with and grading better, I welcome being that exception.  It doesn't make me a hobbyist or semi Professional.  In fact, I am full-time professional.   I agree its not essential and not a big enough negative to lead me away from the C70.  I'll shoot H264 if necessary.  But it won't stop me wishing the C70 had something users of the cheaper Photo camera R5 soon will have, the ability to shoot RAWlite.  

5 hours ago, Kisaha said:

Whoever wants raw, can go to other threads, there is a whole sub-forum.

Let's concentrate more to what the camera CAN do, for us that consider buying it, than what it can NOT do, for people that will NOT buy it.

 

 

Whilst I agree that the RAW back and forth discussion has definitely run its course; the last thing this thread needs is people just telling me what this camera can do and how wonderful Canon is being back in the game and delivering the goods etc etc..  I can read Canons marketing brochure for that.  

Any camera announcement thread should allow for talk of both the praise and the disappointments of a new camera, and shutting such chat down like lack of evf, fullframe and RAW for talk on how Canon finally strikes back is not of any interest to me.  

Let me make clear, I like this camera.  I like it a lot and I will be seriously looking at buying one.  However I want a balanced look at the pros and cons and not a fluff piece on Canon to help guide my decision.  

None of us have the camera yet and taking any critics of it now as though its a personal attack helps no one.  Everytime we get this with new cameras, especially Canon products; we hear counter arguments like, this camera wasn't designed for you, or its made for a different market... which is crap.  In a World where a hybrid does 8K when many professional video cameras do not, where we have BRAW from BM for just over a $1000, when even RED are bringing one of their cameras into the affordable range for low to mid budget users, I get weary being told what a camera should and shouldn't be.  

I do welcome positive talk of this camera and how this camera can work for you.  I also welcome discussions where this camera may let certain people down and why.  Looking at both sides will help me decide if this is the right camera for me.

1 hour ago, EthanAlexander said:

The thing about the comparison to stills photography you're making is that there was only ever jpeg and raw, so obviously raw was the way to go. But now there are high efficiency compressed stills formats that are changing things.

Plus, storage costs are a huge factor in maintaining profitability. I for one love having robust 10 bit compressed codecs so I can maximize margin.

You're forgetting TIFF files. And some photographers shoot jpeg.  Its about choice.  Something video users need.

1 hour ago, EthanAlexander said:

I'm pretty sure everyone six years ago was wanting 10 bit codecs in every camera. But then this got hijacked by people demanding raw.

I was getting the we don't need 10 bit, I've been shooting 8 bit for years.   Etc etc.. 

As for hijack... 🤣🤣🤣  Remind me which is the top Canon thread as published recently in Andrews top 20 list... 😉

Just now, IronFilm said:

I'm not talking about 6yrs ago, I'm talking about right now. 

Unless they're shooting with a RED (which doesn't offer them other options), then low/mid budget professional DoPs are generally speaking not shooting in raw. 

 

I was using a 6 year old analogy to explain the current attitude to shooting RAW today... sorry if that was confusing... 🙄

And low/mid budget are often using external recorders...  to circumvent the internal codec.  

Actually I came across a small video shoot in my home town of Reading.  They were using Pocket 6Ks....  and shooting RAW, so not all low/mid budget shooters are avoiding it.

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 

Why though? The C70 people (the low/mid budget professional shooters, or the high budget people needing a B / C Cam) don't need all the R5 specs. When people are buying for their business, they tend to be somewhat more rational in their purchases. 

While R5 buyers are easily swayed by flashy headlines (8K! Raw!), that then the YouTube pimps latch onto to push the R5 onto their followers. It totally makes waaaaay more sense to put 8K raw into a very expensive mirrorless camera, than into a low budget professional cinema camera. 

 

You're over generalising consumers.  Many here on this forum were looking at the R5, Professionals included and those same people will look at the C70.  I am one of them.  I would argue that 8K is a feature more for a hybrid as Photographers will use it for short bursts to get stills.  Features like the upcoming RAWlite upgrade is however less an R5 feature and more what I would expect on the C70 and it makes no sense for a hybrid to have it and a dedicated video camera not to.  I don't care if its a low budget, mid budget or high budget, its laughable to even defend a company that offers Video RAW on a hybrid that is crippled by overheating, but passes on it on a dedicated cinema camera.  

This lottery of specs that Canon seems to dip in and out of for their cameras is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of their company.  C200 gets RAW but not a 10 bit codec.  Buy a C300 if you want both or the R5, except that overheats, so people say, if you want long recordings, you should buy a video camera, except when you do, you're not getting the same features the R5 has.  

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 

The Canon C70 as an A Cam is aimed at low (perhaps mid) budget professional work (ultra low budget work uses mirrorless/DSLRs for their A Cam). They don't need or want raw in 95% of the shoots. 

 

6 years ago many would say they neither needed or wanted 4K, or 10 bit...  if we keep to that attitude of what is, nothing would change or improve in the Industry at all.  Why do Photographers make such good use of RAW and Videographers are stuck shooting H264.  If Videographers need and want H264 and H265, why do they transcode or use proxys.....? 

A Professional Cinema camera should look to have at least one codec that wasn't a deliverable codec.  H264 and H265 are what you use to deliver video files to YouTube.  Its not ideal for editing, whatever spin is given on it. 

1 hour ago, Oliver Daniel said:

I don’t understand some of the negativity I’m seeing with the C70. It looks like a fantastic concept and will serve many people very very well.

People who want RAW from this aren’t understanding it’s purpose. At least in the UK - documentary, corporate, music videos, brand promos.... 99% shot with 8bit or 10bit codecs. 

So explain the purpose of the R5 having RAW video capture???  Do hybrid shooters need it more than the examples you give??   I've shot Promo, Music Videos and events on BRAW and have benefitted from the smooth editing and extra freedom it gives.   

Look I like the C70.  I may well buy one.  But its not negative to wish for a feature I would value and which can be found in a cheaper Photo camera.  

Maybe everyone here loves H264 and H265 so much, they're happy with these codecs.  Except they're not.  They're transcoding it half the time or limiting grades so as not to bog down their computers.

Just now, Kisaha said:

I understand what you say, I am just glad they offer as much! You describe a different kind of workflow though. When we say "fast turnaround", we mean minimum, or not at all post. At least that is how we do it in some fields, most of the times I do not even edit the footage, just give it to the editing department, these guys do not like tweaking things much, they ask mixed sound and whatever they can get from the already shot image. We are talking about national televised shows here (FS7 cameras mainly), so imagine for even faster and lower budgeted jobs..

I personally know noone working raw for those, it is definitely not the standard in the industry, and we talking tv shows, not lesser jobs. IBIS is a staple NOT in cine cameras, I am not sure how suddenly is another negative, and 8K?! are you serious?!! 

I believe you may have to invest on the Ursa 12K then, it seems more suitable for your needs and you have the extra resolution to stabilize and crop for 8K delivery, this is NOT the camera, oh, and Ursa doesn't have IBIS of course.

 

I was simply explaining why the lack of excitement over the C70; its not my shopping list for a camera. 🤣🤣   I don't need 8K (definitely not) or even IBIS or even RAW TBH...  I still use cameras that record H264 and as long as you have such codecs on offer for fast turnaround, why not have something that gives a bit more for those who need it.  Some of us are editing and grading our own footage.  

I am not sure why wishing for a RAW codec that is being offered to the R5 can't be available to a dedicated cinema camera is such a hard concept to grasp.  

2 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

this is a camera we were waiting for a few years now. I am surprised there is not more interest on the forum..

just 10 pages?

I remember it was 100 pages on the P4K one back in the day!

A few years exactly.  We've been waiting for it for so long now, the World has since moved on to RAW, 8K and IBIS.  

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

Suddenly all cameras have to have raw?! 12 months ago that wasn't even the norm. 3 years ago? 5 years ago? and how much you needed for that?

This is a fast turn around camera. Buy the C300 or C200 if you need Canon raw so much, or a Pocket 4K for 1/4 of the money, or any other option. C200 especially will trickle down in price considerably, there will be dead cheap ones in the wild really soon.

As simple as that.

You hate to do transcoding to all your footage, but have plenty of time to work raw files? 

The huge success of the C100 cameras, were/is the fact that you didn't need much time in post, that was the greatest selling point of those cameras, and sold really good. This is the C100mkII of the new age, so that is the intended use, there are other products more suitable for your needs, I am certain. 

One product can't please everyone.

The 18-80 is a perfect fit but quite pricey some will say, the cheap solution is the 18-135mm, dead cheap and sufficient for most run and gun needs.

Its not so much RAW, although RAWlite and BRAW have brought it to the masses; its about having an edit friendly codec.  Its about the ease of editing with what you shoot with without proxy or transcode.  I've shot in BRAW on a SSD drive and edited it directly on a laptop and delivered a video onsite within the hour.  So quick and works well with Resolve.  In comparison, H264 can take longer to edit.  I actually work quicker with BRAW in Resolve than H264 in Premiere.  Thumbnails load quicker, playback smoother so you can preview the finished video without encoding first.  Saves so much time.  

A Cinema camera should offer a professional codec for editing rather than a deliverable one you need to transcode. You say RAW workflow is as time intensive as transcoding H264, no its not.  The flexibility to work with what you have, to alter white balance and ISO so quickly can take the pain of correcting shots that didn't come out just right.  You can apply a LUT you used when filming for quick turnover or spend more time if you need to.

And yes, I have the P4K and soon P6K for that.  Its not unreasonable to ask for a similar workflow from a camera costing more.  

That said, I do like a lot about the camera.  The lack of proper codec is a negative, but for me the only major one.  I can live without the evf.  This camera ticks so many boxes for me; I am very tempted to look to buying one.  Its the camera the R5 should have been. 

With Canon it feels like specs are all over the place.  No consistent pattern across their line with what they offer.   The R5 should have the video recording specs of the C70 and the C70 those of the R5.  Then the R5 wouldn't need an overheating cripple to stop people from using it professionally and the C70 would be video camera of the decade.

13 minutes ago, ade towell said:

What are peoples options for a decent run around zoom with IS?

The 17-55mm 2.8 had a big vignette on the c200 and I think will do the same here - it could really do with a version 2. The 18-80mm T4.4 Canon lens is wonderful and has servo but is also expensive. That leaves the good old 24-105mm f4 plus speedbooster (still quite a chunk of money) but then your AF is compromised (only covers 60% I think I read with speedbooster). The 18-135 stm lens is good for outside run n gun but slow and not a very exciting image

The RF lenses are all full frame so not wide enough 

Any decently priced zooms with IS, it seems Canon like Sony have been neglecting s35 on the lens front these last few years?

I have the 24 to 105 EF lens.  So I'd probably get the speedbooster.  Though need another native lens for AF.

8 minutes ago, Mmmbeats said:

I have to admit, I transcode all of my footage routinely regardless of camera, so I just consider them as acquisition codecs.

Depends how much you shoot.  I would hate to do that for all I filmed...   

11 minutes ago, Mmmbeats said:

 

I don't think RAW is such an unreasonable omission. 

It is when a photography camera gets it and in 8K....

Its not so much about heavy grades as giving a codec that plays well in editing suites even after grading.  H264 and H265 are deliverable codecs not editing codec  despite many believing them to be so.  

Its a great camera otherwise let down by a few things.  

35 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

The codecs are just fine for the intended use. The sensor seems at least a generation and a half ahead of the C200 one. It has everything a small production company needs.

 

What is the intended use?  Even as a Wedding Videpgraoher, I have benefitted from BRAW for improve workflow and handling of colour grading.  When the R5 is due RAWlite, this is an omission and shouldn't be glossed over simply because of the C70s other more positive attributes.   It offers some of what I need, but not all.  Give this camera Cinema RAWlite and this would be a perfect camera for me. Maybe 4K downsampled from a 6K one would be a nice addition too.

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But is it really "the best chip"?

Not for a target market which is S35 4K. 
Not for a target market which cares about RS, DR, and other factors more instead. 

To be fair RS on the R5 isn't that bad and DR could improve with the cLog3 update.  The R5 fails not for the sensor, or performance, but by its software induced limits on recording times.  Its a shame that Canon does a give and take policy with its gear and the C70 is no different.  

That said, I love what the camera offers, even if the lack of professional codecs like RAW or ProRes limit the camera in my eyes.  Its taking the small size of a mirrorless and adding proper video controls and features.  I'm in 2 minds about getting one.   

6 hours ago, tupp said:

We haven't directly touched on speedboosters in this thread, but there have been other discussions about how speedboosters/focal reducers are involved in format looks.

 

 

The adapter/crop issue has been addressed in this thread.

 

 

The format looks in question do not involve sensor size, per se.

I was replying to a single post and answer that summed up what the entire thread had demonstrated..   I feel this thread has only shown personal needs and not whether there is a wider need for others to adopt fullframe or larger sensors.

6 hours ago, tupp said:

What makes a format necessary are what someone considers to be desirable qualities.  We are discussing the desirable qualites of larger formats vs. smaller formats -- which involves FF.

Its still confusing 'necessary for an individual' to 'necessary for everyone'... if we are narrowing it down to what is necessary for a single individual, the answer is massive and can cover such a wide range to make the question pointless to ask in the first place.  

Maybe the thread has turned from Is Fullframe necessary, to whether larger sensors is desirable to certain needs and style.

2 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

On the contrary, the last few pages of discussion gets right to the heart of the question raised. And I think many people would agree that the answer is:

• The necessity or desirability of a format size depend on whether the lenses available for that format will give you the visual qualities that you value.

This argument overlooks the use of speedboosters, the fact that smaller sensors can via adapters use lenses designed for larger sensors and the issue that many fullframe lenses have crops for certain frame rates.. ie Panasonic for 60p.  

For me the visual qualities I require come with codec and colour science.  Not sensor size.  

1 hour ago, maxmizer said:

how much time wasted in useless chatter...

None of it is even proving that fullframe is necessary.   I could argue why shooting film is necessary and produces a look different to digital, but it still doesn't prove it necessary.

1 hour ago, tupp said:

The A7s with the 8"x10" rig is not really intended for stills.

Probably not.. but it is a camera designed to do both regardless of how you rig it. Like my GH5 rigged to a gimbal is still a hybrid designed for a Photographer to use.  But no one would shoot photos that way.  At least, I hope not. 😆

2 hours ago, tupp said:

Have you priced an Alexa 65 lately?

 

If I had the money to buy an C300/Komodo/Ursa-12K, I'd buy an A7s II with an Irix 15mm lens and a shift adapter and build a copy of Zev Hoover's 8"x10" rig.  I'd deposit rest of the money.

Oddly enough no.  My main point is that smaller sensors can cost more than fullframe.  Having more money doesn't necessary equate choosing fullframe.  Its as much down to personal choice of what you need or want to use - hybrids, smaller cameras, larger cinema cameras.  

I wouldn't buy a Sony as I've never liked using or editing their footage.  And to be honest, I don't shoot enough photos to need a camera that does both.  Maybe one fullframe I am thinking about to cover those small jobs where I do.  Mostly though, I want to stick to dedicated video cameras.

23 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Sad day .  To find out I’ve only been using parts of my images for years?  Bummer. 

All those movies I've seen that were shot on S35 are now rubbish as they were using a cropped sensor... 🤣🤣