herein2020

I don't know anything about the 90D but that would make perfect sense. It would explain some shortcomings in the highlight rolloff and DR areas. It also would make sense that they reuse a sensor for their first mirrorless crop sensor camera; they did the same thing with their first FF mirrorless camera; they used the 5DIV sensor for the R. I wouldn't be so sure about the DGO sensor from the C70. On paper it seems pretty revolutionary but in practice it is just ok. Canon has really hyped the DGO sensor but IMO the sensor isn't even the C70's best feature; the integrated ND filters, XLR inputs, internal RAW to SD cards, and no overheating are all better selling points than the sensor. That is not to say the DGO sensor is bad by any means; it has great DR and highlight rolloff, but when compared to the recent Sony sensors it becomes a crowded field. I do think it has more DR than almost any other Canon sensor, but still lags a bit behind Sony's best sensors. If I were able to pick any current sensor for the R7, I would pick the S5's sensor over the C70's. Thanks Andrew, I will definitely test it with my footage tomorrow. I know my highlights are clipped and unrecoverable but it would be interesting to see if it would be possible to fix the rolloff with a LUT.

BTW...another tell that my scene had more DR (brighter sun / deeper shadows) is looking at the exposure of the skin tones from both comparisons in the shadows....the exposure of your skin tones and mine in the shadows are nearly identical, we both used the same post processing color grading method...yet my highlights are blown out. If the lows were exposed the same, then the highs were also exposed the same.....yet my highs were clearly brighter. So yes, its easy to say it was improperly exposed or the highlights should not have been clipped, or to compare it to a different scene and say they should look identical, but in reality it is a lot more nuanced than that. In my opinion everything you found interesting in your scene was still within the limits of the DR of the camera, whereas I wanted some fidelity in the deeper shadows and due to the brighter sun that I was dealing with ended up clipping the highlights but in the end we ended up with the same shadow exposure.

I agree, there's definitely scientific ways of doing this, personally I just get out and shoot and work with what I have at the time. Over time I get to where I know exactly what I can get away with in post. Without looking at any charts or results I know the S5 to my eyes combined with VLOG is still the best performing camera I've used to date; slightly ahead of the C70 and definitely ahead of the R5, R6, and R7 in terms of highlight rolloff and DR. One user here actually posted that I am exactly right...the S5 comes in at 0.5 stops ahead in DR of even the C70 based on some tests performed by a site that tests such things. There is no doubt in my mind that in the scenes where I had to clip the highlights to preserve the midtones or shadows the S5 would have excelled. The R7 has many strengths for scenes within its DR, very nice colors, and is a very solid performer for both photography and video, but DR and highlight rolloff simply isn't its strong points. At its price point I wouldn't expect it to be able to keep up with the R5 or R6, but it is a little disappointing that in 2022 Canon's cameras still aren't ahead of the S5, S1, or S1H all of which use 2yr old Sony sensors.

I agree with you, it is definitely a middle of the road camera, but I disagree that it is overpriced. As consumers we always want something to be a little cheaper, but the best way in my opinion to determine if something is overpriced is to look at its competition. To me out of the cameras I have worked with, I would say the S5 is its closest competitor and the S5 outperforms it in low light, has a FF sensor, and higher quality body at $100USD less. However, the R7 of course has amazing AF and a massive native/Canon adapted lens lineup. So in my mind you are basically paying $100 more for Canon's DPAF over Panasonics DFD while losing DR and lowlight performance. If AF is more important to you than the other two (to me it is), then $100USD more seems like a fair price to me. Well we will have to agree to disagree. I do agree with you that I chose to expose more for the shaded area in the referenced screen shot because I did not want the shaded area to be completely black because that's where the people were, and in other parts of the video I also chose to favor the mids and shadows over the highlights. I disagree again that the DR in the two compared scenes is the same. The direct sunlight hitting a white building combined with the deep shade is IMO a scene the camera simply cannot handle and is a higher DR scene than the one in your screenshot. Maybe I could have exposed for the highlights while crushing the blacks and somehow lifted the shadows later and gotten good results.....but I doubt it. I favored showing the people in the shadows vs the sunlight hitting the building in that particular shot. I know for a fact that with the C70 the entire scene wouldn't have been a problem. I also agree with you that maybe I underestimated the editing longitude in post for the camera, I will need to shoot and test with it more to see how much shadows can be pushed and pulled in post without losing color detail. Personally, I hate having to lift mids or shadows in post; no matter what a manufacturer claims their camera's DR is, it's been my experience you start losing color fidelity very quickly when you start lifting shadows. The clips were color graded in DR using managed color just like yours. The WFM for that clip shows I possibly had more latitude in the shadows than I gave the camera credit for. But it also shows the only way to have exposed for the highlights would have been to completely crush the shadows, meaning all of the people in the shade would have been impossible to see and probably unrecoverable in post. That's where that scene exceeded the DR of the camera and that's where highlight rolloff performance is important. Here is the clip after the managed color space transform, as shown in the WFM.....crushing the shadows would have been the only option here due to the limited DR of the sensor. And yes, to you the people in the shadows wasn't interesting. but to me they were more interesting than the people farther away and I deliberately chose that clip to show the DR limitations of the camera. IMO the S5 and C70 would have done much better here, not sure yet if the R5 would have as well. I would be curious to see, for the screenshot you sent, your before and after WFM. I genuinely want to produce the best quality this camera has, but so far I am unconvinced that we are comparing apples to apples here with each screenshot that you have sent so far. Since I mostly work with people, I will blow the highlights every time to ensure I properly expose the subject in the scene. Your footage definitely looks very natural and organic, but I am not convinced with the examples you compared that the DR in the scene was the same. The first comparison with the front lit subject was definitely not equivalent to my backlit scene, and this screen shot also doesn't convince me the DR was the same. It is easy to say it's the same....there's buildings, sunlight, and shade in both, but if the buildings are closer, the sunlight is brighter and the shade is darker, then it is definitely not the same. When the DR was within the limits of the camera it performed admirably well, but that's not the real world and many of my shots were in the worst possible lighting....midday sun and deep shade.

I think you do not understand the very definition of highlight rolloff. You are showing scenes and examples where you were able to expose for the highlights without underexposing the scene or underexposing something that was important to you in the scene; in that scenario any modern camera will excel. Nowhere in your video or screen shots did you have an example of a person less than 3 feet from the camera backlit by a midday sun. The very definition of highlight rolloff is when you have to prioritize something other than the highlights and how the camera handles the transition from the clipped highlights back to exposure values that are within the dynamic range of the camera. Also, the examples you showed were definitely not worst-case scenario; in your examples you were pretty far from the subject and the direct sunlight was off camera to camera left; very easy actually to properly expose for regardless of skin tone and color of clothing mainly because the entire scene is well within the DR of the camera. You keep referring to "how the camera handles highlights" vs. how the camera transitions from clipped highlights to proper exposure. My opening shots were a much worse scenario, very close to the subject with the subject strongly backlit by midday sun. That is a scenario that exceeds the DR of the camera so in that scenario you have to pick what you will sacrifice...midtones or highlights. Since the subject was a person, I chose to sacrifice (clip) the highlights to properly expose the midtones which is where her skin tones will be. If I had exposed for the highlights (i.e. the crown or background) she wouldn't have been much more than a silhouette (trust me, in camera I tested that first and it looked terrible). I also checked false color when bringing the footage into DR and false color showed her skin tones were properly exposed. And yes, I do this all of the time when the DR of a scene exceeds the camera's DR...I pick crushing the blacks to retain the highlights or blowing the highlights to retain color and detail in the mids or lows, etc. Yes, as she twisted and turned the highlights clipped including the ones on her face, but this is the reality of the types of projects that I shoot, events and projects where I have no control over the lighting and typically must let the highlights clip to get proper skin tone exposure. Properly exposing for those hot spots as she changed in relation to the sun would have greatly under exposed the scene and the shadow side of her body. When you are that close to the subject that is moving from backlit to side lit to front lit in direct sunlight there is no way to avoid highlight clipping unless you have a camera with way more DR than the R7; that's why shooting in midday in direct sunlight is the worst possible time to shoot, but due to our schedules it was what we had to work with. If I wasn't trying to deliberately show how bad this camera handles highlight rolloff I just wouldn't have used most of the parts where she had hot spots on her face. If this was a commercial or paid shoot in the same situation, I just would have shot everything from the backlit direction or scouted a better location with shade, used a diffuser, used fill lighting, etc, etc....anything to reduce the DR of the scene to fit within the camera's DR.

In some ways the R7 would be great for weddings (AF, lowlight performance, battery life, light weight, good photography specs, lens availability, XLR audio options, etc), but it would be hard to recommend it as an A camera for weddings with the highlight rolloff issues, not to mention dynamic range seems to be just average as well; DR is definitely not comparable to the S5. Weddings are held outdoors in direct sunlight all the time and there's a lot of situations where the scene has a really wide DR. With the volume of weddings that you shoot, and your hungry competition, you will definitely get better quality photography and video results with your current setup since you found a way to get Panasonic's AF to work for you. I think for lower budget weddings the R7 would do just fine, but not for a couple that is paying for a destination wedding in France. Maybe my opinion of the R7 will improve as I use better lenses on it and shoot in more controlled scenarios, but I think its unlikely at this point.

I agree 100%, no one talks about the highlight rolloff in a single R7 video that I watched. No one talked about Canon not offering dual slot video recording either for years, or no XLR adapter options for the R5, or why the R5 STILL has a 30min recording limit, or why the electronic level and histogram disappear when you press record, or why even the C70 has no electronic level whatsoever in 2022. Very frustration IMO. But then Canon goes and offers the best lens lineup out there, and internal compressed RAW that can write to freaking V30 SD cards of all things, and best in class IBIS and AF....and all is forgiven (if you are already invested in Canon glass).

I really don't think Canon is aiming for this camera to be a top performer in any category, I think they are being much more stealthy with the cripple hammer and they have to know the sensor has a lot of room for improvement. But Sony and to a lesser extent Panasonic and Nikon are eating their lunch in this lower to middle mirrorless tier so they had to release something to compete. For me its just a b-cam, so the C70 and maybe even the R5 at times will be the main workhorses, but when I need to capture some quick b-roll or a quick interview, the R7 is perfect for that. Then there's always those times at events when an important client grabs you by the arm and runs you over to get pictures of their VIP guests then on the way back you decide to shoot some quick b-roll. For all of those scenarios the R7 and R5 would be perfect. For properly planned productions like promo videos, music videos, the A roll for weddings, etc, the C70 is definitely the better choice. I do think though the R7 due to its light weight will make an awesome gimbal camera. I bought the DJI Ronin RS2 to hold the C70's weight, but the combined weight of the C70 plus cage still makes it an awkward hard to balance rig. The R7 with its lighter weight and better AF would really excel on a gimbal. Another good use for the R7 is for real estate videos and maybe even real estate photography. It would be nice to take one camera to shoot an entire real estate photo/video project instead of 2. So the R7 for all its faults really does have a lot of decent general purpose uses.

You will definitely get better results with that than anything coming out of the R7. The C70 shooting RAW might give it a run for its money but the C70 has its own long list of downsides. There are rumors that an R7C might come out next year, (probably with Canon RAW LT and 7K) but if it turns into a frankencamera like the R5C and keeps the R7's DR and highlight rolloff it will be DOA in my opinion.

I will definitely give that a try. Right now I am using Davinci Resolve's Color Management because it seemed better than the CLOG3 to Rec709 LUTS that I tried. My only complaint with it is it seems to oversaturate the colors at times so I had to dial that back in post, but it seems like a pretty good starting point. Yes, that's the problem with this camera, it is fine in good lighting but can't handle harsh lighting. The Panasonic S5 had perfect highlight rolloff, the R5 seems ok so far but I haven't shot with it in harsh lighting yet, and of course the C70 is fine. It sounds like you are the rare Nikon video shooter, Nikon cameras have great video specs, but I am just too invested in Canon glass. If you watch the reference video that I posted I deliberately left one of the terrible highlight rolloff clips in the video, anyone looking for it will spot it immediately. The bad performance is also there in pictures; so it's not even a CLOG3 thing, shooting raw images still shows the poor highlight rolloff performance. I think it is about on par with the GH5 when shooting in 8bit and no log profile. For photography I don't think it is a big deal, with my ND filters and fill lighting setups I can always control the lighting, but video is a different story. @Kisaha I have never held the Samsung NX1 so all I can compare it to is the ones I've shot with but its interesting that you've shot with both and prefer the NX1. I do agree another wheel at the back would have been nice, but I get they were probably trying to reduce costs. It is a little annoying to have to press the ISO button instead of having a wheel for it, but I don't change ISO as often as I change shutter speed and aperture so its not that big of a loss to me. I actually really like the Off/Photo/Video switch. I didn't accidentally hit it even once and I am used to using a switch due to the R5 and the C70 and the 5DIV. For me it is a relief to have a dedicated button vs the R5. I also like having a dedicated video mode, typically the shutter speed is different between photography and video and also CLOG3's native ISO is ISO800 vs photography where you want to try to stay at 100, so if you could record in photo mode and it inherited the photo mode's settings it could be problematic; in fact I think the R5 does let you record in photo mode and it is really annoying IMO. The R5 lets you put all of your video settings in a custom mode though so if you record in photography mode it will use the settings in the C3 mode, but I still don't like it. I did notice the rolling shutter seems high, but I mostly shoot event work vs sports so it doesn't matter to me. I would think for a camera meant to shoot action like the R7 and with the smaller sensor they would have controlled rolling shutter a bit better. It sounds like we have reached the exact same conclusion, this camera doesn't really excel at much, but it is a solid middle of the road performer. The camera really reminds me of my Canon 24-105mm F4......its my most boring lens; not very wide, not very long, not very fast, and not the sharpest lens, but if I could only pick one lens for a trip it would be that one because it can almost rise to almost any occasion. If I had to take another road trip tomorrow and could only bring one camera to shoot photos and video it would be this camera, not the R5 (overheating, record limit, no XLR audio), and not the C70 (bulky, no IBIS, can't take commercially useable pictures). I do disagree that its a specialized camera, something like the Canon RP is a specialized camera. This one I think will sell to a ton of people (7D shooters, possible Sony a6xxx buyers, possible Panasonic S5 buyers, possible Nikon Z6 buyers, etc.). Pretty much anyone wanting a solidly performing true hybrid camera should consider this camera. I do think the limited RF-S lenses and the cost of the RF lenses puts it in a strange place at the moment. But all cameras start out that way. For anyone with a lot of EF glass or even EF-S glass already though, this is a serious contender.

It has a crop mode in the menu but it is very odd, you can only shoot at 60FPS in crop mode, it greys out 24 and 30FPS, so I didn't use it at all. I think the crop mode would be useful with say a FF lens on a speedbooster to give you extra reach so it would turn a 24-105 EF mount lens into a 38-166mm lens or at least that's what I thought when I looked at it in the menu, but not sure why its only 60FPS. It probably would work as well though for Super 16 lenses hadn't thought about that since I don't have any.

I picked up the Canon R7 a week ago and shot with it for a week in a variety of conditions before starting this thread. I had a trip to Las Vegas coming up and a retailer showed one in stock near me, so I literally got it on the way to the airport. I had one hour to put it in a camera bag with the kit lens and I took the Sigma EF 50mm F1.4 and straight through RF to EF adapter because I knew I wanted to test it in lowlight conditions and the kit lens at F3.5 wasn't going to be fast enough. On paper the R7 checks every box I was looking for as s b-cam to the C70 and as a second body for the R5 so I went for it. So, below are my thoughts on the Canon R7 after shooting with it for a week. My intended use is as a B video camera for the C70, possibly a gimbal camera, and some light solo/travel photography/video work and maybe as a second camera for the R5 for weddings (not a fan of weddings at all but who knows what the future holds). This review will ramble a bit, I now own the R5, R7, and C70 and have owned the Canon R6 (for 1 week), Panasonic S5, and GH5 so at times I will probably compare some likes and dislikes with those cameras. I will probably compare it mostly to the Panasonic S5 since to me they are the most direct competitors that I have used. THE GOOD Ergonomics - This camera's ergonomics are perfect to me. This is without a doubt one of the most comfortable cameras to hold that I've ever owned. I like big heavy cameras (I already added the battery grip to my R5) and thought I wouldn't like the ergonomics of the R7, but the grip is perfect. I actually did not like the ergonomics of the S5 at all, very uncomfortable to hold with its shallow grip and even the R6 wasn't that great in my opinion. Canon made the grip on the R7 much deeper and somehow that did the trick for me. I did not even have time to rig up a camera strap before my trip so I had no camera strap when shooting photos or video and it still was really comfortable. Joystick Thumbwheel - Another home run for Canon. I was a bit neutral on the thumbwheel; I don't like change as much as anyone else, and was unsure about the thumbwheel around the joystick, but after using it I wish all of my cameras had it there. It is very logical and the height of the joystick protrudes just enough that you don't accidentally scroll then wheel. Speaking of the joystick, it is so much better than the one on the C70, it is actually precise and useable unlike the terrible one on the C70. Dedicated Video Switch - It is great that they brought back the dedicated video switch, its still annoying to me on the R5 to have to customize a button for this and use that button instead of a toggle switch. Viewfinder / Backscreen - These are pretty acceptable, I read online some people were complaining about the viewfinder specs; personally, I am still not a fan of EVF's in general and still miss my OVF in my 5DIV but to me the R7's EVF is no worse or better than say the S5 or R6. The backscreen is definitely better than the S5, the back screen on the S5 especially when focusing was a constant source of annoyance for me. Batteries / Battery Life - Nothing short of incredible. I shot a mixture of clips and photos each day for about a week and the battery only dropped 20%. Way better than the R5 in this regards and maybe slightly better than the S5. This is the first camera I would be comfortable shooting photography with without a battery grip. As far as batteries go, I am literally overflowing with them...they are the same batteries as the DSLR 5D series as well as the R5 and R6, so its nice to be able to swap batteries between the R5 and R7, interchangeability is very important to me. And yes, I know the older DSLRs took a slightly different battery, but it still works in the R7 (minus in body charging). Video Quality - The video quality is pretty much what I expected, nothing earth shattering, but also totally acceptable results. 4K60FPS, 4K30FPS, 4K Fine, and regular line skipped 4K are all there. I like compressed IPB so that's the only thing I used during the trip. Loaded up with dual 1TB SD cards and I could probably shoot on a month long trip without running out of space. Dual Slot Recording - Canon finally gets it, they released this feature on day 1. A huge Canon pet peeve of mine has been they typically don't offer dual slot video recording. With the R7 it is there and works as expected. Speaking of recording its great that it uses SD cards, I can share them between the C70, R5, and now the R7 so there's that interchangeability thing again. Photography Quality - Nothing out of this world, but perfectly fine for social media or even print work. I didn't get to really test the photography features, since I did not take a wireless trigger or any sort of lighting, I did not really push the quality boundaries of the sensor since I was stuck with ambient light. Ambient light does make you work a little extra in post, and the images did not fall apart when pushing the shadows and dropping the highlights. For the images I shot in cRAW. Kit Lens - I haven't used a kit lens in years, and forgot how useful that range is. The kit lens is a RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 with no lens IS. Yes I hate variable aperture, but that turned out to be super useful range when travelling. No lens swapping needed to get wider or longer, for what it was it performed pretty well. IBIS - It was nice shooting with a camera with IBIS again (after shooting with the C70). IBIS is rock solid when stationary and only doing simple camera movements. I also turned on horizon leveling (a first for Canon cameras) but couldn't tell how well it works since I am already a stickler for level horizons so I couldn't tell how much it was helping me keep it level. Walking with the IBIS is still impossible to me, if you want to walk with this camera and have good results you still need a gimbal. CLOG3 - I used CLOG 3 extensively, it performed as expected, nothing exceptional, but no surprises isn't a bad thing. Build Quality - I would say the build quality is about on par for Canon's recent releases (R5, R6) and of course above the quality of the C70 (sad isn't it?). All of the buttons, the back screen, and the feel of the camera is better than the C70. I would place the build quality right below the S5 and two steps below the GH5. Not bad....just predictable at this price point for Canon. Menu System - If you have ever shot with any Canon you will be right at home with the menu system. You do know though that you are using a modern Canon offering when you hit the first menu and it has 10 pages. I actually like the S5's menu system better in some ways, but once again, the R7 is just very predictable. Auto Focus - Just like every other Canon.....it just works. I didn't really stress it or try to break it, I just shot with it and it focused on what I needed it to and it maintained AF. I still am not really a fan of the person or eye AF when there is more than one person in the frame, I probably just need to learn how to work with it better, but for me, the most predictable AF settings are still to just use expand AF and put the cross hairs on what I want in focus. Eye AF works well though for talking heads or when the subject fills the frame. The AF is definitely much better than the C70 and seems about even with the R5 and R6. Low Light - I think it is not bad, definitely not as good as the S5 with its dual native ISO, but perfectly acceptable up to about 3200ISO. With a speedbooster and fast lens it is probably on par with the S5 in low light. Lens Mount - I mentioned it somewhere else, this is the ONLY Canon camera that supports EF, EF-S, RF, and RF-S at the moment; meaning it has a massive lens selection on day one. Knowing I can use every Canon and Sigma lens that I own on this camera is a great feeling. So, to wrap up THE GOOD, my overall assessment is that it is just a very predictable middle of the road camera which does photography and video equally well. Of course putting it like that makes me realize just how good this camera really is, I have said many times that I think Canon accidentally created the perfect hybrid with this camera and based on my experience so far, I still think that is the best way to describe it; a reliable solid 4K camera that is also very good at photography, that's all I have ever wanted out of a hybrid. BTW, I was in Las Vega with average daily temps of 95F-106F and never even thought about overheating. These were short clips mixed with photography and fiddling with menu settings; the exact same setup I had with the R5 when it gave me an overheat warning. THE BAD Highlight Rolloff - without a doubt the absolute worse problem with this camera. The highlight rolloff is horrendously bad. I don't even think about highlight rolloff with modern cameras, I typically leave that to the pixel peepers to complain about, but with the R7 it is without a doubt its biggest flaw. Its highlight roll off performance is about equal to my Canon T6 Rebel and far worse than even my drone with its 1" sensor. At first I thought it was just the kit lens causing it to be so bad, but I shot with the Sigma 50mm F1.4 and it did not get better. Highlight rolloff is important to me because I mostly shoot people in bad lighting where hot spots abound. Kit Lens - Yes it has a great range, but optically it just isn't very good. At the long end it gets cloudy, somewhere in the middle its not very sharp, and at the short end its somewhat acceptable. I think the Canon EF 24-105 F4.0 L lens or the Sigma EF-S 18-35 F1.8 would be a much better lens for this camera but neither offer the type of range that the kit lens offers. The camera sensor definitely far outperforms the kit lens as is to be expected. IBIS Wobble - at the 18mm end of the kit lens the IBIS wobble is pretty bad, definitely worse than anything I got with the S5. If you try to walk at all, it introduces wobble that cannot be removed in post. Towards the 30mm+ end of the range it gets better. Also, the lens did not have IS so a lens with IS may perform better. Video Tools - Typical Canon, no WFM, no false color, and my #1 pet peeve....the electronic level and histogram disappear when you hit record. The S5 and GH5 both keep them on the screen while recording. The R5, R6, and now the R7 don't. The C70 doesn't even have an electronic level. Accessories - No battery grip and possibly there never will be one. I am on the fence if one is needed with a hybrid camera, I typically use one for photography and none for video and I also typically put a cage on my video cameras and none on my photography cameras, so this one is a bit of an oddity to me. But I do like the battery grip because I mostly work with people and shoot vertical, with a battery grip the shutter button and wheels are at my fingertips when shooting vertical. Power PD - This camera like the R5 needs a Power PD USB-C power supply. This is annoying for me because my current setup does not meet the requirements for power PD. Ironically, the C70 doesn't even have this requirement and works just fine with my V-Mount battery. The R5 and R7 have this requirement, whereas the C70 and S5 work just fine with my current setup. Settings Sharing - The R7 does not seem to share settings between the photography and video menus. With the S5 it let me pick which settings to share between them such as ISO and WB. This may be an option in the menu settings somewhere but I haven't found it yet. OTHER I think this camera combined with the Viltrox speedbooster and EF lenses could be a great combination if you already have EF lenses. Or you could go with the straight through adapter and use your EF-S lenses. I have both Twice out of over 100 clips during my trip the camera for some reason ignored the CLOG3 profile and recorded in something else. I never even went back into that menu during the trip so I don't think it was user error. I also thought maybe I pressed record while in photography mode but it doesn't start recording when you do that; so I am not sure why it did that. I noticed the same thing with the R5, it will randomly record a clip without using CLOG3 occasionally. CONCLUSION I think I am done with purchasing any camera bodies for the next 5yrs or so. I once again have a fully interchangeable system, batteries, memory cards, and lenses are mostly interchangeable. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT Here are my reviews for: The S5 - Panasonic S5 User Experience The C70 - Canon C70 User Experience BONUS I shot a video with the R7 while I was in Vegas. My goal was to test photography, video, daylight, dusk, and lowlight. I do think I did this camera a disservice using the kit lens for a video test, but it was the most useable lens I had with me; the 50mm turned into an 85mm on this camera and was too zoomed in for most of what I wanted to film. I also did not bring a mic, so I was stuck using the integrated mic. For the video below I went out of my way to film different skin tones, lighting situations, etc. I also graded it to Rec.709 since I always hate seeing camera test videos where they have a heavy creative grade making it impossible to see what SOOC looks like. I don't believe in doing the pixel peeping test chart thing so I just get out and shoot the type of content that I shoot to see how a camera performs.

I will preface this by saying I do not know all of the intricacies of digital stabilization or IBIS; I know the limitations, how they work, and what exceeds their capabilities but would definitely defer to a camera engineer on the specifics of why one system works better than others. With that said, I can see why it would be plausible for smaller sensors to handle digital stabilization better. Just because the data is raw doesn't mean the information coming from the smaller sensor has the same resolving power or quantity of information as the larger sensors. The raw data from a smaller sensor will have less color data than the larger sensors otherwise there'd be no reason to make larger sensors. With less color data, it would take less processing power to stabilize the footage digitally (similar to two pictures shot from the same camera...the one with lots of color will be substantially larger than the one with less color in the scene). I do think the fixed lens helps, and I think like you said; GoPro, DJI, etc. had more incentive to get it right vs the MILC camera makers, but I don't think incentive is the only reason it works so well in smaller cameras. Another challenge is always battery life as well; the more processing power used for Digital IS, the worse the battery life will be; for larger cameras that could become a real problem. As far as sensor size for IBIS, I am quite familiar with how it correlates to a car's suspension; but where the two diverge is that once again battery life is a concern with cameras whereas it is not a concern with cars. A larger sensor will require a more power hungry IBIS system to stabilize the larger sensor vs a smaller sensor. IMO larger sensors and smaller sensors have relatively the same amount of "sensor travel" ability because the body size has nothing to do with the image circle. MFT sensors like the GH5 have an MFT image circle which will limit the sensor's travel just like the larger sensors. Regardless of the specifics, Canon has clearly caught up and passed the competition in the IBIS department for their FF cameras. For Digital IS, I think at least for now the action cameras are still far ahead of gyro, IBIS, lens IS, and the digital IS from the other makers. I had this problem with my footage shooting runway shows where they put a digital backboard behind the models, the flicker was terrible.....I added deflicker in post using Davinci Resolve and it did a great job. The main downside that I saw was that rendering was far slower, and so was editing, so I would recommend if you want to try this then complete all of the edits to the project first, then add the deflicker effect. You might be able to add an adjustment clip and add the deflicker there to fix the whole project at once, but I did not try that. I have used deflicker in the past for timelapses but this was the first time I needed to use it to fix regular video footage. Seems like a lot of fine print that goes along with gyro stabilization. Now that is impressive, seeing the before really shows how much the gyro stabilization helps; it is definitely doing more than I thought it was. It would be really cool to see a camera with gyro, IBIS, lens IS, and digital IS all enabled at the same time. It would be nice if all cameras offered gyro stabilization, it would be one more tool in our belt for stability. I would still prefer IBIS over gyro, but it would be nice to have options like in DR where you get to pick from 3 different types of post stabilization and get to test each one to see what works best for that particular shot. I would imagine that Canon could implement gyro stability at least in their cameras that have the electronic level since clearly they already have a gyro on them. Not so sure about the C70 and others in the cinema line. It does seem to me that Canon is playing a lot of catch up these days.

The R5 has hands down the best IBIS that I have ever used, I shot handheld a few shots with a 70-200 at 200mm and it was incredibly stable while filming closeups of people as a B-cam; so I do think modern IBIS systems can equal or be better than the BM gyro results. The difference for me is that when IBIS fixes instability there is no weird jitter or warping that I saw with the gyro results...at least not with the longer lenses (35mm and above). The other benefit of IBIS vs gyro is there is no cropping required...with IBIS what you frame is what you get, with post stabilization and gyro stabilization you have no idea ahead of time how much cropping will be needed. For my particular niche in the industry (fashion), it is very important to not have to crop because the crop could be in the worse possible place (middle of the model's head for example), rendering the shot unusable. Just because it shoots 6K doesn't mean you want to leave tons of room around every shot and frame differently to accommodate post cropping later; sometimes you need the exact composition that you shot. Based solely on the video above, I think gyro stabilization is a lot like post digital stabilization....very good for certain types of movements and very jittery for others; whereas IBIS is excellent regardless of the movement. DJI's Osmos and GoPros have the best In Body Digital Stabilization (IBDS?) out there. The working theory is that because the data rates are lower due to the smaller sensor, it takes less processing power to stabilize them (and other action cameras) than the larger cameras which is why their digital IS works so well. Another theory is that the sensor is simply larger for regular IBIS systems so the IBIS naturally will have to work harder to stabilize it. The GH5's IBIS for example blew away the FF competition for years in the IBIS department. Manufacturers typically rate their IBIS system based on stops of light. For example, the R5 according to Canon has an IBIS rated at 8 stops of light...the highest in the industry for MILCs. Most manufacturers are rating their IBIS systems around 3-5 stops of light. I think the S5 was rated at 5 stops. Not sure who invented light stops as a measure of IBIS performance, but it is the standard now. You can read more about how it is measured here: https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/8-stops-image-stabilization/ I will say, after this past week, the R5 without a doubt has the best IBIS I've ever encountered in a FF body. I could hand hold at 200mm and make it look like I was on a tripod for an extended length of time; very impressive in my book.

I have gone full circle, I used to shoot everything from a tripod, gimbal, or monopod; mainly because I started out shooting real estate photography and video. As soon as I started working with bigger projects and faster moving events stabilization equipment felt like a crutch that was holding me back; even the monopod started feeling clunky and too much fiddling; by the time it was the right height, pointed in the right direction, and the camera was ready, the moment had passed. These days I still have the monopod in the car but haven't used it in over 2yrs, I bring the gimbal to most shoots but usually either don't use it or use it only for a few min of walking shots, and the tripod I do use religiously for runway shows and long form static work. For everything else I shoot handheld. One thing I never do handheld though is try to walk; Other than GoPro, I have yet to see a single IBIS system that impressed me when walking. To me, if you are going to walk with the camera you need a gimbal, no exceptions. GoPro of course still has the best in body digital IS that I have ever seen, but they can get away with it due to the tiny sensor. This is why I still say no IBIS system (other than GoPro) truly works when walking, no matter how many stops of light the manufacturer claims. I had hopes that I would be impressed.....but I wasn't. The handheld static scenes were ok; about even with IBIS and about even with post stabilization; but the walking scenes were terrible as usual. Way too much warping, and jumpiness; it was obvious where the gyro stabilization was trying to fix the footage. I will be truly impressed when any IBIS or post stabilization can make a gimbal shot indiscernible from a handheld walking shot for the average videographer. There are exceptional videographers who can shoot handheld without IBIS and without post stabilization and make a walking shot look great (at least for a few seconds to a minute), but they are the exception. Personally, I am always trying to improve my handheld technique because handheld is by far the most freeing while also the most challenging. Shooting with the C70 handheld has greatly improved my technique, now when I shoot with a camera that has IBIS like the R5 I find myself shooting with much more stability and not needing any post stabilization.

That is a very interesting phenomenon, and makes perfect sense when you think about it.....but I think in the real world it is nearly impossible to see in a typical scene. Your test scene had a lot of sharp edges and detail combined with a lot of shake and post stabilization; in a typical shooting scenario the camera is farther away from the subject, there's few if any sharp edges, and the camera is typically also moving in some visible direction; combine that with compression from online platforms and I don't think it would be discernable at all. The biggest problem I have with post stabilization is trying to balance the warping effect that post stabilization adds to certain scenes especially when shooting with wide angle lenses or the motion you are trying to fix. For me, I am more trying to smooth a too sudden motion more so than actual camera shake. When using it to smooth out a start or stop in motion it is quite effective but sometimes I have to try all 3 options in DR before finding one that looks natural. The one place where I think this phenomenon would be perceptible nearly always would be shooting detail shots for real estate. In real estate videos though you nearly always use sliders or gimbals for that very reason....too many sharp straight edges that would make any camera shake, post stabilization, or horizon tilt very apparent. I think at the end of the day nothing beats true stabilization equipment, IBIS, Digital IS, and Post stabilization are all just tools to get you "close enough" when "close enough" is acceptable.

I guess I don't understand how the 180 degree shutter angle relates to post stab. I almost always shoot at 180 degrees with most of my cameras except with my drones and I frequently have to stabilize in post (especially since the C70 has no IBIS) but it looks fine to me.

Well I am thoroughly pissed with my R5 right now....have had it a little over a month and have to send it in for repairs already....MAJOR EVF lag. Have been shooting runway shows for 2wks straight and my keeper rate was below 60% because of the lag. I also shot a few b-roll clips for the C70 with the R5; it was 95F, outdoors not direct sunlight mostly photography with a few clips up to 2min long at 4K60FPS not even using the 4K HQ option and I got the overheat warning. I suppose before I send it in I will update the firmware to 1.6 to at least "fix" the fake overheating problem. My C70 was filming 4K Raw LT almost continuously at the same time and I had no issues with it. I have also had weird issues with the R5 where the shutter button after being half pressed for too long while in eye tracking mode will not take the picture after going from half pressed to fully pressed on the shutter button. Had to fully let off of the shutter button, hope it re-aquired the eye tracking after pressing the shutter button again before taking the picture.....and typically finding out after the shot that the EVF display was so far behind that the moment was long gone. If I could take the R5 back today I would do so and stick with my 5DIV for another few years. As far as shortening the life of the camera with the new firmware, I really don't think that's a big deal at this point. I got the 4yr Canon CarePAK coverage so the motherboard could fry itself tomorrow and Canon would still have to repair or replace it. I am surprised that they did not remove the ridiculous 30min recording limit with this FW update. The R7 doesn't have it, and its long gone from Panasonic and I think Sony cameras as well, no idea what Canon is waiting on. I do think since Canon does have to honor their CarePAK coverage that at a minimum Canon doesn't expect the cameras to fail within 4yrs even with the new FW otherwise they wouldn't have released it due to the potential cost of replacing customer's R5s.

https://inf.news/en/digital/2667b9715edd645a2c507362f5a6b3a3.html DOA

I guess its my turn to vote on the video.....I am actually neutral; I feel like any modern mirrorless camera if properly exposed and with the same LUT applied could look the same; that's not saying anything bad about the R7, the footage does look nice to me, but for me personally it is average. I do like that he used a very affordable Canon EF 50mm lens vs something exotic like a MF cine lens, so to me that's a good thing as well but it does look pretty much identical to what I am getting out of the R5 even though I've only shot test footage with the R5; which again is not a bad thing at all considering the R5 is more than 2x as much and has a FF sensor. I would like to see skin tones more with the R7, but I'm sure they just used the same Canon color science that is in the rest of their cameras so the lens and color grade could skew those results either way. Overall, its a solid offering in my book.

This looks like a pretty good lowlight test for the R7, IMO as I expected, it is more than sufficient for my needs, it was very interesting seeing it compared to the R5C as well. Also, I did not realize until watching this video that the R5C and I assume the R5 has dual native ISO.

Wish I could help, I switched to Davinci Resolve years ago and never looked back. For something as specific as you are describing I would ask on the Adobe Premier forum. When I encounter DR weirdness I typically ask on the BlackMagic forum and sometimes it is helpful. One thing that I would do if I were you, was to save the current project with a different or maybe with the date in the name and proceed from there; that way if you get to a point where you lose your markers you can revert back to the previously named one and try again. Very frustrating I know, but at least you won't lose hours worth of work, just the amount of work since the last time you saved a copy of the project. I also keep File History enabled in Windows 10, not sure if you are using a PC or a MAC, but with File History I can revert back almost immediately to a previous version of something; for Adobe that would be the project XML file. None of this will fix your problem, but at least you won't lose hours of work if Premier does lose your markers.

Yes but you are skipping budget, the types of work you are referencing had the budget for it, event work which I do has razor thin margins and the organizers question the ROI on my services probably every year....with a big enough budget anything is possible, for event work the budget simply isn't there so any assistant that I hire would come out of my own profits and because the hourly rate would be low for the assistant you get what you pay for. And yes, I do hire assistants for things like talent management, talent direction, etc for larger modeling shoots but I am still the only shooter. If I had the budget to pay assistants $50/hr+ I am sure I'd have a great team by now....but that's not going to happen in my particular niche of the industry. I don't think it would be much more than $2500USD, it is still a crop sensor, and still has plenty of competition from Sony and Panasonic, and it still has very few actual crop sensor lenses, it also remains to be seen how it performs in general against the competition.

I actually like big heavy kit, it keeps everything more stable and I've been shooting on it so long it doesn't seem big or heavy to me, but yes, now that you mention it, the 24-105mm on a body smaller than the R5 especially with the adapter will be greatly imbalanced. I used the 24-105 on the S5 with an adapter all the time though and it felt fine to me, but that was with a cage and handles, something I am not sure if I would add to the R7. @Kisaha @kye nailed it. Everything seems like it has an easy answer until you have tried it. Bringing in a second shooter exponentially increases the complexity of everything; risk to the equipment, risk to the project if the second shooter doesn't show, or doesn't match your style, or has a setting wrong, increases the cost of the project which already has razor thin margins, greatly increases the tax paperwork at the end of the year, etc. etc. That's all assuming the person is even reliable and actually shows up. I have had to bring in second shooters in the past and most of the time it ended up being a lot more work for me. Once I hired a second shooter for an extremely simple drone job because I was not available that day. They just had to film a construction site, I barely made more than a referral fee and was going to edit the raw files. The person parked his car and the client's car right in the middle of the construction site and took all 100 images that were needed. To me it was very unprofessional to have him and the client in the footage....so I had to spend 2hrs on what should have been 20min of work Photoshopping out his car, the client's car, and him and the client from every photo. Once I had a client mandate two shooters, a dedicated videographer and a dedicated photographer. I hired a photographer, but due to my paranoia I took my own photos as well. Second shooter showed up with dual 1DXIII's and full kit. I thought this was going to be a good shoot. I got his footage home and every image had the horizon horribly tilted....once again took me hours to fix his footage and I had to throw away a lot of it because there was nothing left after cropping in enough to straighten the horizon. Fortunately I had taken my own images as well. Also, my particular area is very competitive; I work the biggest fashion shows and events in the area and next week I am shooting the biggest swimwear fashion show in the world (Miami Swim Week). Anyone I brought on I would have to risk them handing out their cards, trying to get my client lists, wearing my shirts and possibly giving my company a bad name, etc.....its happened to many people I know. There's always someone in line behind you waiting for you to trip or fall. So yes, I analyze my business all the time as well as my kit and look for every second of efficiencies that I can; like @kye said, its easy to imagine ways to improve and on paper they might seem great until you are in that person's shoes. Also, like Kye mentioned, backups are very important and not discussed very often. I still pack a fully rigged S5 with me as a just in case backup for the C70. That's where equivalent focal lengths are also important. The R7 could serve as a backup to both my C70 and R5 if it had a speedbooster attached. @MrSMW also hit the nail on the head and was the exact thing I was going to say; the most successful two person teams that I have seen are nearly always a couple. With a couple many of the challenges I mentioned earlier go away, even the tax problems, liability, reliability, etc. etc. It introduces other problems 🙂 but that's a different story for a different day. Yes that is my conundrum...but I am used to odd kit decisions; my S5 with no CAF due to the EF adapter was an odd setup as well but it worked perfectly for my needs at the time. For me economics is a big part of my decision making process; I have technically never left Canon since I still had the 5DIV and the EF lenses and the C200. I am still not a fan of Sony, but I do think if I was starting over with no lenses and no bodies Sony would be the better fit. I am trying to twist and turn Canon's solutions to force them to fit my workflow and needs; is it optimal...no, but is it the most economical approach...so far I think so. With dual crop bodies and dual speedboosters along with my existing EF glass I would have everything I need; full immediate toolless interchangeability between all bodies and all lenses, battery sharing between the R5 and R7, SD card sharing between all 3 bodies, lens sharing between all 3 bodies, IBIS in the R7 for video, RAW in the C70, a backup to both the R5 and the C70 (the R7) for both video and photography, a lighter gimbal camera with the R7, excellent AF in all 3 bodies, XLR audio in the C70 and R7...etc, etc. Just the other day I left one of my SD cards in the card reader at home and when I got onsite for the shoot I just pulled the SD card out of the C70 and threw it in the R5....it was fantastic. I am in no hurry to get the R7 though, so I am curious about the R7C rumors, the body is so small even if it needs a fan it might still be good on battery life, so I may keep my spare S5 until I get more details on the R7C. If it turns out to be a clunky battery hog like the R5C then I'll probably just get the R7 instead.

I wouldn't mind slowly going all native RF lenses, but due to the crop, the cost of the speedbooster which I already purchased, the fact the speedbooster is bolted to the C70 (making switching lens mounts harder), and the additional stop of light gained with the speedbooster for a camera that is not that great in low light (C70), I will probably just permanently be stuck with EF glass. I like the 18-135 EF-S as well for when I am shooting for personal use, it is a very useful lens for simple shoots during daylight hours. The Canon ND adapter converter is so expensive it is easier to just stick with screw on ND filters to me, my current filters I use for photography already and with the Canon set you still have to buy a clear drop in for when you don't have an ND filter in the adapter. For me the crop sensor agony is that I like to keep my kit simple, the fewest lenses possible, a single system, etc. I shoot crazy chaotic events and do it all solo (photography, video, audio, drone, lighting, etc.) I don't want to have to fiddle with multiple lens mounts, crop sensor vs FF, etc. in addition to everything else that is out of my control. The problem with crop sensor cameras is you need to buy lenses for them that you won't use on a FF camera. My photography camera is FF and I don't want lenses in my bag that I can't use on every camera at the event completely interchangeably. With the C70 this was fixed by the speed booster. If I got the R7 it would need a speedbooster as well. I want to be able to grab a 50mm, or 24-105mm, or 70-200 and have the same FOV regardless of what camera I put it on vs buying 16mm or the 15-35mm just because I have a crop sensor camera. I've even had to swap lenses between my photography bodies and video bodies mid shoot to get a certain focal length....that would be harder with a mixture of crop sensor, S35, and FF all with different crop conversions. So individually yes....a crop sensor is no big deal, but when you have to use it with a mixture of other cameras and need complete interchangeability and simplicity it can become a thorn in your side at the worse possible moment. I have had to grab a body, rig it for an interview (audio, lighting, stabilizer) within minutes then after the interview is over grab a light stand, flash trigger, modifier, and studio strobe and head to the other side of the venue for a photo shoot. So for my particular needs, my kit just needs to work and everything needs to interchange with everything else as quickly and simply as possible. The R7 does look promising to me though, maybe I can put a single "hero" lens on it like the 24-105 F4 with a speedbooster opening that aperture up to an F2.8 and just never take off that lens and use it for everything like a walkaround lens for both photography and video. Currently the EF 24-105mm F4 is almost the only lens I use on the C70; that extra stop of light really turns that mediocre lens into something way more useable.