Jump to content

EOS R official video specs discussion


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, ntblowz said:

Well you can get lens adapter with variable ND, so that just leaves the XLR

Sound Devices MixPre3 or something like the Panasonic DMW-XLR1, or if being super ultra frugal.... the Tascam DR60Dmk2

6 hours ago, jonpais said:

I’m looking, but just see this:

 On the plus side, the EOS R does have 4:2:2 10-bit video output externally via the HDMI port (internally, it's 8-bit).

Not seeing any mention of HDMI 4K out...


That would be a most hilarious troll (and classic Canon!) if they gave us 10bit 422 over HDMI but limited it to 1080!! :scream:

5 hours ago, Django said:

Release schedule:

DmUJku4VsAAP5mH.jpg


Key point there is the variable ND adapter won't arrive until February 2019! Ah well
 

 

5 hours ago, no_connection said:

With that bad rolling shutter it's pretty much dead on arrival, what point is 10bit if you can't use it?

"– Still a huge ass crop in 4K recording. Looks the same as 5D IV. Heavy rolling shutter as well. (info via Jordan Drake)"

And no sign of any speed booster to help with crop factor ether (at least not electronic), at best maybe metabones could hack something unofficial. No 3rd party RF lenses ether.

"– Canon will not be opening up the RF mount specs to third parties (info via Jordan Drake)"


Same as Nikon :-/ 
Ah well, at least no one has an advantage here. 

I wonder which will be unlocked first by a third party figuring it out on their own?
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 422
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

NX1 is actually more advanced with H.265, 6K readout, 1080/120fps and it is 5 years old.

Nikon Z7 has it for breakfast. About the only improvement over the 5D Mark IV seems to be substituting MJPEG for H.264. Not that it was overdue or anything! https://www.eoshd.com/2018/09/her

I wouldn't hold my breath. Canon slapped a 8-bit 4:2:0 codec in their $7,500 C200.. no way they're going 10-bit on their entry MILC. That's not the Canon way.

Posted Images

43 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Cropfactor applied to aperture is wrong unless you add a long ass sentence about shutter speed and/or iso, sensor generation etc, etc, etc. It makes zero sense.

F2 is f2 is f2.

No. f/2 is f/2 only in exposure triangle. f/2 is not f/2 when considering DoF or (total) amount of light per photo (not per pixel).

Think about this - aperture is the size of the lens opening. If you do not use the whole lens opening, the whole aperture size, that means that you are using smaller than maximum aperture. What does it matter to you if lens has a certain aperture when you are not using the light that that aperture passes through - you are using only a part of it? So, on crop sensor that f/2 aperture is effectively smaller than it would have been on full frame senzor. What is really important - physical size of an opening, or size of that opening that is actually used for taking a photo?

You have to realize that F-stop of f/2 (or F2) is a relative aperture - relative to the focal length! Without focal length you have nothing! On the other and, real aperture is what defines DoF and total amount of light per photo. In other words, when using 50 mm f/2 lens on a FF body, real aperture size is 25 mm. If you use f/2 on 100 mm lens, real aperture size is 50 mm. Wow! Mind blown! The same relative aperture (the same F-stop) equates to different real apertures on different focal length lenses!

But, if you use equivalent F-stops - 100 mm F4 on FF gives aperture size of 25 mm, which is the same as 50 mm F2 lens - real aperture size in both of those instances is 25 mm. F-stop (relative aperture size) is different, but real aperture size is the same. And we can expect the same FoV with that combination, the same DoF, and the same amount of light per photo (which means we should drop ISO on MFT camera by 2 stops - and obviously, FF cameras have about 2 stops better ISO performance - everything checks out).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shield3 said:

No one is saying the EXPOSURE is different.  The same intensity of light is hitting the sensor.  I am saying all things being equal, a larger sensor gathers more total light and has less read noise than a smaller one.  Have you forgotten that the micro 4/3rds cameras struggle past ISO 1600?

Micro 4/3 cameras struggle with low light not because they have a smaller sensor that gathers less light, but because in that smaller sensor they have the same number of photosites (= megapixels) other camera have in bigger sensor, so each photosite is smaller. Its the size of the photosite that matters, not the total number of them on the sensor. Each photosite send its electrical signal to the processor regardless of how many other photosites are around it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, 1Ale82 said:

Micro 4/3 cameras struggle with low light not because they have a smaller sensor that gathers less light, but because in that smaller sensor they have the same number of photosites (= megapixels) other camera have in bigger sensor, so each photosite is smaller. Its the size of the photosite that matters, not the total number of them on the sensor. Each photosite send its electrical signal to the processor regardless of how many other photosites are around it.

Not necessarily. Yes, there is size of photosites you don't want to go below, but the main reason is that MFT sensors in general receive less light per photo. Consider this - if you want to take a photo in low light, you might use 35mm f/1.4 on FF. To get the equivalent photo on MFT, you need 17,5mm f/0.7 lens. Does that kind of lens actually exist? If you use nifty fifty on FF (50mm f/1.8), to give the same amount of light to MFT sensor you would have to use 25mm f/0.9 lens. Does that lens even exist? Do MFT users use lenses that are that fast? No? No. They usually just use lenses with the equivalent focal lenght, but the same F-stop (which means 2-stop less light, and therefor get about 2-stop more noise at the same ISO).

So, that is the answer why MFT struggles with low light - because of the sensor size, and not having adequately fast lenses which would compensate for that small sensor size. For MFT cameras not to struggle with low light, used lens must have about 2-stops better F-stop than FF camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

That would be a most hilarious troll (and classic Canon!) if they gave us 10bit 422 over HDMI but limited it to 1080!! :scream:

It would be even funnier if they gave us a 4K crop smaller than APS-C, wasted valuable real estate on a dedicated on/off wheel; and a silent shutter that isn't silent for continuous shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about this on my workout today.

Aperture (hole) size can be 1.4 on Micro four thirds and full frame.  But which hole is physically larger and thus allows more (total) light in?  The FF lens, of course!  If an eye dr. told me you have your pick - see through a F/1.2 25mm FF lens or a quarter crop sensor F/1.2 25mm, the FF one would be twice as wide and total light coming in would be greater.  Canon has essentially made the "eye" smaller in UHD mode - the rest of the sensor is doing nothing to gather light.  So not all F/1.2's are equal - shutter speed, ISO, aperture all make up the exposure for the given sensor size.  In the EOS R's case, since they're using only the center 1/3rd of the sensor, it's just like having 1.2 @ 1.7x - for both focal length and DOF.   Yes the camera will still read F/1.2, but it's *not* the same as a FF sensor gathering that F/1.2.

23 minutes ago, 1Ale82 said:

Micro 4/3 cameras struggle with low light not because they have a smaller sensor that gathers less light, but because in that smaller sensor they have the same number of photosites (= megapixels) other camera have in bigger sensor, so each photosite is smaller. Its the size of the photosite that matters, not the total number of them on the sensor. Each photosite send its electrical signal to the processor regardless of how many other photosites are around it.

Which is why they released a 42.5mm F/1.2 - it's like a 85 F/2.4 on FF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Marekich said:

No. f/2 is f/2 only in exposure triangle. f/2 is not f/2 when considering DoF or (total) amount of light per photo (not per pixel).

Think about this - aperture is the size of the lens opening. If you do not use the whole lens opening, the whole aperture size, that means that you are using smaller than maximum aperture. What does it matter to you if lens has a certain aperture when you are not using the light that that aperture passes through - you are using only a part of it? So, on crop sensor that f/2 aperture is effectively smaller than it would have been on full frame senzor. What is really important - physical size of an opening, or size of that opening that is actually used for taking a photo?

You have to realize that F-stop of f/2 (or F2) is a relative aperture - relative to the focal length! Without focal length you have nothing! On the other and, real aperture is what defines DoF and total amount of light per photo. In other words, when using 50 mm f/2 lens on a FF body, real aperture size is 25 mm. If you use f/2 on 100 mm lens, real aperture size is 50 mm. Wow! Mind blown! The same relative aperture (the same F-stop) equates to different real apertures on different focal length lenses!

But, if you use equivalent F-stops - 100 mm F4 on FF gives aperture size of 25 mm, which is the same as 50 mm F2 lens - real aperture size in both of those instances is 25 mm. F-stop (relative aperture size) is different, but real aperture size is the same. And we can expect the same FoV with that combination, the same DoF, and the same amount of light per photo (which means we should drop ISO on MFT camera by 2 stops - and obviously, FF cameras have about 2 stops better ISO performance - everything checks out).

Fake news

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Marekich said:

Not necessarily. Yes, there is size of photosites you don't want to go below, but the main reason is that MFT sensors in general receive less light per photo. Consider this - if you want to take a photo in low light, you might use 35mm f/1.4 on FF. To get the equivalent photo on MFT, you need 17,5mm f/0.7 lens. Does that kind of lens actually exist? If you use nifty fifty on FF (50mm f/1.8), to give the same amount of light to MFT sensor you would have to use 25mm f/0.9 lens. Does that lens even exist? Do MFT users use lenses that are that fast? No? No. They usually just use lenses with the equivalent focal lenght, but the same F-stop (which means 2-stop less light, and therefor get about 2-stop more noise at the same ISO).

So, that is the answer why MFT struggles with low light - because of the sensor size, and not having adequately fast lenses which would compensate for that small sensor size. For MFT cameras not to struggle with low light, used lens must have about 2-stops better F-stop than FF camera.

Voigtlander makes lenses that fast with those focal lenghts for m4/3.

Considering the "light gathering" topic, just consider the sensor size as simply the total number of photosites included on that silicon matrix, nothing more. The size of the silicon matrix is what we call medium format, full frame, apsc, m4/3, 1 inch sensors, etc. Then each photosite, regardless of how many of them are on the sensor, sends its own signal to the camera processor. The bigger the photosite, the lower the light needed to send that signal, keeping other things like time and aperture equals. You don't need more photosites to gather more light.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM has a T stop of 1.5. Likewise the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM.

6 minutes ago, AlexTrinder96 said:

The problem with these ultrafast lenses is that the T-stop tends to be significantly lower than the F stop....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF Canon???

This 1.8x crop factor has not only been a deal-breaker for me (I was about to place my order), but the drop that spilled the cup for me to convince me that Canon no longer cares and is driven by marketing idiots. I've been a Canon user for ages, and my latest camera is the so-so 6D Mark II (the Canon R should have been that), and I have a large collection of Canon L lens, but this was it. This decision to seriously cripple the camera was not only dumb and stupid but near-sighted and greedy.

it is obvious they are doing this to protect their high-end cameras, but that strategy NO LONGER WORKS in a world of so much competition. Instead of eating their own lunch they just proved that they rather have the competition eat it for them. They will need to understand that similar on how a $2,000 camera today works better than an SD professional camera from a few years ago, that this consumer segment will swallow a large portion of the professional market as well, and instead of understanding this fact and deciding to be leaders in this space, they simply decided to play it extremely conservative.

I'm now seriously thinking about which way to go: Sony or Nikon. I give Canon ONE YEAR (if that) to get their act together. I love the way Nikon cameras feel in-hand, but can't turn away from Sony's achievements (their eye-tracking tech is simply marvelous). And on the 25th Panasonic comes back with a full-frame GH5/G9 thing. We'll see.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shield3 said:

On a different note - anyone think the price of the 28-70 F/2 is a tad high?  $3k?  Keep in mind one cannot adapt this to *any* other body.  No Canon EOS Cinema, 5dIV, ID, etc.

That price is very high. It's even higher than avarage leica M lenses. At that price you can buy 4-5 of Zeiss ZF/ZE lenses. That 28-70 is a simple normal zoom, like a 24-70, just 1 stop faster than what is usually found. Nothing to get crazy about. And this lens can only be mounted on the new R mount. Basically 3000 $ lens, 2300 $ body, a 5300$ package just to have a single body and lens. Personally, no way I am going to buy it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 1Ale82 said:

Voigtlander makes lenses that fast with those focal lenghts for m4/3.

Manual focus only, which means almost useless or very bad for many photography tasks, and F0.95, which is equivalent to f/1.8 on FF. I don't see equivalents for f/1.4, even though these F0.95 lenses are plenty fast. But they are manual focus only. And for FF you get f/1.8 or f/1.4 lenses with automatic focus. And I suppose those Voightlanders are very, very expensive.

27 minutes ago, 1Ale82 said:

Considering the "light gathering" topic, just consider the sensor size as simply the total number of photosites included on that silicon matrix, nothing more. The size of the silicon matrix is what we call medium format, full frame, apsc, m4/3, 1 inch sensors, etc. Then each photosite, regardless of how many of them are on the sensor, sends its own signal to the camera processor. The bigger the photosite, the lower the light needed to send that signal, keeping other things like time and aperture equals. You don't need more photosites to gather more light.

I really don't understand why you are explaining this to me. BTW signal from sensor is analog - some value will always be read. It's just that smaller size photosites will generate signal of a lower voltage, which is more prone to noise.

Yes, you don't need more photosites to gather more (total) light - you need a bigger sensor and/or larger aperture. Amount of light per pixel is basically irrelevant since with higher res image you can use more intensive noise reduction, or if you downscale image, some of the noise from higher res image will be lost so it will have similar amount of noise as lower res image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm hoping there will be an RF to EF adapter as indeed i'd be weary of spending $2-3K on a lens system with a single body. would be great if RF glass were backwards compatible so I could also use them on my C100, 5D etc.. would be interesting to know if that's possible. Same goes for Nikon S series glass obviously

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OliKMIA said:

They screwed up again, it was obvious from the leaked specs and I'm not sure why some people got excited about this camera knowing the horrible track record of Canon.

I think, it's time to change the name of this website.

The name is still valid

EOS camera is still mainly a HD camera with 4k as afterthought, otherwise Andrew have to change eos4k or something ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...