Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon EOS R5 - What Panasonic, Sony and Fuji can do to fight THE 8K BEAST

Recommended Posts

BRAW is an open source codec! What does this mean? Can it be used in other cameras without paying any money to Blackmagic? If so why no one still paying any attention to it?

Why Prores why not BRAW?

664C7D50-D920-4BEA-9C20-7B50939A2BA1.thumb.png.a5ac45714f67c4147dcfdfa281b41d48.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
3 minutes ago, Sharathc47 said:

BRAW is an open source codec! What does this mean? Can it be used in other cameras without paying any money to Blackmagic? If so why no one still paying any attention to it?

Why Prores why not BRAW?

664C7D50-D920-4BEA-9C20-7B50939A2BA1.thumb.png.a5ac45714f67c4147dcfdfa281b41d48.png

That’s just the SDK to work with BRAW...for NLE developers.

 

EDIT: Actually, your right. BRAw and the SDK are free for companies to use for products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

.What IS the deal with the FS5 vari-ND not making it into other products??!

There isn't enough space veritcally. Unless companies removed the EVF, Even the 1DX line has no space for it.

specsview.jpeg

Share this post


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

I hope this puts a fire under the butts of Panasonic to really come out swinging (maybe for the last time) with a MFT camera that does the GH line proud. It has to compete with BM cameras as far as codec and Image quality.

They could do it by adding practical features that every person would use: internal NDs, improved IBIS, better AF, better screen and EVF, 6K options, and perhaps ProRes.

If it needs a bigger body that’s fine. Most of the savings with MFT is in lenses (especially as you scale to telephoto). They already have small MFT GX10 coming...

If idea for GH6 is to exist (it seems so surely) at the moment it has to be already in phase of testing/resolving what final specs they want to incorporate in it or cripple from it.

But, as I wrote, imho, all of the main Japanese companies lost their mind - I mean, proper market estimation/orientation. World is moving toward more democratization and more creative appetite from mass willing to be more distinguished from mobilephone users, where close-to-cinema-quality video-for-all is nearest future and the most potent market with money ready to be spent - but people nowhere are not becoming richer, just low middle class could be more numerous. Instead to approach closer to that market as Blackmagic and Chinese companies more recently try, biggest Japanese companies (Fuji is not so big) choose to compete toward niche-ization and higher profit margin per one camera. Panasonic already doesn't know what to do with unsold EVA1, selling of FF line is, as expected especially for first steps, disaster, they lost their pace with GH5s... which is so pity, as they didn't already found great formula with GH line.

If all of them proceed to be so stubborn (covering loss with profit from other divisions those who have it), next we will again have topic with 1 million views and comments about new iteration of, say, BM Micro as best selling and best targeting model in spite of reliability issues, and endless talking about specs of others while truly buying them just by few.

From my modest experience to the date, that include just range from all m43 cameras to C200 and Ursa 4.6k, I'm really curious to finally know and learn (honestly and seriously) what explicitly is comparative advantage of FF dlsr-form camera over m43 GH6 or Pocket type and cappability for video or movie making, at the current moment of their sensor sensitivity evolution, existing of plethora of brilliant low light lenses, and even cheap proper cinema parfocal zoom lenses? Maybe one percent cleaner image while all are trying to escape from oversharp images putting Pro Mist filters as relief? To spent 5-6000e or so for what as better, otherwise non-achievable result? What I'm missing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, anonim said:

What I'm missing?

The obsession with the “large sensor look”. Which, ok granted, you can get shallower depth of field with wider lenses with a larger sensor. But the quest to blur the background out is definitely missing the point of “cinema” and while we are not all chasing to do “cinema” the extreme shallow depth of field is becoming almost cliche and meme worthy.

Not to mention there are other concerns at play like overall weight, packability, friction-to-use. 

Share this post


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

The obsession with the “large sensor look”. Which, ok granted, you can get shallower depth of field with wider lenses with a larger sensor. But the quest to blur the background out is definitely missing the point of “cinema” and while we are not all chasing to do “cinema” the extreme shallow depth of field is becoming almost cliche and meme worthy.

Not to mention there are other concerns at play like overall weight, packability, friction-to-use. 

Benefits of a larger sensor:
1) Environmental portraits in film subjects causing shots to be more intimate.
2) In general, you don't have to break down walls because the lens are wide enough to cover the subject.
3) Obviously, bokeh; when the film/story calls for it, you will have it in spades.
4) in general, low light is better in bigger sensors.
5) taking pictures on a full frame sensor has the same aesthetics as taking pictures with a "quality" full frame image camera (5d2, d850, etc..) - basically, the full frame sensor acts like a hybrid image acquisition tool (both images and video).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether Canon can deliver on the hype in a timely manner and at a competitive price are all open questions, but everyone else will need to start innovating and pushing forward. That's what's exciting about all of this! Hopefully though it's not just everyone rushing to do 8K. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eleison said:

Benefits of a larger sensor:
1) Environmental portraits in film subjects causing shots to be more intimate.
2) In general, you don't have to break down walls because the lens are wide enough to cover the subject.
3) Obviously, bokeh; when the film/story calls for it, you will have it in spades.
4) in general, low light is better in bigger sensors.
5) taking pictures on a full frame sensor has the same aesthetics as taking pictures with a "quality" full frame image camera (5d2, d850, etc..) - basically, the full frame sensor acts like a hybrid image acquisition tool (both images and video).

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight here.

But, I don't know... I felt the same, but after trying out mft...

I got to call it as a I see it... Most of the above is mostly B.S. from online pundits.

1) <-- Very subjective and its content based not related to sensor size.

2) <-- Well, watch this video and tell me that 3 feet is really a big deal (may be switch out the lens for the 16-35mm):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFH6bmesqVE

3) <-- Plenty of bokeh on mft here (by the way thats my video with the stupid Yi Camera):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv0QRR3Nbh8

4) <-- This I agree with - but manipulating light with reflectors, external soft boxes, LEDS, flags, etc. even time of day (the golden hours) and working within their limitations is half the fun.

5) <-- This matters if you are not using any editing tools at all, but I've taken some amazing pictures with the 7D. And, they looked great straight out of camera. Funny story, I was working with a friend for a wedding, I told him... man its just a 7D + a couple of L lenses, he said that it will be fine. He was shooting with a 5D mark 2, and the groom wanted all my pictures instead. After reviewing my photos, my friend was blown away by them too, mostly because I captured a lot of those "intimate" moments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, mkabi said:

I'm not trying to pick a fight here.

But, I don't know... I felt the same, but after trying out mft...

I got to call it as a I see it... Most of the above is mostly B.S. from online pundits.

1) <-- Very subjective and its content based not related to sensor size.

2) <-- Well, watch this video and tell me that 3 feet is really a big deal (may be switch out the lens for the 16-35mm):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFH6bmesqVE

3) <-- Plenty of bokeh on mft here (by the way thats my video with the stupid Yi Camera):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv0QRR3Nbh8

4) <-- This I agree with - but manipulating light with reflectors, external soft boxes, LEDS, flags, etc. even time of day (the golden hours) and working within their limitations is half the fun.

5) <-- This matters if you are not using any editing tools at all, but I've taken some amazing pictures with the 7D. And, they looked great straight out of camera. Funny story, I was working with a friend for a wedding, I told him... man its just a 7D + a couple of L lenses, he said that it will be fine. He was shooting with a 5D mark 2, and the groom wanted all my pictures instead. After reviewing my photos, my friend was blown away by them too, mostly because I captured a lot of those "intimate" moments. 

1) Environmental portraits are very popular now a days;  it's just a lot harder with crop cameras.  Given enough distance from the subject, it's possible -- but in certain situations, it's just impossible.  I'm not sure what you mean it's "very subjective and content base"; either you can shot those type of clips or you can't.  Back in the day, I had a gh2 and the 18-35mm; and there were shots I just couldn't take - the combination of bokeh, and subject matter.

2)  3 feet is a big deal. That is why a lot of sets were built in the past because you had to be able to fit the camera.  Try shooting a bathroom scene in a typical Chicago or NY apartment - damn near impossible without breaking the walls with a super 35 or MFT camera or creating an artificial set (and that is one of the MOST important reasons big hollywood directors created sets - and they created alot of them).  For the small production or these that want to shot on location, crop cameras will not allow you to shot those scenes especially if the DOP wanted a certain DOF.

3)  There is boken on Mft, but its harder than full frame.  Also, Boken is based partly on the focal length and distance.  Once again, try to shoot bokeh in a small set, and some scenes will be impossible to shot without breaking down walls or having a larger DOF.

4&5) A lot more work than necessary on the crop cameras.  I think we can agree on that.

 

In either case, the public has already chosen.  They want full frame.  You may want crop/MFT, etc.. but even the manufacturers are trying to get into the Full frame game.  I'm not saying MFT is bad.  I believe it's all about the story.  However, at the end of the day MFT is more limiting than full frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole trend around 8k seems very superficial imho. More cpu, more hard drive and we have yet to get 10 bit internal on any ff camera... this direction seems guided by economic interest (Olympic games, 8k TVs) more than content creators. Most people can’t even tell the difference between FHD and 4K. We need better codecs / color bit depth, maybe more options in terms of frame rates and vitrâtes. Not more useless resolution only to boast about on forums and forcing us to buy new computers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, eleison said:

1) Environmental portraits are very popular now a days;  it's just a lot harder with crop cameras.  Given enough distance from the subject, it's possible -- but in certain situations, it's just impossible.  I'm not sure what you mean it's "very subjective and content base"; either you can shot those type of clips or you can't.  Back in the day, I had a gh2 and the 18-35mm; and there were shots I just couldn't take - the combination of bokeh, and subject matter.

2)  3 feet is a big deal. That is why a lot of sets were built in the past because you had to be able to fit the camera.  Try shooting a bathroom scene in a typical Chicago or NY apartment - damn near impossible without breaking the walls with a super 35 or MFT camera or creating an artificial set (and that is one of the MOST important reasons big hollywood directors created sets - and they created alot of them).  For the small production or these that want to shot on location, crop cameras will not allow you to shot those scenes especially if the DOP wanted a certain DOF.

3)  There is boken on Mft, but its harder than full frame.  Also, Boken is based partly on the focal length and distance.  Once again, try to shoot bokeh in a small set, and some scenes will be impossible to shot without breaking down walls or having a larger DOF.

4&5) A lot more work than necessary on the crop cameras.  I think we can agree on that.

 

In either case, the public has already chosen.  They want full frame.  You may want crop/MFT, etc.. but even the manufacturers are trying to get into the Full frame game.  I'm not saying MFT is bad.  I believe it's all about the story.  However, at the end of the day MFT is more limiting than full frame.

1) Why do you want bokeh in Environmental portraits? Also, I don't think 18mm is enough for Wide Angle, try the 12 to 35....

2) I agree here, but you have to get creative too.... e.g. film from outside the washroom, I don't know about you but I don't know the difference between a tiny washroom in NY/Chicago vs. a giant mansion shower in California... if you're smart enough, do close-ups and only above the chest.... you can film a shower scene from a YMCA (with a shower head and tiles).... or a shaving scene from a mall public washroom (with plenty of room).

3) Same as 2)

4&5) But the effort shows in the pictures themselves, same 7D pictures example.

I didn't say I wanted crop/mft.... just saying that people are disillusioned by the whole FF look.... don't get me wrong, I would still opt for a FF over mft if the choice were available where both were similarly priced. I mean all people would at this point....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mkabi said:

I didn't say I wanted crop/mft.... just saying that people are disillusioned by the whole FF look.... don't get me wrong, I would still opt for a FF over mft if the choice were available where both were similarly priced. I mean all people would at this point....

Not if the Full Frame is significantly bigger! 

M43 is about smaller bodies and lenses, not just cost. I can carry 3 bodies and 3 zoom lenses in a backpack and it will be nearly equal in weight to one full frame camera and zoom lens. 

I mean the GH5 with 35-100 lens combined weighs less than the popular 70-200 f/2.8 full frame lenses alone! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy with the lowlight performance of MFT with regards to the GH5S. Gives us a GH6 with a dual gain sensor thats performs a bit better and it will be good as a A7III or A7SII....and no one complained about their performance.

I've shot candle lit scenes in a cabin in Norway with a f2.8 12-35 at ISO 6400 to 8000 on the GH5S. A few shots at 8000 needed some noise reduction that took about 5 mins of my time to process.

I've shot video of Elk with a 50-200mm f/2.8-4 at dusk on the GH5S at 200mm f/4 ISO 3200-6400 with a monopod. Video came out great. I had other photographers and video people there too lugging around 400mm FF and crop lenses...they absolutely HATED to re-position. I wonder why?

So I no longer fret about lowlight ability with the GH5S. IF the GH6 can take what they did with the GH5S and improve upon it, I am more than happy. Especially if I get glorious IBIS and full V-Log.

I have never yet needed to shoot something wider than 18mm and faster than f1.7. When I do I guess I'll buy one of the new Laowa f0.95 ZeroD primes that are coming out this year.

I prefer to have my humans subject's eyes and ears in-focus in my talking head shots. If you shoot f1.2 FF like Tony...well god help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Z cam uses ASIC and implemented h264, h265, prores, and raw all on the same camera. Canon has way more resources and I assume could also develop a prores asic.

The problem is that Canon would have to develop it internally. Zcam on the other hand is located in Shenzhen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now with the most recent adoption of AV1 in Netflix and youtube, i think that internal codecs are going the AV1 way, it's really efficient supporting up to 12bit and 4:4:4 color space. Also IT'S FREE OPEN SOURCE MAGIC!!!

Implementing Prores is a more hard thing to accept in my opinion, It needs to be hardware encoded to be efficient in smaller cameras, also licensing and chip development it's quiet a risk for mirrorless cameras. That's why Panasonic opted for a 10bit h264/265. its cheaper, smaller and, let's be honest, quality wise it's not really far from Prores HQ. The only benefit of apple's codec it's the easy to use and adoption in NLEs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, eleison said:

Benefits of a larger sensor:
1) Environmental portraits in film subjects causing shots to be more intimate.
2) In general, you don't have to break down walls because the lens are wide enough to cover the subject.
3) Obviously, bokeh; when the film/story calls for it, you will have it in spades.
4) in general, low light is better in bigger sensors.
5) taking pictures on a full frame sensor has the same aesthetics as taking pictures with a "quality" full frame image camera (5d2, d850, etc..) - basically, the full frame sensor acts like a hybrid image acquisition tool (both images and video).

 

Thanks. Since I asked question, just to note that, of course, all that points I had in mind, calculating and testing - as much as I know everybody here know about UW and extremely fast lenses in m43 camp. To sum up practical usage, I'd say that all of points belong to easier/more pronounced way to get some special effects. I could also put 5 analogue points that, contrary, can m43 do with easier/more pronounced way to get some other special effects, regarding rolling shutter, easier manipulation of DOF vs ISO for focusing, special macro usage, distant shooting etc. - but I'd not to go far away from topic.

My point was that m43 cameras/lenses combination are today totally  capable to achieve identical result as FF cameras at the most demanding movie making tasks. I mean, without any any compromise. But for the 2-3x less money and less clumsy bagage, what is important for me in particular.

I'm assuming that nobody here is in love with camera, including me. My sole interest is how to convey mine ideas in art form of movie without compromising them technically, concerning modern field standard - but for the less money. That's why I make accent to the price that seems maybe banal, but, luckily, today could be crucial to be disscussed.

In that regard, for some of mine ideas for the project I desperately need proper parfocal  zoom - and at the moment I can get both Dzofilm zooms of range 10-70 for less price (3100 dollars) than one Fujinon that even is not FF (neither Tokina's nor Sigma's)! If you need similar zoom at the field - and this is much more important and frequent demand than effects of bokeh used as, say, in Anderson's Master - you have to pay at least 12000euros/dollars

That's I call logic argument for stance that, actually,  m43 (mostly) or APS-C (less complete and more expensive in concerning offer) are formats where lies money to be spent (of course at user base that being target with dslr-form or similar video/cinema cameras, and that probably is best represented here in EOSHD) - and that's what, sadly, imho in their marketing projections understand just Blackmagic and Chinese companies, (I hope Panasonic also) probably Fuji, but, again, in lesser degree and ready potential at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mkabi said:

1) Why do you want bokeh in Environmental portraits? Also, I don't think 18mm is enough for Wide Angle, try the 12 to 35....

2) I agree here, but you have to get creative too.... e.g. film from outside the washroom, I don't know about you but I don't know the difference between a tiny washroom in NY/Chicago vs. a giant mansion shower in California... if you're smart enough, do close-ups and only above the chest.... you can film a shower scene from a YMCA (with a shower head and tiles).... or a shaving scene from a mall public washroom (with plenty of room).

3) Same as 2)

4&5) But the effort shows in the pictures themselves, same 7D pictures example.

I didn't say I wanted crop/mft.... just saying that people are disillusioned by the whole FF look.... don't get me wrong, I would still opt for a FF over mft if the choice were available where both were similarly priced. I mean all people would at this point....

 

I owned a GH5, XT3 and a 1DX II and let me tell you there is a world of difference. I sold my Panasonic kit Not too long after getting the XT3. 
canon - 10+ years, GH4/5 - 5 years and the Fuji for 1.5 years. 
 

sure there are many workarounds and complicated setups the can make MFT work, but at the end of the day in cannot do what a larger sensor can do. I don’t think every shot needs to be wide open and crushed backgrounds, but when it calls for it it’s available. To me, it is like someone saying  “ I don’t need a car with a trunk because I can strap everything on the roof.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would add the following to the list:

1) Considerably improved user experience. Japanese manufacturers need to hire user experience designers to completely rethink their menu systems and visual design, greatly simplifying the user interface whilst only exposing detailed settings when the user desires to. Think about what the user wants to achieve (“do you want to film today? Okay, removing all photo related settings completely”). Blackmagic has done a great job of that (ofcourse they have an easier job since they don’t focus on pictures). Think about the pleasure of filming or taking pictures, and build UX + device intelligence around it.

2) Finally implement an electronic ND filter, as well as a setting that prioritizes keeping the same shutter angle while the ND adjusts automatically to make that happen, with the users given f-stop.

Share this post


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...