Jump to content

EOSHD Youtube: Thoughts on the Canon Cinema EOS R5C confirmed for 19th Jan


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I think Canon color science is lovely, right behind ARRI. However they've never really made serious cinema cameras. ARRI is certainly the best with RED, kinda. Most people doing high end work look down on RED. Honestly the Sony Venice seems to have a much better rapport than any RED camera with high end stuff. I've heard a ton of good things about the Venice while RED is constantly hated on.

 I was kind of warming up to the R5C. One big benefit of the camera is the fast readout for low rolling shutter effect in 4k. Dynamic range isn't as good as the C70 though and the micro HDMI makes it a no go for me. How can you sell a $4,500 camera with micro HDMI.

 I still have yet to see a camera that can really do anything against my Arri Alexa, besides resolution. I just don't give a damn about resolution. The Netflix 4k thing is pretty dumb IMO. Almost all big hollywood stuff is shot in 4k anyways and Netflix productions are big money. Renting an Alexa LF or other 4k cine camera is pennies and dimes compared to the cost of the entire production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

Use wrong lens and composition and crop in post.. because you have 35 mega pixels!

Set wrong exposure and white balance and lift colors and shadows in post.. because you have RAW file!

Sorry, I don't call this trend "progress". 

Of course not, I can understand you and this has been 'a new normal' with smartphones massification towards the content published on social media today but...

...why should we professionals or knowledgeable enthusiasts be unable to know how to properly shoot to begin with?

 

I come from film school where we had 2-3 takes per shot and no more than a full hand at best rate(/ratio) to further selection. Do you think when digital arrived people, used to such discipline, left and simply abandoned the norm?

 

Technology exists to improve and bring an increase of our potential skills range. To open them wings and fly, not to kill anything we got already earlier. The same way we sell our house for something bigger, we don't start from scratch or move lower, unless we fail. Don't blame technology but the human being behind, either on lacking something or the whole world around lacking all, if any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kye said:

The catastrophe isn't getting RAW, it's forgetting how good cameras used to look.

A decade on, and cameras have 16x as many pixels, but worse colour science.  Like @Andrew Reid said "Nothing unique at all about the images, could have been shot on just about anything else.".

This is why I said that "the expectation of cameras to even have that level of colour is gone".  You look at the images from that camera and think "looks great - yay Canon colour science" but many others think "blah..  another generic look".

ARRI created the 65 and improved their colour science from the original Alexa models.  Canon hasn't even closed the gap between them and the original Alexa.

Lol... and what other hybrid camera's CS better competes with the $36K Alexa Mini or $150,000 Alexa 65?

You have to be somewhat realistic in your expectations.

I also feel your judgement is clouded by comparing Canon footage shot with a kit lens and a quick grade vs Hollywood movie shot on $30K cine primes and professionally graded by a pro colorist.

When you take the same lens and apply a simple primary grade the difference isn't as big as you may think.

 

3 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

I think Canon color science is lovely, right behind ARRI. 

This actually means a lot coming from an actual ARRI Alexa owner.

3 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Use wrong lens and composition and crop in post.. because you have 35 mega pixels!

Set wrong exposure and white balance and lift colors and shadows in post.. because you have RAW file!

Sorry, I don't call this trend "progress". 

Sorry, but that's such a backwards way of looking at things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DWX said:

Canon probably should have called it the C5 to hammer home that it's a cinema first camera.

Looks like the C5 name is already taken

R5c is so yesterday. 

https://www.canonrumors.com/new-reports-about-the-next-cinema-eos-camera-have-surfaced-cr1/

The name for the camera is suggested to be the EOS C5, which would be a new line of Cinema EOS cameras from Canon.

The camera is a combination of the EOS R5 C and EOS C300 III, similar in appearance to the EOS R5 C, but more square, with the electric ND filter of the EOS C300 III, the professional interface of the EOS C70, and an extended battery compartment.

Its XF-AVC recording format is the same as the EOS C70, but it uses a modified version of the EOS R5 C’s CMOS sensor with a total of 22.5 megapixels.

With a sampling resolution of 8192×2160, it is capable of perfect oversampling to 4K 120fps, making it Canon’s current 4K 120fps product with the best image quality.

When the frame rate is reduced to 72fps or less, DGO mode is turned on to provide a higher dynamic range.

Unlike the current EOS C70, it does not offer RAW recording for now.

Full pixel QPAF, and RAW internal recording in subsequent firmware.

In terms of photography, it no longer offers a mechanical shutter and is replaced by in-body stabilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Django said:

Lol... and what other hybrid camera's CS better competes with the $36K Alexa Mini or $150,000 Alexa 65?

You have to be somewhat realistic in your expectations.

I was referring to the original Alexa.  The one that's 10 years old and is barely breaking five-figures second hand now.

 

2 hours ago, Django said:

I also feel your judgement is clouded by comparing Canon footage shot with a kit lens and a quick grade vs Hollywood movie shot on $30K cine primes and professionally graded by a pro colorist.

When you take the same lens and apply a simple primary grade the difference isn't as big as you may think.

Rather odd that you think you know which videos I'm looking at, but that's besides the point.

I've graded Canon Log footage from a few of the Canon cine cameras, Prores from a few Alexa models both current and legacy, and Prores from my BM OG BMPCC and BMMCC.  The footage from the BM cameras feels similar in the grade to the Alexa in a way that the Canon footage did not.  REDRAW has the same feeling of the ARRIs.

There is an effortless quality to the colours and a predictability to the image, like all the sliders are working properly.

In contrast, the highest quality footage from the GH5 and many other similar cameras from other brands makes the controls feel like something has been knocked out of alignment.  Like the adjustments aren't what you asked for, and the footage is fragile rather than robust.  You take skintones and push the WB and they fall apart, looking fake and somehow corrupted, rather than simply looking warmer or cooler.  Strange casts appear and you fight with the footage rather than create with it.

The Canon footage was somewhere in-between.  Obviously not nearly as poor as the pro-sumer cameras, but it had a tinge to it that was definitely noticeable.

It's an emotional thing.  My brain wasn't unhappy grading the Canon cinema camera footage, but grading the other footage is an emotional process where the results are joyous in some way, but the Canon falls flat.  This is why I've mentioned previously, potentially in another thread, that BM gave us magic in 2012 and Canon still isn't giving it to us a decade later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Django said:

Sorry, but that's such a backwards way of looking at things.

It's a videographer vs cinematographer thing.

The videographers priority is to work with consumers/brands to create clean/modern looking videos that make them money.  
The cinematographers priority is to work with imperfections to create emotion that supports a story.

That's why videographers talk about specs, and cinematographers are talking about the look of the image.

This might help:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kye sorry but that really sounds like armchair reasoning. cinematographers don't talk about specs? yeah right. nothing more technical than cinema. let's not place everyone in boxes with gross over generalisations that all videographers are spec-only oriented money driven shooters of clinical modern looking content. commercial videography / advertising is also about storytelling. the "look" and "aesthetic" can be extremely important. You rarely get into "specs" with the client.

wedding, music videos & fashion are also very popular videography domains that emphasise emotion/mood/look aesthetic priorities.

now of course a talking head office interview isn't going to absolutely require a Cooke anamorphic on an Alexa65, but depending on budget/project, cinema DP's are often hired. Even for a silly beer commercial:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

 

Exactly, jesus the amount of pedantic rehashing of bullshit that goes on in this forum.

We all know Andrew will have nothing nice to say about any Canon camera or any camera from any company that has slighted him in the past. Thats fine. Opinions and morals and all.

No one on this forum is shooting Oscar level cinema of any kind and if they are they aren't arguing over who needs 8K from a $4.5K entry level cinema camera from Canon debating over screen grabs of a YT video. Hardly anybody is using parfocal cinema zooms to shoot weddings and get the "pure" zoom or punch in. If you are, please stand up so we can applaud you for your dedication to purity.

 

People debating over screen grabs of a Youtube video, I do not see anything wrong about.

I have seen Oscar level cinema of every kind here or anywhere else outside Hollywood bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
18 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Exactly, jesus the amount of pedantic rehashing of bullshit that goes on in this forum.

We all know Andrew will have nothing nice to say about any Canon camera or any camera from any company that has slighted him in the past. Thats fine. Opinions and morals and all.

It's a case of each to his own.

I personally invested tens of thousands of euros and £ into Canon gear over the past few years.

It's not true at all to say I never have anything good to say about a Canon lens or camera.

The EOS R5 was not for me, it was an unethically marketed product and raising our concerns as paying customers got us exactly ZERO APOLOGY, and in fact a tidal wave of online abuse for our troubles - not for me - but the others involved in the timer and firmware discoveries as well.

It's all a bit ungrateful if you ask me.

I can only open people's eyes and if they keep them closed, not much I can do about it.

It's unfair to call it "pedantic rehashing of bullshit".

People have to see things from their own perspective and express their own opinions on here.

That doesn't make it bullshit.

18 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

No one on this forum is shooting Oscar level cinema of any kind and if they are they aren't arguing over who needs 8K from a $4.5K entry level cinema camera from Canon debating over screen grabs of a YT video.

Eh? It's a valid argument.

Who needs 8K and is it needed on a $4.5K cinema camera?

I don't see the issue with debating it at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
11 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Use wrong lens and composition and crop in post.. because you have 35 mega pixels!

Set wrong exposure and white balance and lift colors and shadows in post.. because you have RAW file!

Sorry, I don't call this trend "progress". 

Exactly...

Creativity is in the limitations, not throwing numbers and convenience at a job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Eh? It's a valid argument.

Who needs 8K and is it needed on a $4.5K cinema camera?

I don't see the issue with debating it at all.

8K can be useful. Using a blanket statement of questioning "who needs 8K?" because you don't need it for cinema is a bit myopic in my opinion. It's not like 8K is the only format this camera can output. It's not like the only use for video is cinema or production story telling. Having 8K in my pocket seems pretty useful if I'm at a location and can capture some 8K RAW stock footage and make a few bucks on my vacation or on the side of a work project. 

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's a case of each to his own.

I personally invested tens of thousands of euros and £ into Canon gear over the past few years.

It's not true at all to say I never have anything good to say about a Canon lens or camera.

The EOS R5 was not for me, it was an unethically marketed product and raising our concerns as paying customers got us exactly ZERO APOLOGY, and in fact a tidal wave of online abuse for our troubles - not for me - but the others involved in the timer and firmware discoveries as well.

It's all a bit ungrateful if you ask me.

The hate and abuse is unwarranted and regrettable. I am glad you and others investigated this issue and it informed my buying decision even though I eventually did buy an R5 after weighing the pros and cons of such a camera.

Generally, people seem to have to be upset about something. Before there was outrage about the R5 overheating. Now its sucks because who needs 8K and I need an external battery source to shoot the 8K I don't want at 60p! Outrageous!

If Canon had released both of these cameras at the same time that would have made more sense but it wouldn't have made business sense in a market that is struggling. Oh well. The monkeys in marketing always seem to win.

I'm just glad there is now a camera with cinema tools in this size of a body that is more reliable. Having to wait 8 seconds to switch from full cinema OS to Photo OS is the least of my problems and worth it for what I get.

14 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Use wrong lens and composition and crop in post.. because you have 35 mega pixels!

Set wrong exposure and white balance and lift colors and shadows in post.. because you have RAW file!

Sorry, I don't call this trend "progress". 

If someone shoots like this then they aren't very good at what they are doing with any camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kye said:

I was referring to the original Alexa.  The one that's 10 years old and is barely breaking five-figures second hand now.

So why don't you have one and are shooting on one? Sounds like your perfect camera!

6 hours ago, Django said:

now of course a talking head office interview isn't going to absolutely require a Cooke anamorphic on an Alexa65

You sure about that? It's all about the aesthetic and emotion. What if the client watches the corporate talking head video on their 30 seat private theater instead of on their laptop on YouTube?

7 hours ago, kye said:

The videographers priority is to work with consumers/brands to create clean/modern looking videos that make them money.  
The cinematographers priority is to work with imperfections to create emotion that supports a story.

That dude wasn't describing a videographer. He was describing someone that doesn't know how to use a camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Django said:

@kye sorry but that really sounds like armchair reasoning. cinematographers don't talk about specs? yeah right. nothing more technical than cinema. let's not place everyone in boxes with gross over generalisations that all videographers are spec-only oriented money driven shooters of clinical modern looking content. commercial videography / advertising is also about storytelling. the "look" and "aesthetic" can be extremely important. You rarely get into "specs" with the client.

wedding, music videos & fashion are also very popular videography domains that emphasise emotion/mood/look aesthetic priorities.

now of course a talking head office interview isn't going to absolutely require a Cooke anamorphic on an Alexa65, but depending on budget/project, cinema DP's are often hired. Even for a silly beer commercial:

 

The people you're talking about are cinematographers telling a story.

They're not talking about lens resolution, 8K, or cropping in post.

Every time a new camera comes out there is the same challenge....

People that are seeing cameras get more expensive, have more pixels (that they don't need or want), and seeing that the colour or features aren't any better.
Then there are the videographers who want as much resolution as possible, want as clinically sharp lenses as possible, don't know or care about truly great colour science, and will swallow the ever-increasing cost of the new cameras.

The former seem to be happy to acknowledge that the latter wants more resolution (along with VFX departments and VR), the latter seem unable to acknowledge that the formers needs are valid, or even make any sense.

This is the source of the conflict.

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

If someone shoots like this then they aren't very good at what they are doing with any camera.

This is how videographers shoot.  They want to be able to extract many compositions from a single angle.  They want to be able to get zoom-lens functionality from a single prime.  

It could be because they're running multiple cameras at once, or operating in a small space without room for many cameras, or the logistics of pumping out videos at break-neck pace dominate.

The ability to re-frame in post requires resolution and it requires having the sharpest most neutral/bland lenses possible, otherwise things look funny if you're zooming into the frame near an edge and getting asymmetrical lens distortions.

They want the image to be as flexible in post as they can, so the image SOOC needs to have the least amount of character possible.

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

So why don't you have one and are shooting on one? Sounds like your perfect camera!

I wish.

Too heavy, too expensive, and too large for how/where I shoot.

There is a problem in the camera market.   Essentially, there are no modern, DSLR-sized cameras with great colour (for which I set the standard of the Alexa from a decade ago):

  • if you eliminate modern, you get the OG BMPCC BMMCC
  • if you eliminate DSLR-sized, you get cinema cameras (Komodo, ALEXA Mini, UMP12K, etc)
  • if you eliminate great colour, you get the modern mirrorless cameras (P4K, P6K, R5, C70, A7S3, S1H, XT-4, etc)

The problem is that we had the OG BM cameras, but they abandoned the colour of the Fairlight sensor.

Notice that price wasn't a variable in the above?  There is literally no small, modern camera with great colour - even if you were willing to pay $20K for one.

I think that the manufacturers are actively prejudiced against non-narrative smaller productions.  They reserve the great image quality for people that can use a rigged-up cinema camera (slow and picky to work with) or if you're not in that upper echelon of high-art then screw you, you get the modest colour science of Canon from 10 years ago that used to be special then and everyone has now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough crowd to please that's for sure!

I think some of us need to just recognize we’re a diverse group of people here with different requirements/priorities and invested in different camera systems. 

If creativity is in limitations, fine. But then let's not complain about lack of IBIS. When there's a will there's a way right?

Bottom line is that pros get the job done, with the best tools they can afford. It’s often more enthusiast that obsess with comparing specs, charts, pixel peeping footage etc.

If anything 10-bit 4:2:2 & RAW allow much greater creativity in post. I never see those codecs as crutches for poor exposure or WB.

8K nobody is forcing it on you. Camera also does 6K/4K/3K. It can certainly have its uses though, from cropping, reframing to extracting stills. Does that make one lazy? I don’t think so, just opens up more alleys in post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Django said:

Tough crowd to please that's for sure!

I think some of us need to just recognize we’re a diverse group of people here with different requirements/priorities and invested in different camera systems. 

If creativity is in limitations, fine. But then let's not complain about lack of IBIS. When there's a will there's a way right?

Bottom line is that pros get the job done, with the best tools they can afford. It’s often more enthusiast that obsess with comparing specs, charts, pixel peeping footage etc.

If anything 10-bit 4:2:2 & RAW allow much greater creativity in post. I never see those codecs as crutches for poor exposure or WB.

8K nobody is forcing it on you. Camera also does 6K/4K/3K. It can certainly have its uses though, from cropping, reframing to extracting stills. Does that make one lazy? I don’t think so, just opens up more alleys in post. 

No-one is forcing 8K on me?

Brilliant!

Please direct me to the aisle with the 2.5-3K RAW cameras that don't crop.  I'd also assume, since we had these a decade or so ago that they'll have improved the colour science and made them crazy good at low light and improved the DR instead of adding lots of resolution.  

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

8K can be useful. Using a blanket statement of questioning "who needs 8K?" because you don't need it for cinema is a bit myopic in my opinion.

It's just a discussion and that is the question. I am not saying nobody needs 8K.

As far as Canon goes, business ethics are important to me as is how you are treated after spending X amount.

No matter how desirable a product is, I can only go off past experiences with that company.

If reps for that company lie to me, or a product doesn't do what is promised, and then there is a cover up, with no remorse or refund, then it's tough to expect the customers affected to go back isn't it.

I can only say no to the R5C. I've said why. All are factual points for me not wanting one...

1. Canon business ethics and treatment of me as a customer

2. Prices of the lenses (just got second price increase in 5 months by the way)

3. Lack of need for what is offered

4. Constant weirdness in terms of features removed, missing stuff

5. It's another 4 grand I don't need to spend and happy with what I have

6. No IBIS.

7. 8 seconds between modes.

8. Don't need 8K.

9. Massive file sizes at the highest quality and in RAW

10. Poor 10bit 422 codec performance in Resolve.

11. I don't have any RF lenses, all sold.

12. Piss poor anamorphic features.

Not to mention competition is much more compelling. Z9 anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Z9 sounds great.. if you can afford it.. own Nikon glass.. and manage to get a hold of one before hell freezes over!

The best thing about RF mount.. is adapting EF glass lol. Added benefit if you use the Vari-ND adapter or speed booster on C70.

Also 10-bit codec & 8K RAW plays very nice in Resolve on M1 Macs.

That said I totally get feeling burned with Canon, especially R5. 

I do own an R6 that also technically overheats but I manage to work around it and it cost me less than half an R5.

It was always a stopgap and now thinking of replacing it with R5C & maybe C70 down the line.

My other main system is Sony but none of the latest alpha/FX cameras interest me at all enough to upgrade.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...