Leaderboard

This is truly surprising as the compression ratio is more than any C camera from Canon. 8k RAW at 1.3 Gbits/s is very very good is basically in the same ballpark as 8:1 RED 8k RAW

@gt3rs Here.

Nevermind the answer is yes. All the details here http://downloads.canon.com/nw/home/products/camera/EOS-R5-firmware-full.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0ZapCAXcJ_hV9t90wcJ05JPQThFCTNGf0umDbEZKwJil2How3LaHzKAhE really nice!!

The firmware is out. Can someone confirm if the 4K120p can now be recorded in IPB and IPB light or just ALL-I?

Updated. v2.2 working like a charm. No, Canon annoying has 29m59s recording limits...👎🏻

Yes, it's not there, or it wasn't when checked earlier... they listed it on the US press release but it's updates are always kinda slow for the US site. I have made a habit of looking on the Japan site on release dates. anyways, I'm running 2.2 from the provided link, and have no issues seeing the files on FCPX.

Try Resolve. No issues w/ the Raw light files on Mac mini M1.

Just updated. Wow, game changer. Must test recording time. Overheating a thing of the past? If the only recording limitation is the 30-min recording time, practically speaking, then overheating might be a concern only in hot environments. The RAW LIGHT (a bit awkward to navigate so many options in the menu now) - I'm genuinely surprised. The regular raw bitrate is proportional to cinema raw light, so I doubted Canon could somehow decrease the bitrate-but they did! A new format that is nearly 40% reduced, even below the C500ii's 6k raw. This has a major impact on storage costs in the post-production chain.

With the larger of the grips available, or the cage inc. grip from Smallrig, plus the EVF, pretty much...which is why you then have to ask yourself the question, "what does it do, that something else does not?" Maybe it's the colour science or some other aspect? Maybe because you are just one of those people that say "damn convention!" and just make it work. I've just looked at the work of twice voted best wedding videographer in Europe and he's moved to shooting the FP handheld from Black Magic. Some will want to rig it out, but for me, the appeal of it is pretty much straight out of the box, other than the smallest hand grip attachment which barely adds any size. Bare bones simplicity.

Wow, this is an awesome update and fairly un-Canon of Canon. The two headline features for me are: Cinema RAW Light CLOG3 in 4K modes. I would like more tests on the differences of CLOG and CLOG3 on R5. Even in slashcams test image with the clouds the difference is slight but noticeable and takes away some of the video look. Would have liked to see a full stop improvement but I'll take it! I've mode in most cases, when shooting in 4KHQ mode, you can lift shadows and midtones with very little problems in the final image, so in some cases I expose for the highlights and lift in post and it looks really good. I wouldn't do that in RAW or non HQ modes though. The 8K -> 4K oversample really squashes noise and makes it super fine grained.

It is interesting as they said in their test: https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Der-Dynamikumfang-von-Canon-EOS-R5---R6--Panasonic-S5-und-Sony-A7SIII-im-Vergleich.html that the R5 is actually on pair or even a tad better than the A7S III even before the CLog3..... "Im besten Fall sehen wir den Vorsprung der Panasonic S5 gegenüber dem restlichen Feld (Sony A7SIII, Canon EOS R5 und R6) bei maximal einer nutzbaren Blendenstufe. Sony nimmt den den Marketing-Mund mit 15 Blendenstufen am vollsten und landet dennoch in unserer Einschätzung auf dem letzten Platz, was auf den ungünstigen Mix aus Rauschunterdrückung und Kompressionsartefakten zurückzuführen ist. Es handelte sich bei unserer Betrachtung jedoch noch ausdrücklich um ein Vorserienmodell. Wir warten bereits sehnsüchtig auf ein Serienmodell der A7SIII, um dieses Verhalten noch mit mehr Messungen untersuchen zu können. Auch lässt sich mit dem gewonnenen Eindruck eventuell noch an den internen Parametern der Kamera einiges "drehen". Die von Canon genannten 12 Blendenstufen scheinen uns dagegen eher etwas untertrieben. Sowohl die R5 als auch die R6 können in der Dynamik gut mit den aktuellen 14+-Spitzenreitern von Panasonic mithalten." It is so hard to measure DR that is not really worth to look at numbers imo. In RAW R5 DR is more than fine if Clog3 brings it there (as I expect) then I really don't see why people would complain....

1:18 min "continues" 8k raw..... impressive..... probably under the sun will be different but from where we started with this camera is a huge improvements

Fair enough, I might have slightly overexaggerated my point in my comment. Some people do spend some insane amounts on their hobbies! Be it golfing, drag car racing, stamp collecting, fishing, or whatever!

The new lite options seem to greatly reduced the heat build up inside the camera. This guy recorded 1hr18min of 8k raw lite til battery died

If you're doing this commercially and making money from it (which is the only type of person who should buy an FX6, unless you're a rich playboy getting a toy, in which case price doesn't matter... just get the FX6!), then the price gap between an a7S mk2 + basic accessories vs an FX6 is under two grand. In the long run, seems like a slam dunk decision to go the extra cost for the FX6.

The Fx6 seems the perfect camera for me, something to aim for in the future. For now I am most probably leaning towards the a7siii, although I dislike the form factor/ergonomics/etc.

Interesting, the film still looks so nice in the highlights though I am sure the Pocket could as well with different grading. I am gonna take a photo with the S1 to see how it does today, I'll throw it up here. That is if we get any sun here lol.

For me it is the way the pocket or the micro handles saturation on the top end. The example above is going to pure white in the highlights. The sun is golden at sunset. Here is a shot I took on the pocket a few years back, the second photo is Kodak 250d from a project I did last year. The 16mm film really has no clipping point in the highlights, so of course it looks better, but that characteristic of being able to easily push saturation in the highlights is there in the pocket as well. The version with contrast was graded by a colorist. Images are subject, but I would rather let the light fall naturally than create some sort of HDR looking image. This is why A/B comparisons are pointless and often tailored to fit the narrative. If you do something in the real world like shoot directly into the sun, this is what you get.

That's a cool little rig. I think I like the image I see from the pocket more, although I have always loved the files from any ML Canon camera. The ease of ProRes HQ is definitely easier from a work flow perspective.

Hahaha.. I think that this is regarded as a bit of an outlier in terms of the demand placed on the colourist and post-production, but yes, being a professional colourist isn't top of my career choices either! I'm less familiar with the inner workings of how Steve works in post, although I get the impression that although he has very specific requirements, he's also much more hands on during that process, so it's less of a case of making specific requests of others, but once again, I haven't seen anything one way or the other. @noone I watched a great panel discussion between a few industry pros (I just had a look for it and unfortunately can't find it) debating resolution, and the pattern was completely obvious. The cinematographers wanted to shoot 2K, or as close to it as possible, because it makes their life easier and the films are all mastered in 2K anyway. The post-production reps wanted as much resolution as possible (8K or even more if possible) because it's really useful for tracking and VFX work, which they said is now pretty much a fixture of all productions these days. So in that sense, I think it's just about what kind of production you're shooting, and once again, being aware of what you're trying to accomplish and then using the right tools for the job. You can't make comparisons, discuss, criticise, or even comment on something you haven't watched. As someone who HAS watched it, more than once actually, I found that it worked methodically, building the logic one step at a time, taking the viewer through quite a complex analysis. I found it engaging and was surprised that it didn't seem to drag, and found that it covered all the variables, including all the nuance of various post-production image pipelines, including the upscaling downscaling and processing of VFX pipelines. Your criticisms are of things he didn't say. That's called a straw man argument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I'm not surprised that the criticisms you're raising aren't valid, as you've displayed a lack of critical thinking on many occasions, but what I am wondering is how you think you can criticise something you haven't watched? The only thing I can think of is that you don't understand how logic, or logical discourse actually works, which unfortunately makes having a reasonable discussion impossible. This whole thread is about a couple of videos that John has posted, and yet you're in here arguing with people about what is in them when you haven't watched them, let alone understood them. I find it baffling, but sadly, not out of character.