Leaderboard

"Nothing unique or special about the look" "They are all equivalent... APS-C, full frame, medium format" *Stops down GFX lens to F3.5...."Same look to DOF as APS-C at F1.8" FUCK When camera store salesman become an authority on photography and video... You get this! Widespread misinformation. Sad to see how many people in the YouTube comments just accept it. Stopping down a medium format camera and then complaining it can't do anything different to an APS-C model at F1.8???? Put a Minolta MD 58mm F1.2 on APS-C, full frame and medium format and tell me they all look equivalent! With same lens, look would be completely different on all 3. Equivalency is being taken to mean there is no difference in the look of different camera formats. It completely ignores the fact that lenses are matched to sensor size. If you take one designed for one format and apply it to another, it looks different! I wouldn't be surprised if they punted this out just to generate the heat. It is after all quite chilly in Canada.

Your assumption is faulty because you are basing yourself on 5D3, a 2013 camera that had very soft FHD as it used pixel binning (resolution was closer to 720p) and on top of that had 8-bit compressed files with no log option. The IQ jump from that to 14-bit ML RAW was colossal. Now the R5/R5C is light-years away from that. The compressed files have super chunky bitrates, downsample from 8K and we have 10-bit 4:2:2 Clog3. Pop those files in Resolve, and grade your heart away. The image holds. Beautiful skin tones can be achieved. Use "neutral" instead of default "Eos cinema" in the Log color matrix options and you've got Canon's ARRI emulation. Pop an ARRI lut and with minor tweaks you are almost there. Now of course going RAW unlocks the full IQ potential. No doubt about that. But again the 10-bit compressed files a more than usable and imo have more mojo than Sony as you can turn off NR unlike A7S3/FX3. In any case you have every option in R5C, shoot RAW or compressed with many bitrate/codec/resolution options. I agree with most of your points but the thing is, we're not all the same types of shooters. Which is why indeed there is no perfect camera... for everyone or every situation. Hence the lack of consensus on a forum like this. Obviously some people can't live without IBIS. Others can't without a decent PDAF system. etc We can also talk aesthetics all day but its such a subjective/endless topic. In the end this R5C is either for you or it isn't. Many other options out there. Not many options when it comes to 8K RAW on a hybrid though. Either this or Z9. Problem with Z9 is Zero effort seems to be done on the video OS side. The brilliant thing about R5C imo is that its two camera systems in one. R line and C line fused (or rather split) together. That is something new and unique that sort of redefines hybrid shooting.

Decided to pick one of these up for about 800 euros in Berlin off Amazon. It's good! Premium Apple-like build quality. 100% Display P3 gamut. HDMI input. Thin as a tablet. Two USB C inputs, powers over a single one, built in battery too. Adds touch screen capabilities to Mac OS, PC, etc. Bit like a Surface Pro but tethered to your desktop or laptop. It is pretty unique on the market. Of course the generic 1080p LCD models are much much cheaper at $200 but where's the fun in those?! 🙂

People whining about some sort of clay like skin tones with the new Canon codecs/sensors have too much time on their hands, what are you even talking about? I owned the R5 and it was impeccable as a stills camera, but it certainly had it short comings in the video department - but skin tones and colors are as per usual outstanding, even with the 10bit h265 codec. The whole Alexa worshipping is getting ridiculous and if you really want that but can’t afford it, buy the a7siii and Emotive colors - only 1 percent would know the difference.

If you have a 1990 bmw e30 that needs a good home, i'm your man 😉

I am like you Davide, strictly from an end user perspective with no engineering background other than the film school where we don't discuss the tools, we are trained to make them work and live with their limitations and improvements : ) I imagine there are some other industries looking after something else we don't even need using what we already have. So far so good. TBH the R5C tests I've seen are promising enough to make it shine within its limits. No expectations on unblurring anything. No need for miraculous potion either because the current tools are already fair enough. We have our workarounds too. What we cannot handle, Don, is to reach a price target outside of our budget. Might we buy this R5C if the implementation of the IBIS feature would cost an extra grand, as for instance? Yes. Would we do it from a product already in the $4,500 price range without IBIS or at the cost of its weight then? Probably not. I believe sometimes it's this kind of decisions the product design team has in mind when they decide to include some feature or not. More than adopting the theory of conspiracy they are there to see our expectations fucked up. :- )

🙂

I got about 1.5 minutes into this one earlier today…and then said “nah” and flipped over to watch the latest day in the life adventure of Kotaro the otter.

They will have to make a correction video explaining why they are wrong. When people in the comment section know more than the guys writing the articles, maybe it's time to look for alternatives.

Reason why we we are here : ) Little room to complain, many options never hurt :- )

On the spot : ) The release of this new camera is to celebrate. Their merit. No criticism is able to change that :- )

I have a EOS-M and when it works it is killer, but damn how often does it work right. It is the most frustrating camera I have ever owned. Main reason I bought my OG BMPCC. And even it is not easy to consistently get great results, but it is at least pretty trustworthy compared to the EOS-M. In this day and age I think both are hardly worth it with so many choices now out there used. By the time you rig out a OG BMPCC you can by the new 4K version and have a heck of a lot better luck overall getting what you are looking for, and have real 4K to boot.

Not bad but pretty hard to tell as not many shots with neutral lighting. It is, however, an excellent video to play a game of "spot the shots they did noise reduction on". YouTube LOVES footage without any noise, it has a party and you get fun things like this! or this: It makes sense that doing slow-motion in such an environment would give some noise, so no judgement there. The secret is to do NR to all the shots in post, then apply some grain over the top so all the shots are even. YT compression will clobber the texture of the grain, but it will prevent the banding. It would be interesting to see some RAW vs compressed shots of skintones in a controlled environment with pristine CRI and exposures.

this is what i have started doing...also i would not mind to have direct feedback form who have alreday made a similar choice!

Inspired by @kye on this quote, I think this should serve as reflection to everyone who visits this forum which is all about that -- there's no excuse anymore on all new fancy releases when a $100-$150 capture device (I have 4x of them BTW) is able to give this to the world: Support and participate here and there for this particular camera.

Unfortunately I don't share your thought that everyone knows this. I've seen many conversations in the past, both here and elsewhere, saying that digital stabilisation / EIS will make IBIS and OIS obsolete. Perhaps it will, in action camera products, but not if you want to maintain a 180 shutter, as I would imagine the majority of people who shoot 8K RAW would be interested in doing. An additional factor that comes into play is the general lack of understanding about how these things actually work. Of course, we can't expect everyone who uses a product to understand how it works - none of us could ever use a computer ever again as they're now hundreds of times more complex than any person could ever understand - but knowledge is power and there are consequences to people not understanding some of these things. A lack of understanding about ISO limitations might cause someone to suggest that they can darken an image with aperture to get a deeper DoF and simply compensate by raising ISO. This is true but if their understanding of ISO is that "higher = brighter" then they're going to risk ruining an entire shoot because they didn't understand the limitation of the technology. Same with digital stabilisation. It does have a stabilising effect, just like raising ISO has a brightening effect, but it's not the same as IBIS or OIS, in the same way that raising ISO isn't the same as turning your lights up. Any time a conversation begins with a faulty understanding of reality, the danger is that it goes in strange directions that are misleading and outright wrong. There were many references in this thread to digital stabilisation being a substitute (or even an upgrade) for IBIS. Anyone who knows that OIS and IBIS are similar (which they are) might conclude from these comments that digital stabilisation can be a good substitute for IBIS and OIS. The fact that the tests presented included OIS and this was basically ignored in pages of discussion is misleading at best. There is something magical about ARRI colour. It is magical in both its RAW form and in the Prores files from it too. It is expensive though. There is magic from the older BM cameras (OG BMPCC and BMMCC) but in many ways these cameras are a PITA to use, and also limited to 1080p, which for many isn't enough. There is magic in the ML RAW files too, even when graded with a simple LUT. However, there wasn't magic in the compressed files. A couple of people have expressed that the compressed files from the latest Canon cameras have "clay" like skin-tones. Now, we know from the 5D3 that the RAW was great (thanks to ML) but the compressed files weren't, so we can deduct that the compression that Canon employ removes some of the image quality. My impression of ML RAW through Youtube compression was that it has this magic, but that normal Canon footage from the Canon you tubers does not. I then make the assumption that the lack of magic in the current Canon cameras is from the compression and image processing, rather than assuming their sensors have gotten worse since the 5D days. Maybe this is a faulty assumption, but I suspect not. In my experience heavy NR and compressed LOG profiles are generally what result in clay-like skin- tones. That leads to the idea that if you want to get great skintones from something like the R5C then you have to shoot RAW. No problems so far, good stuff, but it gives you a choice. You either shoot the full 8K RAW with the large file sizes, or you crop into the sensor which you'd have to compensate for in lens choices and more noise etc, or you shoot compressed codecs and lose the magic that is very likely to be present in the RAW. One way around that is to use an external monitor to get RAW out of the camera but compress it to Prores, which can (as ARRI and BM have shown) retain the magic within skin tones. That's it. That's the logic. My thoughts on the wider topic are this: Cameras are giving us more and more pixels, but less and less magic. In 2012 Canon released the 5D3, which had a sensor that captured magic (when paired with a hack). Also in 2012 BM gave us a quirky sub-$1000 camera with a magical image, but the magic was also in the compressed files. Now, a decade later, we have cameras that cost 3x, 4x, 5x, or more, the price of the OG BMPCC, but there is no magic. We have 16x the number of pixels in the image, but no magic. We have 120p, 180p, 240p, but no magic. Worse still, manufacturers have managed to brainwash us to not even expect magic. The entire point of cameras is to make people feel something. Images should be emotive. Colour is a great way to do that because it's subject agnostic. A CEO giving a quarterly update will have a substantially different effect on people emotionally if their skin looks radiant rather than pallid. This is something that matters. Sure Canon RAW might be similar to ARRI RAW, but (as you say) ARRI RAW gets professionally graded and Canon RAW doesn't. This is all the more reason for the compressed files to look just as great as the RAW. BM gave us this in 2012, after all. In this sense, cameras have gotten harder to get good colour out of instead of easier. But this gets us into the crux of the matter, which is GAS. If you're happy with what you have you stop looking at what else you can buy. If Canon implemented Prores and a colour pipeline that could keep the magic in the files, perhaps requiring a LUT to be applied in post, then people would be happy and not looking to upgrade. Lots of people who own a 4K RAW camera that they're not completely satisfied with would probably be interested in an 8K RAW camera. Almost no-one who owned a 4K RAW camera that made wonderful images would be interested in that same 8K RAW camera. The manufacturers are in the business of keeping you happy enough to buy but unhappy enough to upgrade as soon as you can. What do I own? I own a GH5 with manual and vintage lenses. I shoot handheld in available light in a verite style with no directing and no retakes. The IBIS and internal 200Mbps 1080p 10-bit ALL-I codec create a nice image that's easy to work with. I tested the 5K, 4K and 1080p modes with my sharpest lenses stopped down and the difference in resolution and sharpness was small and so the benefits the 1080p ALL-I files have in the rest of my post-production workflow outweighs that slight IQ bump. I am not happy with the colour science / DR of the GH5, and this is one of the weaknesses I hope the GH6 fixes. I am also not happy with the low-light performance of the GH5, which I also hope the GH6 will rectify. I own a GX85 and GF3 for pocketable fun projects. These are paired with vintage, manual, or lenses like the 12-35/2.8 and the 12-60/2.8-4 that I plan to get to replace the 12-35. I own the BMMCC, which I bought as a reference for its magical image and colour science. I have done dozens of comparisons with it and the GH5 trying to emulate the colour of the BMMCC with the GH5. I haven't gotten perfect results, but I have learned a lot and still have much to learn. Being able to do side-by-side tests is the only real way to compare two cameras if you plan on really learning about how each of them works and how to get the best of both. In theory the 10-bit from the GH5 should be bendable to the colour science (but not the DR) from the BMMCC, but I'm yet to really nail it. I own the OG BMPCC, which I bought as a small (pocketable!) cinema camera to use for fun projects. Turns out the screen isn't visible with my polarised sunglasses (a terrible design decision) and isn't really visible in bright conditions anyway, requiring an external monitor, and negating the point of the camera over the BMMCC. The GX85 was the replacement for this and I'm just yet to sell it. What do I recommend? I recommend people point their cameras at interesting stuff. Assuming they're already doing that, I recommend that they study and increase their skills in story-telling, directing, lighting and production design, composition, editing, colour grading, music and sound design and all the creative aspects of film-making that are relevant to what they do and the roles they play. I recommend people practice and get as much experience with things. So many people on social media ask questions that they could answer themselves. So many more people on social media endlessly parrot things that "everyone knows" but are actually outright bullshit. I've lost count of the number of times I've read something, questioned it, done a test myself in an hour or two, and realised that this "common wisdom" is actually just flat-out wrong. I recommend that if a problem can't be solved by learning more or working around it (one of the reasons to practice and try things yourself) I recommend that people spend money on basically everything except their camera. Lighting, modifiers, grip, supports, audio, and lenses are far better upgrades than cameras, most of the time at least. In terms of cameras, which I know was what your question was actually about, I recommend that people truly understand their needs. Everyone wants the perfect camera and there isn't one and there never will be one. This means that in order to get the camera with the fewest compromises you have to work out what your priorities are, then starting at the bottom start removing them until you're left with a list of just your top priorities that can be met by a camera. I would suggest that existing lenses and other ecosystem factors would probably be high on this list for most people. My philosophy is that you miss all the shots you don't take, so priority #1 is getting a setup that you can use. Fast primes might be great, but if you film in the remote wilderness and can't carry the gear there then it's game over, pack lighter. If you need to shoot fast then primes won't work either - ENG cameras had long zooms for this reason. Would ENG footage have looked nicer if they could have gotten blurrier backgrounds or if there was better low-light performance? Sure. But primes were never going to work, and a lens that weighed 20kg/44lb was never going to work either. Priority #2 is having the equipment allow you to get the best content in your shots. For me size is a factor here. I regularly shoot in private places (like museums or art galleries etc) where professional cameras aren't allowed. I could afford a medium-sized cinema camera but I'd get kicked out of those places in a heartbeat. I also appreciate not hassling people around me with a large camera, and I don't appreciate the unwanted attention that it brings. For me, a GH5, lens, shotgun mic and wrist-strap is about as large as I'm willing to go. Priority #3 is having the nicest images come from the camera. This is why I use vintage and manual prime lenses. I want my images to look as cinematic as possible. Not because it's cool, but because it suits the subject matter and aesthetic of what I shoot and the effect I want them to have on my audience. It also makes me happy to shoot, and it's pretty obvious that I enjoy the technical aspects of it as well, so this is part of the experience for me. I prefer the look of a vintage lens with IBIS rather than a modern lens with OIS. I like the lack of clinical sharpness that vintage and manual lenses give me, because, once again, this suits my target aesthetic. This forum spends lots of time talking about this level - the image from the camera. It spends less time talking about the practicalities that are associated with those choices (priority #2) and even less time talking about Priority #1. Worse still, we spend basically zero time discussing aesthetic, which is what the whole imaging system is designed around. It's just assumed that more resolution is better and sharper lenses are better, etc. I have the distinct impression that the people here who could actually talk about their aesthetic, what the emotional experience of that aesthetic is designed to be, and how their equipment and process is designed to maximise this.

Well, I am just finishing two feature films shot on ALEXA Mini, RED Dragon and a7S, so I should also be considered brand agnostic, no? : D Well, speaking of Portuguese people even if I am doing the whole of my work outside from my UK basis, here's a promotion video sponsored by Canon Europe shot by a French in the beautiful Portuguese land of Madeira island:

It sounds like you're set on a point-and-shoot and seems like you have a budget range to work with. I'd suggest doing some reading and working out what the options are. Any good review of the ZV-1 will list a few competitors, and their reviews will list more. Build a list, read about each of them and eliminate any that don't meet your preferences, then search to find low-light tests and simply compare them. A few hours with google should give you at least a pretty good guess about what your best option might be.

Olympus/Panasonic IBIS, Canon's AF, etc., pity we cannot have all them altogether and some tend to close up the perspective on the tree rather than the forest, but choices are part of this business : ) As above-posted, price point is IMHO much determinant than this or that feature, at least to me handling budget matters in a daily basis : ) Let alone in a pandemic year. Extras never hurt though and I think competition and sales from a typical market economy is what contributes more to this or that feature and thanks to it makes the things evolve.

Yes, the layout absolutely matters. The Beatstep Resolve Edition comes in different resolutions and you have to use the right one. When you start it up it does an initialisation routine that resets the layout and puts Resolve into Full Screen mode. I don't find it that much of an imposition but if you'd moved the windows around (in the Colour page) a lot then that might be an issue for you perhaps. Depending on your screen resolution you might not be able to adjust the Colour page that much though. I run Resolve in three ways: on my laptop using only the laptop display, so viewing the clips/timeline in the GUI on my laptop using only my UHD panel, so viewing the clips/timeline in the GUI on my laptop using an external monitor as a "Clean Feed" and only using the GUI for controlling things I heartily recommend the latter "Clean Feed" option if you have an external monitor you can use. It's how you set things up if you have a BM hardware device (which I have just ordered and would recommend) but you can also do it with just a normal dual monitor setup through the menus - I think it's called something like "Clean Feed" - but you just choose which monitor it goes to. It's a great way of working. It's a tricky one as these things are absolutely worthwhile if you're billing your time, but hard to justify if it's only a hobby. As there isn't one controller that does Editing and Colour it seems like the more controllers you get the more you're forced into the studio system way of working where each "page" in Resolve is done separately, rather than jumping around as I tend to do while I'm exploring and shaping the material.

You cannot un-blur an image. This seems to be the fundamental thing that you're getting stuck on. There are billions of dollars waiting for the company that can process an image and restore detail. Law enforcement would be using it the way it's shown in the movies, but it's just not possible. Digital stabilisation occurs AFTER the blurry frame has already been acquired. and if that frame is blurred, there is no way to un-blur it. It doesn't matter if the digital stabilisation is being done in-camera, in Resolve, in-country, or in-cognito, the only place this is possible is in-fantasyland. You have simply read one post of mine and forgotten the context of this discussion. Go back and read it again if you want to understand what I was talking about. The ProAV used OIS. OIS is similar to IBIS in that it stabilises during the exposure. I've only been talking about Digital Stabilisation ONLY in these comparisons. Here is the video again - you seem to have mis-read the title. Plenty of people are using lenses without OIS, which is why IBIS is a useful feature. In the test video I did all the motion in the shots was relatively consistent, so the frame blurring was moderate. If you're walking or doing something with large sudden movements then those frames would be particularly blurred, so maybe that's what you're seeing? Maybe you're seeing something else. I remember the A6300 and A6500 had IBIS problems where the IBIS would jitter about and even go haywire and flick up and down at full-speed, almost threatening to tear themselves apart. I think they fixed it with a firmware update. The other elephant in the room here is that a lot of people have gotten used to the video look and the look of poor colours. There also seems to be a huge number of Canon fans who treat Canon colours and looks as the pinnacle, so when you say there's a problem they cannot understand it because Canon is literally the definition (in their minds) of what is good. If you bring up the image from an Alexa then they just dismiss you because all expensive cameras are in a parallel universe and therefore do not apply. Never mind that the 'standard' has gotten worse or should show some problems - that's simply not possible, and how dare you to even suggest it. I have been talking this whole time about comparing digital stabilisation ONLY to using some form of OIS or IBIS. That's what my test showed. Plenty of people shoot with lenses that don't have OIS, which is why the lack of IBIS matters. I'm not aware of any camera that has IBIS and a sensor lock feature? Maybe it's difficult to implement? In terms of producing cameras with both, I think the film world is far larger than it looks, and by only hanging in forums with mostly videographers and amateurs it can seem like our needs are common but I suspect they're not. I suspect the vast majority of people would either shoot locked down, or if they needed hand-held stabilisation would just use a gimbal or steadicam. I am on a number of forums and lists etc that are mostly populated by industry pros and from their perspective a wedding or corporate videographer is about as professional as a 12-year old who streams Minecraft. Their definition of professional (and therefore who cameras are made for) is people working within the studio system, where shoots are on sets with many people and heaps of equipment, different companies will be handling production and post-production, and they're all essentially specialists in a huge production-line of content. The reason I mention this is because when manufacturers want to talk with customers to understand their products, they don't talk to someone who is a solo-shooter, they talk to Roger Deakins, or Walter Murch, or <insert member of the ACS or other professional association here>. Those people might not have even HEARD of IBIS.

This is exactly what I was thinking! I mean.. pretty much every camera that I've ever used equipped with IBIS has a sensor cleaning mode that does just that.. it locks the sensor in a neutral position so you can clean it easily without it moving all over the place. Surely it'll never be as strong as a sensor which is permanently held in place but those magnets are a lot stronger than I thought so I'm wondering why one couldn't shoot with the sensor in that mode. Of course I'm saying this purely as an end user without any knowledge of the engineering behind it so it's entirely possible there are very good reasons why this can't work 😅

When I was shooting 4X5, 5X7 view cameras years ago you can get goose bumps looking at just the negatives let alone prints. Bigger is Definingly better when it comes to photography. Yeah that was a silly ass clown video. Embarrassing as heck. What a total disservice to there followers.

Yeah, a gross over simplification in order to generate clicks. It is the job of people like DPReview to break the surface and expand the knowledge of those in the market for gear. It's incredibly depressing to see the sheep in the YouTube comments. The same people who rave about full frame Sony this and Canon that, all seem to buy the Chris & Jordan line that sensor size doesn't matter and it all looks the same. Why aren't they all shooting with a GoPro then! I really don't believe DPR are this stupid and I think it could be a ploy. They are either doing this on purpose to create controversy, discussion and attention, or pandering to their vast majority of readers who own Sony & Canon full frame or APS-C cameras. If Amazon sells more of those, DPR has done its job. GFX and medium format users probably don't need to read DPReview anyway for advice on sensor size! Especially not when it's this wrong. The F3.5 vs F1.8 shit is what really gets me. It's like comparing the top speed of a Ferrari and a family run-around, but never accelerating past 30mph... then claiming they are the same! WTF! It's impossible to satire it. It even feels stupid criticizing it because in order to do so you have to point out such blindingly obvious stuff! Every time Chris and Jordan recommend a full frame camera over micro four thirds from now on I will remind them of this video.

Sets the cameras to match each other, and surprised they look the same. One of the dumbest exercises I've seen in a while. Full frame is nothing special compared to M43 by the same logic. Thinking that DOF is the only reason to choose a sensor size is ridiculous. MF is often shot at the other end of the aperture spectrum where the detail, dynamic range, and physical size of the optical and sensor area provide an advantage in image fidelity, or retaining the DOF while stopping down where a lens preforms better. Alas, a typical Dpreview video.

Oh, hope they fixed the external HDMI lag also...

I think the EIS is linked to AF or a combination of things because you can have a the camera on a tripod and get it to jump suddenly. I think it is a bug with the current implementation. Also, in one of the interviews Canon Rep mentioned the EIS is using gyro in the camera. I wonder if we will be seeing future firmware updates to improve its effectiveness?

But there is only OIS + digital stabilization so IT's clearly a piece of shit camera! I'm not a brand fanboy but sometimes people just like to hate. I loved my Panasonic MFT cameras, but they sat on their asses for too long so I moved on. Canon is clearly upping their game. It's a good thing. Maybe Sony will finally put shutter angle in their FX3 camera.

Then use one of the 30 other bitrates the camera offers including some in 8K HEVC! Not that hard. Use the 8K RAW when it benefits you. Use the more compressed formates when storage space is a concern. It's not like this cameras has 3 bitrates options to choose from. Yes trade offs for each system. I think you underestimate the sophistication of gyro and image processing but with regards to practical applications you are going to be using a stabilizer of some kind anyway.

Well done everyone... you inspired me to shoot a little test to show why Digital Stabilisation can't replace OIS / IBIS. @Emanuel - this is the video that should end the debate. Digital stabilisation can be great, but only if there is very little motion and only if you have short shutter speeds. I'd encourage everyone to realise that Digital Stabilisation is just DIFFERENT to OIS or IBIS. It's a different tool for a different job. I often use digital stabilisation on my IBIS footage and it can work really well. Hopefully this clears things up?

The crazy thing is that a couple years ago everybody was complaining that Canon wasn't giving its customers enough resolution. Now they give 8K and people still hate them.

The one in resolve is close enough that I'm not going to use ND's for shots on my Z6 anymore. Also for VFX work results are far better when you pull a key off a high shutter speed and then add the motion blur in post. Makes cleaning up hair work far easier.