Andrew Reid

Haha wonderful. I always felt there was a change between 1D C and 1D X Mark II. Subtle one, but there.

You can still lose shots because of the camera no matter your skill, or choose one you dislike and that doesn't inspire you to shoot. But anyway, that's a matter for a different topic. Yes. But it has a major flaw. The battery really screws you over in 4K and it's such a serious design fault, it's impossible to recommend the SL2 for paid video work (no matter how skillful you are!!) Blog post soon

Just took the GFX 100 out again. Nope. Don't need an R5.

Dad's shares are crashing at home so he has to spend more time with his children now.

Correct! 5D Mark II was a bomb. Correct! But they wanted $15k initially for the 1D C and the ergonomics were unchanged from a 1D X. When the Panasonic GH4 and Samsung NX1 came out 2 years later, these cost under $1500 and were designed from the ground up for video shooting. EVFs, mirrorless lens mounts, articulated screens, H.265, 120fps mode (on NX1), XLR add on (GH4), it's a long list of features... all missing from Canon's 4K DSLR. Yes but in a 70D, which had an absolutely crap image even by 2013 standards. Not really. Panasonic GH5 & mirrorless got their first. DSLRs were very late to 4K/60p. Nope. Third party ones existed way before. Magic Lantern? R5 is not a DSLR but yeah, I'll give Canon this. Let's see how many weeks they are first by, if A7S III pops up next month they may not be first to the market. Depends on the actual release dates in shops. Seems that way, but again let's see what Sony's reply will be. The problem was not so much the pricing. It was the delivery of so many crappy mushy moire ridden compressed to hell 1080p line skipping cameras for much of the decade that was the problem. They didn't really have an affordable 4K solution until nearly 5 years after the 1D C came out! It's well documented on this blog. Then when the 1D X Mark II, 5D IV and EOS R came out, all had seriously frustrating shortcomings for 4K shooting and none of them surpassed the image quality or less severe crop factor of the 1D C. At least the EOS R ditched MJPEG... that's something (8 years too late but still something).

Yes, I remember saying my experience of 4K in the cinema varied in enjoyment, to say the least. Being distracted by mesmerising detail sometimes doesn't do the actual story any favours. Making everything too real looking is not the goal of most cinema. I just took delivery of a Sony native 4K cinema projector in my studio. I am going to do some long-term watching experiments versus 2K. Does 4K make for a more cinematic and entertaining watching experience? We all know the image quality is quantifiable on a computer monitor or TV when we watch our stuff back. We all upgraded, very few of us would want to go back to 'mushy' and thin 1080p camera files! But what is the experience like for the audience in the cinema? And what does 8K look like projected at 4K? Too sharp? Too much? Or not noticeable vs an Epson 1080p projector with 4K up-res / pixel shift? Should be interesting...

Marketing is the issue, 8K is an important badge for Canon trying to recover from years of ridicule and the perception they fell behind the cutting edge. Let's forget for a moment that the practical uses for it are dubious and niche at best, and that the hardware for 8K exists in a Xiaomi smartphone, albeit with a much smaller sensor. Many seem surprised the EOS R5 doesn't set on fire and melt due to the data processing required for 8K but it has a much larger body than a smartphone to dissipate the heat and if a $999 smartphone can do it then a $4k+ large pro mirrorless really has no excuses. 4K/60p was a big step up in data-rate from 30p remember... Something Sony still hasn't achieved on their A7 series but Fuji and Panasonic have. The Canon 1D X Mark III 5.5K at 60p is also a big step up but 8K sounds like a bigger step up because resolution is always the headline and people forget about frame rate! 45MP by the way is a smart choice by Canon, something of a sweet spot for a full frame sensor, it is 8K horizontal resolution, it is Nikon D850 / Z7 and Fuji GFX 50S level horizontal resolution (the 50S has more resolution vertically though due to the 4:3 aspect ratio sensor). You have to go to 100MP to significantly see a difference past 45MP or 8K and that gets very pricey. Sony have gone to 60MP, and actually the pixel binned 4K from the A7R IV is pretty nice. But it is only really a very incremental type step from their older 42MP sensor in the A7R II and III. If you shoot 8K on the EOS R5 and downsample in post to 4K, yes it will be more detailed. But not by much. And when you view it as intended - on the big screen or in a cinema - the 2.8K Alexa will probably still beat it for the cinematic feel. So yeah, let's not get too excited about 8K. It is still impressive technology compared to what Canon were doing before though. Personally, I would rather have the 1D X III sensor in there and 5K/60p RAW. Same data rate for the processor as 8K/30p remember. I like that 4K/120p is in there but it is probably line-skipped. You know, the big question mark with the EOS R5 is what the quality of the 4K/24p and 60p is going to be like. Will it be oversampled from the 8K (full pixel readout) or will it be binned? If it is binned then we are pegged with the A7R IV and Leica SL2 on 4K quality, more than likely, depending on the pixel binning method Canon uses. So if you ignore the 8K, ignore the 4K/120p for slow-mo, and you just need 4K/60p, the EOS R5's real advantages over the competition like the Leica SL2 are: 10bit codec at higher the frame rates in 4K (60p, 120p), not just at 4K 24p Dual Pixel AF That's about it Still very useful though. And the IBIS might be better, or it might be worse. Personally, I am still going to wait to see what the R6 brings and I am in no rush to chuck my GFX 100 or Leica SL2 in the bin, after paying so much for them. As for Sony A7R IV or A7 III users with mainly Canon lenses, yes, it is safe for you to go back to Canon now As for Panasonic S1 and GH5 users, as well as Fuji X-T3 owners - it is more of a dilemma, and will depend on if you need the Dual Pixel AF, full frame 8K, 4K/120p and Canon LOG / Canon colour science on offer with the EOS R5. Let's not forget how much more the expected costs will be $4k body, expensive FF mirrorless lenses, expensive media. I don't think GH5 owners will rush over too soon. It definitely has AF over the S1, but again the 4K/24p from the S1 will probably be better looking, especially in low light. So it all comes down to whether you need that 10bit codec at 120fps and have plenty of Canon lenses to make use of Dual Pixel AF. Or are tired of 8bit on Sony cameras.

If EOSHD were a record player, there would be one particular groove it just couldn't get over. It'd be the part of the record where she sings "why are Canon's video specs so rubbish and where is the Canon full frame 4K high end mirrorless camera?", and admittedly this isn't the stuff of a number 1 hit single. I for one am very grateful the fat lady has finally shut up. I cannot put into words how relieved I am to no longer have to complain about Canon! Even the site name now makes sense! That gamble I made 10 years ago in believing Canon would run away with the DSLR video scene may yet pay off! It's just that I've spent the first 10 years shooting mostly Panasonic and Sony. Canon seriously dropped the ball and for the longest time just didn't seem to listen. Speculative reasons for this have been legion - some say Canon lacked the technological capability to compete. Some say Canon wanted to avoid cannibalising Cinema EOS sales, or that Canon simply didn't see a market for full frame 4K after the relative failure of the 1D C. Some say their sales had an unassailable lead with just 8bit 1080p (especially C300 and 5D Mark III) so why bother trying harder? Now there's another interesting theory, that Canon R&D works on a 10-year cycle with a big leap ready to storm the market at the end of each cycle, building on the initial success (reusing sensors in multiple bodies) with incremental improvements for 8-9 years before the next big leap. Let's go all the way back to 2000 with the genesis of the Canon DSLR and CMOS sensor technology, fast forward 10 years and the cycle has resulted in a 5D Mark II taking the world by storm, a big leap on everything that went before and ahead of every other competitor at the time. Fast forward another 10 years to 2020 and Canon looks to be doing a similar thing with the EOS R5. Could it be that Canon are just conservative, slow to make major moves, very calculated and taking the long term picture into account? Read the full article

The rumours are a shame if true. I don't want a dumbed down R6. They should make it as good as the R5 but without 8K and with better low light performance. There is always room for a cheaper model in addition to the R6 like an R7 which sits above the original EOS R, without some of the fancy features of the new cameras.

2012 Canon - "here, have this soft 1080p" 2013 Canon - "here, have even worse soft 1080p" 2014 Canon - "here, have some moire" 2015 Canon - "here, we've got some 1080p" 2016 Canon - "the 1080p is now more expensive" 2017 Canon - "4K has arrived. It is MJPEG with a huge crop" 2018 Canon - "the 4K still has a huge crop" 2019 Canon - "I don't think we will ever give you proper 4K" 2020 Canon - "Here, have this 8K full frame RAW and 4K 120fps 10bit H.265"

Here are the right GIFs

Anyone got hold of one of these yet and tried AF?

The C300 III specs look positively tame for $10k compared to the EOS R5 for less than half the price. Just like the original C300 where people criticised it for crappy 8bit and weak specs compared to Sony! It sold like hot cakes. Conclusion, pros really don't care about image quality and just want to look impressive on set

$2999 if they are sensible and want to sell more $2000 R mount lenses

What prompted Canon to do a completely revelatory camera, in terms of the technology and completely u-turn on their previous strategy of holding back on DSLR video. Was it seeing so many sales go to Sony? Was it the need to ensure a new mirrorless lens mount succeeds on the market vs Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic & Sony? Were they waiting for new manufacturing capabilities to be ready, new factories, to be able to produce such fast sensors and processors? Did they realise cropped 4K on the EOS R was a bad business strategy? I'd love to be a fly on the wall at Canon.

Read the full article Above you can see an advert for RAW on the S1H shot in my home town of Manchester. Coincidentally these streets were where I shot with the Panasonic GH1 for the first time. I have fond memories of 10 years ago in the months leading up to EOSHD's first blog post, taking my GH1 out on the same streets as featured in the Atomos video. Always great to see how cinematic the city is. Now at the start of yet another decade, Panasonic is upping image quality again with HDMI RAW on the S1H. What makes this implementation of RAW unique is that it has an anamorphic RAW mode. The Canon EOS R5, 1D Mk III, Sigma Fp and Nikon Z6 aren't anamorphic enabled in RAW mode. The Panasonic RAW firmware update will be available here for the Panasonic S1H on 25th May 2020. The Atomos Ninja V is usually $649 but B&H currently has it on sale at $499 here.

I hope 8K RAW will have a burst mode for 4 seconds. Why? Stills. Will be great to select the best shot from 120 frames I can't see myself using it for video as much as 4K RAW on the EOS R6, or the sure to be lovely 10bit Canon LOG. Much more practical. By the way Panasonic has something coming which will impress a lot of you. Stay tuned for a few more days.

I won't be buying it. Of the two, the EOS R6 is more up my street. Much more practical. Who needs 8K anyway? Just give me an 1D X Mark III / 1D C in mirrorless form.

Impressive!!

@Ironfilm Chit chat... In every thread. Can you reduce it just a bit please? Thanks

None of you can appreciate this kind of dynamic range on a normal display. It is going to look horrible. HDR1000 minimum requirement. And I would not but much stock in Cinema5D's testing methodology for dynamic range. The whole dynamic range technique is total bullshit in the real world... underexposing by 5 stops rather than lighting properly or appreciating good natural light. Nobody actually shoots a film this way. You would have a completely unusably dark frame on the monitor. The Canon sensor isn't anything special. Really it isn't. The rolling shutter in 6K is about the same as an old GH4. The resolution is lower than 8K or what RED offers. The sensor size is smaller than the current state of the art larger format cameras like the 4K 10bit GFX 100. The dynamic range is no better than the sensor in a $2000 mirrorless camera. The S1H is $12,000 cheaper and good enough for a top-end Netflix show, in terms of the image. The Fuji GFX 100 has still a very powerful processor and 10bit codec in a much smaller body with great battery life. So forgive me if I don't jump up and down in excitement and rush out to spend $16k on the C500 II for creative reasons.

It's $16,000! S1H arguably has the same image for $4k.

I feel that people shooting very long events and interviews should just get a camcorder! Those doing cinematic stuff don't need to be rolling for 3 hours solid... Apart from for some types of documentary interviews.

I agree. Keep the X-H2 form factor. Just add the stuff obviously missing... ND for one. And anamorphic mode.

Weirdly the built in ND on the X100V cannot be enabled during video mode. 4K, but no ND. Getting the basic rights not a strength of the camera companies.