Oliver Daniel

I like a bit of grain, it makes the image feel alive. A show like Stranger Things - lovely grain. The majority of Vimeo - not so much.

Thanks Luke. I'm aware the EOSHD C-Log isn't actually proper log, although it's better than nothing. In terms of the 120fps, I guess it's a bit hit and miss with most cameras - for instance the FS7 gets a lot of noise in the shadows at 150fps. Has anybody attempted any "organic, cinematic" type footage with the 1DX II yet?

Bloody hell Andrew, you've done it now. I've been following the 1DX II ever since release - ticks a lot of my boxes. But my interest faded with no presence of C-log. I'm big on grading and I absolutely love it, so this now seems interesting to me. Footage I've seen shot in standard profiles looks like it's wrapped in a shiny sheet of plastic. I use my A7SII the most at the moment. I enjoy using it, however the poor battery life and non-working white balance does my head in. As does the crop in 120fps and the vacancy of 4K 60p, and the low bit rate. Plus the stills - I have EF lenses so I haven't got great stills capability with the A7SII. With my A7SII, I also have the official clip-on monitor, the Zeiss 24-70mm and 6 batteries - so a great chunk of value here! (If I happen to sell it all). The DPAF is very interesting (I constantly film fast moving subjects such as rock vocalists going nuts) and high quality 60p is an absolute must. I'm always filming talent who have to look amazing and flawless on camera. So I'm thinking the 1DX II could potentially be a better fit. Question is to current users: what is the 120fps like? This is what worries me, as Canon don't have a great history of slo-mo. Is there lots of aliasing? Moire? Detail? Noise? Artefacts?

Surely, there must be demand for this camera somewhere in the market? Why would Canon even bother making it? That said, it seems overlarge and not very 2016 (more 2013). The Sony FS700 is four years old and can output 4k120fps RAW in a much smaller package. The Kinefinity Terra can do 5k60fps RAW in a form factor the size of your hand, and cost less than $6000. The VaricamLT is far more affordable and compact. What exactly is Canons strategy here? Clearly it looks like a rental speciality for high end production - but with Arri and RED still innovating, it's a tough one.

I was talking about the image itself - overall improvements are to be expected of a new body. Based on my own needs, the 4k image of the GH4 wasn't enough for me to consider an upgrade. I expect the GH5 will have a different body this time, and hopefully a considerably better image!

I think Canon DSLR 1080p is worse than true 720p. It looks like sharpened, low bit rate SD. I remember the day I changed from a 60D to the GH3 - the difference in resolution is staggering.

The 1DX II could really benefit from proper C-LOG. It's the only reason which prevents me from using it. I was hoping it would be possible to somehow hack C-log out of a C-series camera and upload it as a hack onto a 1 DX II. Probably not. I also think the James Miller Deluts are a bit more miss than hit. A lot of the LUTS seem very aggressive and the shadows seem to be largely greyed out with no detail. Seems like the S-curve at the bottom end, and sometimes at the top end is in a weird place for my tastes. Plus it's difficult to adjust the LUT to taste once it has been implemented.

Whilst the rumoured and specs are looking tasty, it will all come down to one thing: the image. I was a GH3 owner due to the nice 1080p and 60fps that barely any other small camera had at the time. However I didn't upgrade to the GH4 because I found the image to be very very very similar to the GH3. Of course, in 4k it looked way more detailed - but it wasn't a huge leap in the overall image. The lowlight on the GH4 was actually worse. Also I feel 10-bit is way better implemented in some cameras than others. For example, the 10-bit in FS7 is significantly better than the FS5's 10-bit. Better codec and more data. For those who have the GH4 and an external recorder, have you found the 10-bit to be a big step up? Does V-log grade nicely from the external recording? If the implementation of 10-bit in the GH5 falls back on the codec and bitrate, it becomes a far less exciting camera. So it's worth knowing how the GH4 performs with it's 10-bit signal to ProRes recording.

I'm much more interested in the 5k version, however great news. Need to see some "skilled" footage though.

Well, looks good for big budget stuff. I know for sure I won't be renting this, as the camera is like a bazooka with all the bells and whistles. It's like the Titanic with the Codex recorder. Meanwhile, there's a Kinefinity Terra around the corner which is a fraction of the cost and is the size of your hand.

If it was available in true 10bit and was a decent bitrate, that would be insane...... But of course, that would depend on the actual image itself, something the spec-shy Canon's get so right.

Thank you. Does this imply the 4k60fps video of the GH5 can only be recorded in bursts... or is this just an extra stills feature alongside a normal 4k 60fps video mode?

Any idea what this means form my previous post: The 43 rumours website now says the 60fps feature is now "4k photo stills 60fps", what is this exactly? Forgive me - I'm 98% a video man and 2% stills.

Panasonic made huge waves with the GH4 - and with cameras going for cheap with 4k recording, it would make sense for Panasonic to include something headline grabbing such as internal 10 bit. (I think 6k video won' happen). The 43 rumours website now says the 60fps feature is now "4k photo stills 60fps", what is this exactly? I'd buy it if 4k60p video was a feature - even if it was external.

My No.1 rental house said it's mainly the 4k50fps (frame rate in UK) with the slow motion as an added bonus, as to why the FS7 is by far the hottest rental camera on their books. (then the slow motion and speed booster option). The issue we have is that Canon absolutely have the better image quality, but when a client asks you to slow that beautiful image down, you can't. The image on the FS7 is more than good enough as a compromise for higher frame rates. Slo-mo is a highly requested feature in my market area - and barely anybody in my market area shoots Canon because of this. That said, I rented the original C300 for an event job as it was the ideal choice. Simple, reliable and great colour out the box.

A lot of us say"it's only about the image", and that's fine. It would just be a lot more useful if we could slow that wonderful image down aswell. They only needed to add 4k/60p and better slow motion. The 1DX II betters the C300 II in this regard. If that was the case, I'd be renting the Canon.

I might be wrong, but I'm sure I saw something on a Facebook group about someone who has found a way of accessing the SSD without Cinelight. I was tired at the time, so can't fully remember. You're right though, the SSD is the biggest issue with the X5R. It's not reliable with Mac's yet they cost a fortune.

Well yes, this information comes from the experience of speaking to the rental guys on a weekly basis. I recently asked for the C300 II for an event job (interviews and highlights) and they said "nobody wants the C300 II as everyone is using the FS7, so we don't have it. You can take the original C300 though." I'm sure this will be very different geographically, however I know for sure the FS7 is the UK's biggest seller and most rented camera of the year. I bet the C300 II is hot cakes in other parts of the world. I feel Canon just missed with the C300 II. If it had 4k 60p and better slow motion like the FS7.... it would have no problem being sold and rented everywhere. Most of the stuff I've seen online (not all of it) from the 1DXII looks like it's wrapped in a reflective sheet of plastic. It's how the standard profiles are managing exposure from shadows to highlights, it's really quite harsh and not appealing to lots of us. I'm still interested in the 1DX II til this day, however it's missing that elusive C-log feature that will correct my biggest reservation. I'm not spending that kind of money on a camera that doesn't have a log mode. Also the crippled HDMI port is very very silly. Do Canon have something against it's users for using an Atomos for a better codec? It's things like this which frustrate me about Canon, I can see why some people get so irritated by their conservatism.

It's about time we saw a reduction in these prices - still too expensive though. I'm enjoying the X5R so far (wouldn't say I love it yet) - it's got me using Resolve a lot more than before.

My regular rental houses have had to sell most of their C300 II stock, because not many people are renting them. In their words, the C300 II is a flop (in the UK). One of them was literally begging me to rent the 1DC, and offered me half price. They've all had to buy a lot more FS7 stock, because the demand is very high. It's also hard to get an FS7 at short notice. The glaring omission from the C300 II is 4k60p and a rubbish 120fps mode. That's the reason why the cheaper FS7 is favoured. Canon really screwed up on that one. Also the omission of basic video features from the 1DC is completely unacceptable and ridiculous. Lovely camera though, like always! If they brought out a 1DC II that had everything the 1DX II does but 10 bit, peaking, zebra, log, XF codec.. and was a bit more money.... I'd buy it today. Right now.

I predict a blockbuster of a camera. I'd love to see a battery grip that unlocks other features (higher fps), unlike the YAGHYAGHYAGHYAGH. I also hope to see an improvement in dynamic range. If this all stacks up, I'll be a customer for sure.

I'm with you on this, in the way Canon make very solid and reliable cameras with a very pleasing image. After using them, they are very hard NOT to like. They work very well at what they do with zero issues. I'm also with you on the "specs don't matter" bit too. I bought the RX10 II based on the specs and after 2 shoots I hated it. I found it awful for video work. The images seemed vastly inferior to my "elderly" GH3. Specs DO matter though when you're running a business, and you need certain features and performance. I had a Canon 60d with terrible 60p in 720, the clients wanted it so I replaced it with a 1080 60p GH3. Other clients wanted slower, so I rented the FS700 a million times. getting a Canon in for the job never entered my mind. Recently, I've rented the C300 for event interviews - just based on the skin tones and reliability. Worked great. I think Canon get in the neck with the internet because everyone loves their product (for what it is) and the image. So for those of us who require more flashy features for clients (like good slo-mo), we can't have a Canon, but we desire it. I do. Something like a 5DC with more video features would be absolutely fantastic. They could take over the small video body market area if they wanted to. But they don't because, they have all these financial plans and market segmentation and such. The upcoming C100 will probably only have 4k as an update, and the XC15 a better lens and DPAF. So all of us guys who require slo-mo, 10bit, IBIS, LOG and all that jazz have to stick with other brands. But we want Canon really. Because, yeah, the image. I think that explains it really.

It would of been great to see a 5D C really take the independent filmmaking scene by storm with: 4k in 8 bit 422 XF codec (less crop). 1080p 120fps (if crop is required for non-line skipped higher quality so be it!) Articulated LCD touchscreen. Peaking, Zebras etc. Canon Log. Less megapixels than the 5D IV version. HDR mode in 4k. and to be a bit more slightly innovative: Optional battery grip which unlocks 10 bit 422 for all shooting modes and 4k/60p to Canon branded external recorder/monitor/clip-on viewfinder on hotshoe. (this is so you can monitor DPAF with the added benefit of high quality). If they made that, it would be an absolute stunner of a video device, worthy of the 5D Mk. II success! Even if it was a couple of grand more, would still be worth it. I'd get it. Today. Possibly 2.

Nice videos, thanks for the share. It's too early for me to comment on the best way to handle raw video with this camera. I'm still experimenting. Your proxy 1080p footage looks really nice and clean - some the best I've seen in that format. I'm curious to know what lens your re using for the X5R? The 15mm? I feel that sometimes my "proxy" files look very smudgy/smoothed out - like a crap skin soften plugin has been badly applied. Not sure if it's just like that, or the calibration is off?

Having 120fps in 720p on a camera released in 2016, thats heavily marketed for video users (aswell as photographers) , and to be relevant for the next 4 years is pitiful. I think the DSLR video dream for Canon fans is pretty much over. Oh well. For those worried about Sony colours - master Slog and get married to DaVinci Resolve.