Ty Harper

This is what I was getting at whenever I've gone on rants about the changes coming to the way we think about storytelling via 'video' and why our convos around cams are discussions about tech that already has an expiry date:

Unlikely that 2024 will be a no gear year for me but it's definitely feeling like I'm coming up on the end of me buying cams period. I just sold my R5 to buy a 2nd R5C and I'll prob get an R7/R6 MKII as a C-cam. But I cannot fathom me needing anything else after that - and the way tech is going it feels like the next big wave will either be iphones as prosumer cams, or not needing cams at all.

Well that's where we disagree philosophically, which is obviously totally fine. But I wouldn't be shooting something or even caring about the image if I wasn't trying to tell a particular story first and foremost.

I think the idea of nailing it in-camera is in and of itself not that big of a deal nowadays - if you have a basic color workflow and most importantly, know how to really nail the story you're trying to tell. That statement isn't meant to dismiss the importance of nailing it in-camera - but to say that imo nailing it in-camera has always been less about hitting a fixed target dead on - and more about a ballpark. And that ballpark is so much easier to hit thanks to the aggregated knowledge base of spaces like this, and of course YouTube. To the point where asking someone with experience for assistance is usually not as prudent as simply typing the question in YouTube's search engine! But that ball park around the target of perfection is also much wider than ever before, thanks to the corrective tools we now have within Resolve, Premiere Pro, Finalcut, etc. Not to mention basic in-the -field tools like a color chart and/or Sekonic C-700 or C-800. I was a deejay for most of my life, and I still pride myself on knowing the basic theories of bar-counting and melody-matching and taking the time to know the unique bar construction of every single song I was gna play, so that when I hit the party and got on the 1200s, my 'in-camera' settings were pretty good. But then Serato came along with other recent mind-blowing advances - and now in 2023, a deejay simply does not need to have/understand those 'in-camera' settings. Is it something deejays like myself lament? 100%!!! But the REAL deejays of those past generations also understand that the actual mission, first and foremost, was always: to tell a great story. So while there are deejays I know and admire, who still love to do 'all-vinyl' parties as a way to exercise/show-off the skills they HAD TO developed in the past, as a means to the ends of telling great stories, again, the REAL ones within that cohort also understand they are doing those parties for the sake of nostalgia, which is also very important and life affirming. All that to say, hopefully when we are in passionate pursuit of getting it right in-camera (as I am myself, to a degree) we aren't losing sight of the more important plot of getting the story right in our minds - which is a whole other skill that still demands that we strive to master it at the highest of levels.

Random test between R5C and FX3 that just popped up in my feed:

Thanks @kyeand I should clarify that it was my bad for seeing all the hype around R5's IBIS vs the R5C's DIS and not taken the time to fully understand exactly what each system did/didn't do. The thing is, when lens IS first came on the scene it was very clear why it was better than no IS at all. And sure IS, IBIS and DIS at their core are all able to make a handheld static video shot feel like it's on a tripod - but where lens IS shines for my use cases is in the way it translates movement above a certain threshold to look natural/organic vs IBIS and DIS. Had I fully grasped that IBIS was never going to give me anything better than DIS when it came to that particular aspect, I would've just bought another R5C and called it a day! But ah well, again totally my bad, tho it's not like the R5 isn't a great hybrid camera in its own right.

Ah ok, now I get your perspective/needs much better. I'm on the opposite spectrum and only have EF lenses with IS.

Honestly it was that thinking that had me pick up an R5 as a second cam for its IBIS and I gotta say, I wish I had just bought another R5C. Whatever it is that IBIS does 'better' than Digital IS is lost on me. Nowadays I don't use IBIS or Digital IS and mostly shoot with IS lens on both the R5 and R5C.

I keep hearing about these matching issues, either between R5C and R5 or R5C and C70. I found that a WB and good ole color checker brings these cameras damn near close. So unless people are looking for an exact match, I honestly don't get the concerns. Also 8K RAW might be unwieldly but from what I know, 5.6K RAW on the R5C has only slightly bigger file sizes than its 4K XFAVC 422 files. Yes there's a crop, but that's where the .071x speedbooster can be a helpful. Josh Sattin just did a whole episode about this but it's been a known option for a minute altho prob only for people using EF-L glass: Battery issues aside (although I don't know why we would expect a cam with a dslr styled body to give more than the 1+ hours/2+ with a grip that it currently does with its updated power saving mode) I cannot stress how versatile the R5C is in practical use. It is likely the most versatile all-in-one cam Canon has ever released. Also I think some will look back at our obsession with DR and other metrics in this moment (when pretty much every cam in the prosumer range offers a fantastic image and specs for the price point) and shake their head.

Exactly and exactly - it's why people simply are not grasping how disruptive AI will likely be to the art and entertainment economy. They keep thinking about it in outdated terms and not something that simply needs a critical mass of data to master a thing and not require more human input. To be clear, AI will likely be disruptive to all human driven economies but A&E is the obvious place human creativity has traditionally intersected with commerce.

Well the most obvious reasons it can are: (i) because AI has almost 100 years of data (i.e. film history) to draw from, and (ii) because it likely has (or eventually will have) access to data mined from all these programs we're using right now to make our art. I mean why else do you think some of these apps with these fantastic tools are being offered for us to use for free? And remember AI doesn't need the entirety of that data - it just needs a large enough sample size to crack the code. The mistake we continue to make as humans is thinking that the things that make us complex cannot be reduced to 1s and 0s. But it totally can, if given enough data. And again, none of this will ever end our human need to create or be creative. It will however make it harder for us to monetize our creativity in economically profitable and sustainable ways.

For now I think there will absolutely be a great and lucrative (albeit temporary) lane for AI-linked filmmaking that is indeed an art for "more careful consideration". What will (and is) changing are the fixed jobs that humans in the film world traditionally occupied (like video editors, DOPs, audio engineer, etc). Many of those traditional jobs will/are becoming obsolete - and in their place you will just have creators who use tools (including AI based ones) to do alot of the stuff that was once left to colleagues who specialized in mastering specific said tools. And eventually, yes, AI will likely be for "bland content" or said differenty, mass consumption. But what that really means is that there will be less and less opportunities for human filmmakers to monetize their art for personal longterm economic gain. This will likely also signal the end of producers, showrunners screenwriters, etc as we know it (i.e. any job that essentially revolves around mining data to create the building blocks of storytelling and filmmaking). Maybe I'm wrong, but from my real-time vantage point working in an adjacent/intersectional field of arts & entertainment - the writing seems to be on the wall.

Honestly I'd rather hear people discuss the pros/cons etc of 24p vs 60p vs others than the hyberbolic end of days talk. What kinds of storytelling, visual messaging, etc, benefit from these combinations of frame rates, lightings, resolutions, formats, color grades, audio soundscapes - y'know?

Happy R5C/R5 owner/user/hobbyist here. I love the R5C's form factor and having the C-line video menu, along with the ridiculous amount of pro features squeezed into that dslr-styled body. I also love being able to build it out or barebones it depending on what I'm shooting. But then audio-wise the Zoom F3 allowed me to put down my bulky Zoom F4 and now I have a 2 camera run n gun setup that all fits in a Nanuk 935/Pelican 1550. And now that the battery power issue has been addressed with the R5C (I get over a couple hours easy with the grip) - and the overheating issue has been addressed with the R5, I've got two capable cams that are future proofed with 8K (yes, I have the Ninja V+ paired with the R5). Finally, the RF-EF adapter means you really don't need to go to the RF lenses. There are so many amazingly priced used EF-L lenses at your disposal. But also the VND drop-in filter is fantastic imo and never leaves my camera bodies! Coming from using C300/C100s professionally as a producer - and then owning the 5D MKII/III, 1DC as a hobbyist, I honestly feel like the R5C is my final destination cam purchase. The only thing I might do is sell the R5/Ninja V+ and pick up a second R5C body... maaaybe get a C70 when the prices get to the $2K USD range, just so I have an all-in-one C100 type cam. Either way good luck with whatever you purchase!

FYI - Nexto was acquired by TVLogic and this is their new backup storage product: https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/09/28/clouzen-tainer-all-in-one-portable-backup-storage-review/

I think IQ-wise the RF versions clearly spank their EF ancestors (as they should) - that said, I think we've just gotten to a place where the overall quality we're getting out of our equipment (particularly from the cam end alone) is so good that some shooters (maybe more than ever) are either satisfied with the older lenses they already have - and/or are even open to revisiting older ones. I never thought I'd see the day I was seeing shooters singing the praises of the OG EF 24-105mm f/4 IS, or that I'd have sold my OG EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS to buy an EF 70-200mm f/4 IS - but here we are!

I was referring to the EF 70-200mm f/4. The EF 70-2000 f/2.8 was obviously never an option for gimbal use.

For sure! I should've said "more compelling, for some" bcuz alot of people refer the fixed length style. Especially run n gun shooters using a gimbal (which is another reason many have stuck with their EF versions). Personally I prefer fixed - but nowadays I also value an L-level zoom that is pocket-sized (i.e narrow/longer vs thicker/shorter). Also the RF versions end up being similar in length to the EF f/4 version once they're extended. All that to say, I think Canon missed a great opp to make that "narrow-enough to fit in your pocket" style, a continuing part of the appeal of the f4 versions of their 70-200mm L's.

Ah ok - and from what we're learning the MKII version will zoom internally making it even more compelling! That said there's something about being able to easily fit the EF 70-200mm f4 IS in your pocket (bcuz it's so thin) that I love.

You're probably right - but coming from an EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS (MKI, II & III) the EF 70-200 f4 IS is still a massive difference on all fronts (I had no idea it was THAT much smaller than the f/2.8 models) - especially price-wise (picked mine up for like $500 CAD). Can the RF f/4 version fit in your pocket the way the EF f/4 version can?

Feel the same way - but for some reason lots of R5C and C70 shooters swear by it as their go-to workhorse lens.

Totally! The ND adapter never leaves my R5C and the extra stop you get from the .071x adapter really comes in handy (you usually need to put the R5C in 35mm crop mode to use it tho). Also thanks to those adapters, lenses like the OG EF 24-105mm f/4 IS and the 17-55mm EF-S IS have become more popular than ever. Especially with the C70. Personally I just discovered the OG EF 70-200 f4 IS - god it is so f*ckin' light with great IQ. So I ended up selling my OG EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Point is, thanks to these adapters - alot of R5C and C70 users in the groups I'm in are rediscovering the EF-L line in a big way.

Funny enough, it's Canon's decision to offer the EF-RF adapters - specifically the ND filter and .071x ones - that has given the EF lens a massive leg up. Currently I have the RF 35mm f/1.8 and I see myself buying the RF 24-70 f/2.8 next - but aside from that I am a happy camper with my EF-L lenses on my R5C and R5. I've also sold my 1DC and 5D MKIII so it's not like I'm ever going back to the EF mount - it's just that Canon has given us a nice lane for RF-EF users, and I love it!

Can't wait to hear what @IronFilm thinks about this!

Except what can happen is that the people working in the realms that are drying up, will be forced into finding work elsewhere - and within that pool will undoubtably be people who are (i) totally qualified to work in these other realms - it's just that they chose to apply the same core skill sets in a different realm within the same industry (ii) people overly qualified to work in these other realms of the same industry who really need the $$. These people will very likely disrupt said realm, intensify the competition, drive fees downward, and eventually squeeze some people out of said realm. Point is, I can totally see cinematographers, tv/film producers, and most definitely preditors (producer/editors) who might've been working for decades in stable areas of the industry (even unionized gigs) - making a fairly quick/easy transition to the wedding world. So while I think you're probably right about that 10 year window - I think every realm needs to be prepared for turbulence - and not just from AI itself, from similarly skilled colleagues looking for work within the next 10 years.