independent

GG bros. I'm not replacing my R5, but I am def picking this up as a personal A camera (goodbye c300ii). This comes in half the price of comparable cinema cams with more features. Full frame (w/ adapter), DPAF, auto ISO, dual gain sensor, tiny size and associated grip package, cheaper media and associated storage/editing costs It also knocks off all the hybrid cams: Internal NDs, full featured audio (xls for real shotgun mics, physical controls buttons), all the monitoring tools, no overheating, handle + mic adapter for no bullshit cage.... The only thing missing is IBIS, which is quite frankly overstated compared to regular optical stabilization. I'm just curious about the dynamic range v. the c300iii...I thought the dynamic range reached 16 stops only in raw.

I let metabones know when the Speedbooster didn’t work on the R5. Well it worked except for the autofocus. Anyways, that was very early in the shipments and MB didn’t have access to the new camera. I’m guessing a firmware update would be likely.

Really? Such as? None of my EF lenses can be corrected in-camera on either the R5 or R. The option is simply grayed out. Also, the R5 manual states that RF lenses are corrected during movie shooting. No comment about EF, but Canon USA confirms the R doesn’t support EF lens correction.: Here is the info from the R5 Manual:

The last list. The only EF (full frame) nano usm is the 70-300. There are a few EF STM lenses but not all are that quiet. The 40mm pancake I have is not.

RF 15-35mm is quiet, fast, stabilized unicorn lens. All you really need for narrative film in most cases. RF 50mm 1.2 is possibly the best image I have ever seen from a lens, better than any cinema lenses I have used. But it’s also the full frame and autofocus that probably play a major factor in that. But it is regular USM so it’s about as noisy as the regular EF lenses. If you don’t need on camera sound, and watch distortion, I’d go with the Drop in Variable ND with way cheaper EF lenses. I think the EF 24mm 1.4 is stellar.

They work well (AF and IS), except they aren’t corrected for distortion in-camera and are noisy (USM). If you’re looking to use an on-camera mic, go with RF Nano USM lenses.

Overheating warnings without shooting anything is a sloppy implementation or a bug. It’s indefensible, and I think this will definitely have to be addressed in the firmware update. As far as any other changes, I can deal with the continuous recording limits to protect the cinema lines, but the recovery times need to be greatly shortened. How about this for a compromise? Canon revamps the algorithm to better reflect real use case of their R5 target demographic: content creators and indie filmmakers. For most, the average duration of takes ranges from seconds to only a few minutes, so Canon should offer a more usable ratio of shooting time to recovery time... Unlimited 30 second takes? 30 second cool down for 2 min takes? 1 minute cool down for 5 minute takes? 5 min cool down for 10 min takes?

So a timer to prevent overheating, but a temperature monitor(s) that controls restore times....hm

Yeah, it seems the temp controls are at least partially indirect, using a timer to prevent overheating. But somebody did restore their recording times by putting their camera in the freezer for 25 min.

Perhaps, but then the 8K raw should have longer recording times than the 8k H265 or 4K HQ. So there is some artificial (arbitrary?) limitation or there’s something else going on. The only other plausible explanation is that bitrate, the amount of data being written, creates the overheating, real or preventative or artificial, which explains why the 8K Raw and 4K120 have the shortest recording times. So maybe it does come down to the cards after all, directly or indirectly. And the HDMI out to the NINJA aligns with that.

So maybe the HDMI out is somehow bypassing the artificial limits, or maybe it's bypassing the temp controls and damaging the camera. I don't know. Regardless, and more importantly, the 8K Raw is the best I've ever seen. Point blank. Detail and color are next level - I think it's finally approaching what the eyes can resolve. Immersive, transparent, 3D, microcontrast, etc. 8K raw footage is truly a compilation of high res stills at 24 FPS. Can pull stills and send them to editorial—game changing in the way RED advertised w/ EPIC. But RED didn't have autofocus - this does. Every. Frame. Sharp. I was impressed by the BMPCC6K - the increase in resolution made a huge difference from 4k, and this R5 8K RAW is just as big of a jump. It's kind of staggering. You don't know what you've been missing unless you actually scrub through this footage, which you can in Resolve (good luck w/ the h265). Bottom line, the 4kHQ 24 seems viable w/ the Ninja (unless it destroys the camera). But who cares, you can get high quality 4K anywhere. More importantly 8K Raw is 100% the bees knees. That's the only news I care about from this point forward. Andrew, make it happen.

Just got my hands on a R5, tested w/ Ninja V. No cards, LCD display was off, I had mine closed to the body - recorded continuously at 4KHQ w/ autofocus (rf 50 1.2) and IS on. Recorded continuously until 1.5 hours - when the battery (regular LP-E6) died. No overheating temp indicator, but the body was HOT. Hotter than any body I've felt, and I've felt a lot of bodies.

@ 10:46, side-by-side shots show the difference between external 4K HQ and 4K non-HQ modes. Noticeable difference in detail.

Not to mention the transcoding time or computer costs of working with the h265 footage. Not a minor issue. Ninja and video assist provide edit-friendly codecs.

The Blackmagic Video Assist 12G is very intriguing. 1) greatly mitigates or resolves overheating 2) cheap SSD and external media recording 3) XLR inputs and quality audio recording 4) professional monitor 5) potential BRAW support (currently supports C300ii and Panasonic EVA1) The rumors about Canon considering BRAW would make a lot of sense here. I'd take this over the Atomos Ninja.

It’s not anybody’s job to help you. Some posters are giving you opinions. Some are giving you facts. Help yourself.

EIN (Equivalent Input Noise): Fostex FR-2LE: -129 dBu Sound Devices MixPre3: -128 dBu Tascam DR60/70D: -120 dBu What's that old saying? Be wary of the internet self-styled sound man who's trying to sell you an easyrig.

Try a fostex fr2le. Very low noise and dirt cheap secondhand. Built like a consumer radio from the 80s, but still kicking.

Really, at this point they're all fairly similar and pretty good.

Filmmaking is a team sport. It’s frustrating for golfers.

Like directing The Crow and Dark City? The man is a legend

Probably the sigma 18-35 gets the most use. If you stay within that focus range, they’re very practical. As close to cinema lenses you can get on a budget. We also have canon ef-s 10-18mm and 18-135mm lenses, which are all cheap, lightweight, and mostly good. Some distortion at either end, slow, and not as great if you need to pull focus. We generally don’t with these. We have 3 sets of every lens above for our 3 pocket 6Ks. Less often, we use Canon L zooms: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200. Canon L primes 24, 35, 50, 85, 100. We’d probably use them more if we could, but we have only one of each lens, earmarked mostly for our Canon c300ii, which we sold after the C300iii announcement. On rare occasion, we’ll use the Sigma 20 1.4. I think that’s mostly it for the 6K. We did rent the Zeiss Compact Primes, which were phenomenal in look and use. Definitely made focusing easier and more accurate to get all that 6K resolution.

Brilliant marketing ploy from the Australians

I'm curious about any of these projected calculations of rolling shutter, because I've understood it as a spec that's released by the company or measured by various individuals and websites. Is there some formula for rolling shutter I'm missing? Speaking of logic, if the R5 and 1DX III share the same ADC (via androidlad above), shouldn't the R5's rolling shutter should be worse than the 1DX III's? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the quoted readout numbers are 30ms for 5.5K (1DXiii) versus 25ms for 8K (R5). All things being equal, isn't that illogical? I can accept the notion that there are more variables to account for (e.g., the R5 has a different, more advanced sensor and processor than any existing camera, including the 1DX iii), and that people are just projecting and extrapolating. I just want to know how people are coming up with numbers.

^Nevermind, didn't see the 60fps. The real question is why rolling shutter is so awful at 24/25fps.