herein2020

The PetaPixel article is pretty funny actually and the comments are even better. So anyone who calls Canon out for their BS is now a Canon hater? I would think it is safe to say most of the forum members here are the least fanboyish of any forum I've been a member of. Members here just use whatever works and if that is Canon then they use Canon, or Sony, or Fuji, or Panasonic, or....etc. I know that I personally love the idea of Canon but just keep getting disappointed which is why I have stuck with my 5DIV and which is why I had to go to Panasonic to get what I needed for video. The PP article was quite inaccurate as well, the EOSHD article was nothing more than conjecture with the words "RUMOR", "If this rumor WERE TRUE" etc. written all over it. I think this is good news though, at least we know now that PP editors read EOSHD forums and maybe just maybe Canon does too. So Canon..if you are listening, add an XLR module, dual slot video recording, and a 4:2:0 codec to your R3 and I would possibly replace my whole current kit with Canon gear.

I would be concerned as well if Sony really was the only high volume high end sensor maker around. Look at Panasonic...strictly conjecture but I love a good conspiracy theory and I truly think Sony has told Panasonic they can only use their sensors if they stick with DFD.....no other explanation makes sense. So imagine Sony waiting a few yrs until all of Canon's sensor production capabilities are gone then they slap some onerous restriction on Canon's sensors. Of course every bit of this is wildly speculative and as outsiders we truly have no clue what is really going on but its still fun to speculate.

There is a gap in NVIDIA's GPU acceleration specifically when it comes to H.265 and H.264 and 4:2:2 encoding. If you look closely at their supported GPU acceleration matrix, 4:2:2 is not listed anywhere; which is strange because 4:4:4 is supported. I believe the AMD story is the same. https://developer.nvidia.com/video-encode-and-decode-gpu-support-matrix-new What is weird is that even the RTX3080 is not listed as supporting GPU acceleration for 4:2:2 yet @ntblowz is able to edit the footage. I have to guess that the RTX3080 is somehow decoding/encoding the footage although the official support chart shows it does not support this. I am tired of upgrading video cards every few years so I'm holding out until the RTX3080TI comes out or a card from NVIDIA is released that shows 4:2:2 support before I upgrade from my RTX2080TI. All evidence states the M1 Mac can edit the footage flawlessly; personally I am in the Intel and Davinci Resolve camp so I'm still waiting on official video card support. Also, I am curious to see what Intel's or NVIDIA's response to the M1 will be. I don't doubt they are both scrambling behind the scenes to figure out how Apple did it and how to come out with their own versions.

For me the biggest problem with proxies is time. I am already competing in a race to the bottom to get customers as it is, they are not going to pay me extra to spend extra time creating proxies or editing impossible to edit footage. I know you can just start the process and walk away then return when the proxies are completed, but that is still taking up your workstation's time, affecting your power bill, etc...all for what? 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0 the difference which is imperceptible to the customer? Now if you work in the space where customers have budgets that include the additional costs associated with 4:2:2 footage and can recoup that time financially then that's great; but its not the reality of my typical customer. If I had that type of customer on a regular basis I'd probably be shooting with C70's as well or C300's.

I think everything comes down to cost and time. If it would have cost them more to make their own or take so long that they could not meet their production timelines then it would make sense to outsource. We still don't even know if it is true and to what extent Sony is even involved. Maybe Sony can more efficiently mass produce the sensor that Canon designed or maybe there was a patent problem that could be overcome by partnering with Sony...who knows. Now if Panasonic would just partner with Canon to implement DPAF...... At the end of the day it's all about money; stranger partnerships have been formed between supposedly arch enemy companies in the past when it made financial sense.

The Panasonics use Sony sensors so even if this is true its not the end of the world. I would still take the S5 over any Sony camera any day so if the R3 has a Sony sensor it would make for interesting table talk but the image quality should still be able to stand on its own.

The question though is if you can record to the internal card and output a clean HDMI signal to an external recorder at the same time. The R6 does not let you do this.

I am not sure...the R6 deliberately disables this capability. If you try to record clean HDMI out it disables internal recording. But if the R5 does allow this and you did configure it that way...it would defeat the purpose of using the recorder to reduce overheating and the internal card would not be ProRes not to mention your recording time would also now be limited to the internal storage card's size vs the larger SSD in the recorder. To me true dual video recording is no loss in functionality and the exact same codec used in both copies. But yes, if you are as paranoid as I am about having a copy of the footage, and if the R5 allowed this, then that would be a way to get video storage redundancy. Maybe an R5 owner can chime in and say if you are even allowed to do this with the R5.

The S5 really shines here.....at 4000ISO with a 50mm F1.4 I've been able to shoot clean footage using nothing but practicals. Throw in a hotshoe mounted Falcon Eyes F7 and I can even shoot F4.5 with clean blacks.

Oh I agree 100%, use whatever works for you; but being forced to buy/use a recorder to overcome a camera's shortcomings is a pretty poor excuse of a camera if you ask me. Now using a recorder just because that's the way you rig is one thing @Andrew Reid listed all of the same reasons that I have for not using a recorder. One additional downside that Andrew did not mention is you still only get a single storage device for your footage. If that SSD gets corrupted or fails then you lose all of your footage. With my cameras, they all provide dual slot video recording so I also get redundancy.

Actually that is the only thing that makes sense to me with the R6....they used the 1DX3 sensor. Which sounds fantastic...get the sensor from a $6KUSD camera and only pay $2500USD for it....20MP even makes sense if the R6 turned out to be a lowlight beast. But of course we all know how that actually turned out. This is my second biggest pet peeve, with my first being no XLR adapter options. But yes....you are correct, the last thing Canon wants users to do is use their mirrorless camera line for professional video work. They want you to buy the R6 as a B photography camera, the R5 as an A photography camera, a C70 as a B video camera, and a C300III as an A video camera. If you do not buy this exact setup Canon wants to be certain that you will be missing out on some many desirable features during your shoot. Why is this your answer to everything? If you are running and gunning as a OMB and you want the lightest simplest most efficient kit possible a recorder is a horrible idea and it is completely ridiculous to have to buy one to overcome deliberate shortcomings in a camera. And how many times have you tried to rig a recorder and a camera on a one handed gimbal?

It does sound pretty interesting, they even mentioned the hotshoe would now support additional accessories which may mean an XLR module somewhere in its future. My 5DIV has never had it's battery grip removed so I can see the R3 possibly finally replacing my 5DIV for photography since with the battery grip I would imagine they are about the same size; they are clearly not trying to oversell its video capabilities (unlike what they did with the R5) and I am clearly not trying to get too excited about them either now that Canon's strategy makes it obvious that they will do everything in their cripple hammer power to prevent it from stepping on the C70's toes.

No way! I remember when Apple made the news over filing a lawsuit against RED but it was vague and didn't have many details at the time. Had no idea they already lost the case and it was over RAW....talk about stifling innovation....its such a BS patent, but anyways, I digress. It's pretty clear Canon has some kind of secret deal with RED but their CRAW Light data rates are still too high for me, maybe the R3 will offer something more compressed for 4K.

According to CR, the R3 will get internal RAW and CLOG3 as well. I still don't understand why no one has taken RED to court and sued them out of business for that patent. I've read a few legal opinions that say it is unenforceable but no one feels like paying for the legal battle.

I have always felt the EOS R was nothing more than a stopgap to stop the Sony bleeding while Canon prepared their mature line of cripple hammered EOS mirrorless cameras. With the EOS R they shoved everything they could into the body and tied it all to the 5DIV sensor and threw it out the door to hope it sticks. The EOS R then gave them enough breathing room to really sit back and figure out how they could screw the consumer at each price point and I think they executed that plan perfectly. The big selling point that piqued my interest was the IDX3 sensor in a far cheaper body....but Canon made sure that not only did you not get your money's worth...you got less value than the EOS R that they were forced to make due to Sony. But hats off to Canon because not only did their strategy work, they ended up with nearly record breaking revenues at a time when everyone else was barely making it.

@Video Hummus @wolf33d The R5 just wasn't a consideration for me; mainly because even with the price it still had no XLR input options (the S5 offers an XLR module) no dual slot video recording (I might have been able to come to live without it if everything else was perfect), and I don't know where you live but I live in FL USA. A typical summer day is 90F+ with humidity at 100%.....its been so hot here even my C200 with the fan on showed an overheat warning a few times. I simply could not believe the R5 would not overheat here. In my testing of the R6....outdoors taking a few stills and a few video clips on a 80F degree 100% humidity day and the timer hovered around 2min. All of that combined with the fact I would have probably had to upgrade from my 2080Ti video card to a 3080 with no guarantee of smooth playback made the R5 a non starter for me.

As others have said...this is completely unrealistic. I don't own a recorder, I don't want to have to fiddle with a recorder while on set, its a real PITA to even use an external monitor on a gimbal let alone a recorder and why should I have to buy something like that just to overcome inherent camera shortcomings? My gear is as simple and streamlined as possible; I am typically covering large events with both photography and video as a OMB...no way is a recorder feasible to me. In the end I found nearly the perfect camera for me which was the Panasonic S5 with the only missing feature being useable AF.

I honestly never even bothered editing the footage that I shot with the R6. I shot a dance group and the footage was so impossible to work with that I never put together anything complete with the footage so I did not get a chance to see if the 4K was even worth the headache. I don't see how R5 owners are working with the footage. Hopefully you can get a refund; I got lucky and the local retailer took it back without me even having to pay a restocking fee; thanks to their generous return policy I actually ordered my S5 from them specifically because they let me return the R6 penalty free.

One more reason why I am so glad I got rid of the R6 within 4 days of getting it and got a full refund in the process. I will never for the life of me figure out who makes a camera with an electronic level that TURNS OFF when you press record or why Canon REFUSES to add dual slot video recording to ANY of their non cinema cameras. Canon has been nothing but one big disappointment for me since the 5DIV. I will admit, the R3 intrigues me, but I already know it will find a way to be yet another disappointment. I am pretty sure it will still not have dual slot video recording, no XLR module, no WFM, no 4:2:0 10 bit options, etc. etc......everything I already have in my S5. But of course it will have amazing AF and be great for photography. In case anyone missed it, here was my rant review of the R6: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/48628-canon-eos-r5r6-user-experience/?do=findComment&comment=384985

I love my current S5 with EF adapter setup, I interchange my lenses with my 5DIV for photography all the time. As much as I love Panny, I just don't see any scenario that would get me to buy another body at this point even though I still have my GH5 and MFT glass. The glass is really my biggest challenge as well. Right now I have every lens I need for every situation I could encounter for either video or photography 24-70, 24-105, 70-200, 50mm prime, 16-35, and 24mm prime; they are all EF mount FF, nothing out there is worth the glass switch for me; not even the R series; I will admit I am interested to see what the R1 has to offer, but after the R5 debacle I'm pretty satisfied with my 5DIV for photography and no AF for video.

Don't waver....unless it has something other than DFD AF...😄

Oh I get why they don't have it, but for the run and gun work I do; those missing features eliminate them from any serious consideration for me; which is kind of funny since I have no AF now with the S5 and EF adapter but IBIS and lowlight performance is incredible. I think if BM ever made a more prosumer version with a more rugged body, better form factor, and a few tools for us run and gun shooters like IBIS and AF, they would sell a ton of them.

I agree, but at least for me there's still one problem....I got mostly manual lenses because I couldn't use the AF in the GH5, I imagine there are plenty of other users like that that would still have to go back and buy the AF versions after spending $2K+ on the body. I'm not saying the GH6 wouldn't be great especially if they fix the AF, I just don't think there would be enough die hard MFT shooters to justify the razor thin margins Panasonic would have to sell it at or if they would ever get back their R&D costs. @bjohn I 100% agree MFT has plenty of great benefits, and I was all in on the MFT and GH5 just 2yrs ago...if the GH6 had come out with all of these features instead of the S5 I would still be using all MFT equipment. My only point is; a piece of equipment can be the best thing ever made...but if the company selling it can't make a profit off of it either they won't make it at all or it won't last long and that's how I feel about the GH6. Lets not even mention the fact it is DOA if it ships with DFD AF.

IMO it just needs one thing.....PDAF. But on a serious note, everything you just listed is also already in the S5 except 4K120 and good AF all for less than $2K USD. I just don't see how a GH6 makes any sense. If Sigma would get CAF working with their L-mount to EF mount adapter the S5 would finally be perfect for me. Also, I saw some upscaled 1080P at 120FPS mixed in with 4K footage and it actually looked pretty incredible, so there is a way to get 120FPS on a 4K timeline with the S5. So I say all of that to say I just don't see how they could possibly pull off a GH6 since it would have to beat the GH5, GH5S, and the S5 in every way including price.

Every time I see a BM Pocket camera I just shake my head and click Next. I know it shouldn't be that way, I love Davinci Resolve......but their camera form factor is pretty horrendous. They also seem to have no AF, not great in low light (this may have improved though), and no IBIS. For me a BM camera has never even been a consideration to date.