Canon EOS RP specs leaked, features 26MP sensor and 4K video

[thebrothersthre3]

TBH the lenses are kind of holding me back from going Canon. One of the big advantages of switching to Canon for me would be lens selection. But if older lenses cripple the auto focus that kind of kills it. 

[DBounce]

58 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

TBH the lenses are kind of holding me back from going Canon. One of the big advantages of switching to Canon for me would be lens selection. But if older lenses cripple the auto focus that kind of kills it. 

Older lenses do not "cripple" the AF... where did you hear that? From my experience the AF is little different than on a native body.

[anonim]

5 hours ago, DBounce said:

My conclusion: Cinema is art... and art is not a technical exercise. While the others are without doubt better spec wise, that means little if they fail to produce an image that you love.

I’m positive that if you search around you can find some awful EOS R footage. But I can tell you right now... that’s operator error... not the camera. In the right hands this camera can produce impressive imagery.

Please share or point to some of that cinema is art Eos R imagery!

[Video Hummus]

5 hours ago, DBounce said:

Within the limitations is where you need to work... not just with the R... with all cameras. I use 4K all the time on the R. Yes there’s a crop... that’s been covered to death. But the image it produces is quite good. IMO, more filmic/cinematic than both Sony and Nikon. 

Side-by-side, comparing to the Z6, I can tell you that the Nikon’s is the more detailed image. The Sony produces a similarly detailed image. The problem is, for me at least, neither of these images feels very cinematic. They feel like video. Don’t get me wrong, they are certainly technically superior; and in low-light both handily outperform the Canon. But here in lies the problem. Regardless of technical superiority, the Canon just looks better. It looks organic. It moves better. And while the Canon cannot hope to compete at nose bleed ISOs, it works well up to 6400 or so, with noise looking more like film grain than the horrible confetti we are all too use to seeing.

Now here is the problem... while you can certainly sharpen the Canon image, there is no method I am aware of that can recreate the organic qualities that the Canon produces. I spent about two months comparing footage from these cameras. Trying to match to my C200 which is of course pretty flexible in post. During the course of this testing I tried numerous techniques, in an attempt to replicate the organic look that the EOS R could produce. I added filters to the lenses. Tried vintage glass. Used post processing... nothing... and I mean nothing could convincingly reproduce the filmic/organic feel of the Canon. Finally, frustrated and frankly, disappointed I opted to switch to the EOS R and part with the other “superior” cameras.

My conclusion: Cinema is art... and art is not a technical exercise. While the others are without doubt better spec wise, that means little if they fail to produce an image that you love.

I’m positive that if you search around you can find some awful EOS R footage. But I can tell you right now... that’s operator error... not the camera. In the right hands this camera can produce impressive imagery.

I respect your opinion and experience here. Much like with cars, it can go fast but still be an ugly car at the end of the day. The classics always have something special about them. I guess I just don't think I value that canon "special sauce" as much as you do for the prices they want for it. I think companies like Fuji and Panasonic are creeping up in this area with competitive products. I also think the "special sauce" is a decade or more of visual bias caused by watching A LOT of media shot on Canon cinema cameras.

At the end of the day I think we are all constantly seeking confirmation that we have the best tool because we spent our hard earned money on it. Especially if we spent a lot and feel threatened by newer gear. I just prefer not to feed the canon segmentation machine.

[Django]

$1300 for a FF stills & Super35 4K video cam with CLog & DPAF sounds like a pretty sweet deal if true.

That totally undercuts the FF competition, and even XT3 on price alone.

Seems very unlike Canon to me, but maybe EOS R / RF lenses aren’t selling enough and with their recent expectation of the market shrinking substantially they’ve decided to get super aggressive in attempt to get max people on board their new system ? 

 

[Video Hummus]

3 minutes ago, Django said:

$1300 for a FF stills & Super35 4K video cam with CLog & DPAF sounds like a pretty sweet deal if true.

That totally undercuts the FF competition, and even XT3 on price alone.

Seems very unlike Canon to me, but maybe EOS R / RF lenses aren’t selling enough and with their recent expectation of the market shrinking substantially they’ve decided to get super aggressive in attempt to get max people on board their new system ? 

 

Yes, as long as DPAF isn't crippled in some silly (canon) way and the TERRIBLE EOS R rolling shutter is improved, then yes it will be a good camera.

[Django]

Just saw the new RF lenses.. expensive but impressive, especially these 3:

RF 15-35mm F2.8 IS (finally a wide angle zoom with IS)

then look at this bad boy:

RF 70-200 F2.8 IS 

RF85mm F1.2 

 

So basically state of the art top notch pro lenses & a very affordable body entry to the system. Kinda makes sense.

This makes me think we’ll be seeing the pro RX body & RF cine cam sooner than later too..

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

Yes, as long as DPAF isn't crippled in some silly (canon) way and the TERRIBLE EOS R rolling shutter is improved, then yes it will be a good camera.

?oh noooos not the rolling shutter! Really, how many people actually have a problem with rolling shutter ruining their shots in real world usage? Do you seriously film wip pans exclusively?

 

[ntblowz]

Wonder if it is the mystical Sony A5 that the Sony fanboys have been dreaming about, A7 without EVF,  hence it is possible to have 400g while still on FF if there is no EVF.

 

If it s priced $1300 I probably get one, and that 70-200mm 2.8 seems so much smaller than any competitor out there.

[ade towell]

I had a play with a friends EOS-r and the RS is bad in 4k, and I could see it just from normal handheld no need for whip pans as you keep on saying - reminded me of the a6300 I used to have, am sensitive to RS and I'm not alone. No need to defend what is an obvious drawback with the EOS-r. I find that hard to stomach on a £2300 camera - if this new cheaper camera is $1300 with clog and less of a crop then I may be willing to put up with the issue

[Video Hummus]

48 minutes ago, DBounce said:

?oh noooos not the rolling shutter! Really, how many people actually have a problem with rolling shutter ruining their shots in real world usage? Do you seriously film wip pans exclusively?

 

Nice. No mention if he was filming in 4K or 1080p. 4K is much worse.

Have a vlogger use it (it’s got a flip screen right perfectly made for it) have them film in 4K.  Whoops it’s got a 1.7x crop that even at 16-35mm will feel close. Have them walk around filming in 4K and you will feel like you are on acid in some whackey fun house mirror room every time they swing the camera to show you something.

Take a nice ride on a train, a car, or a bus if you prefer. Film out the window in 4K. Doesn’t matter?

Filming some birds in 4K. You track them as you pan with their flight. Enjoy the jello telephone polls, lamp posts, and trees.

It matters.

 

 

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

Nice. No mention if he was filming in 4K or 1080p. 4K is much worse.

Have a vlogger use it (it’s got a flip screen right perfectly made for it) have them film in 4K.  Whoops it’s got a 1.7x crop that even at 16-35mm will feel close. Have them walk around filming in 4K and you will feel like you are on acid in some whackey fun house mirror room every time they swing the camera to show you something.

Take a nice ride on a train, a car, or a bus if you prefer. Film out the window in 4K. Doesn’t matter?

Filming some birds in 4K. You track them as you pan with their flight. Enjoy the jello telephone polls, lamp posts, and trees.

It matters.

 

 

Yes, no mention... unless you have the presence of mind to actually bother to read the comments, where a viewer asked the question... "Were these shots in HD or 4k?" and the person who created the video answered, saying, "4K". 

But go ahead and live in that world where the rolling shutter on this camera is sooooo bad that it will ruin all shots that involve any movement. And as for your suggestions... done that... guess what... NOT AN ISSUE. For the record... IBIS helps with micro jitters, but if you plan to walk around you would be better served with a gimbal.

[Towd]

Have fun shooting something in this style on a camera with a lot of rolling shutter:

In my opinion it is one of the most creatively limiting artifacts in low budget cameras.  Just about everything else can be worked around from limited dynamic range, to depth of field, to iffy "color science".  But when something forces you to shoot in a certain style, it's very limiting creatively. 

It also can't really be fixed in post, and it's hell on VFX as well.  There is a reason pro cinema cameras all have extremely low rolling shutter.

[thebrothersthre3]

2 minutes ago, Towd said:

Have fun shooting something in this style on a camera with a lot of rolling shutter:

In my opinion it is one of the most creatively limiting artifacts in low budget cameras.  Just about everything else can be worked around from limited dynamic range, to depth of field, to iffy "color science".  But when something forces you to shoot in a certain style, it's very limiting creatively. 

It also can't really be fixed in post, and it's hell on VFX as well.  There is a reason pro cinema cameras all have extremely low rolling shutter.

To be fair though the only camera that does good rolling shutter in 4k is like the GH5 and Pocket 4k. XT3 is pretty good but its still 20ms, which probably isn't great for the handheld look. 

[Snowbro]

I'm sure he will make a video when the pro eos r comes out, saying how great the low RS is and comparing it to a sony. Saying how sony is unusable in 4k because of the high RS. That is how self justifications and apologists work. 

[KnightsFan]

The eos r rolling shutter isnt much worse than the competition. But the competition do full pixel readouts from 24 mp sensors, while the eos r does a 1:1 sample.

[Towd]

Yeah, m43 definitely wins the rolling shutter game.  Different people have different needs for sure, but I'm just pointing out that it's a seriously egregious problem for the way a lot of directors shoot action, and can be very limiting stylistically.   Though it is true, a good solution for almost all current cameras would be to just shoot in 1080p.

[Video Hummus]

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

Yes, no mention... unless you have the presence of mind to actually bother to read the comments, where a viewer asked the question... "Were these shots in HD or 4k?" and the person who created the video answered, saying, "4K". 

But go ahead and live in that world where the rolling shutter on this camera is sooooo bad that it will ruin all shots that involve any movement. And as for your suggestions... done that... guess what... NOT AN ISSUE. For the record... IBIS helps with micro jitters, but if you plan to walk around you would be better served with a gimbal.

I never said it would ruin all shots. Just specific ones. I find it hard to believe you had no issues because I’ve done the same on the A7iii and had some rolling shutter evident in the shot. The EOS R 4K RS is far worse and more likely to ruin fast moving shots. But it’s fine. You like your camera. Go shoot with it and make great content. Only camera gear heads like us care what something was shot on ?

If RS didn’t matter we wouldn’t be measuring sensor read out speeds. Expensive cinema cameras wouldn’t have global shutters. And the EOS R would be a slightly better camera.

[Snowbro]

I guarantee this camera won't have an all-i codec, or if it does, it will still look soft compared to an eos r/5d etc. Just like the 6d ii (looks like 30% less resolution vs 1d)

 

The one thing that seems positive about the camera vs eos r is; the sensor is 24mp, instead of 26mp. That means that we likely will be looking at a totally new sensor (instead of the 3 year old ones), I hope it doesn't have that weird color banding crap in photos at even +0.5 stops of exposure like the eos r.   

[hmcindie]

4 hours ago, Towd said:

In my opinion it is one of the most creatively limiting artifacts in low budget cameras.  Just about everything else can be worked around from limited dynamic range, to depth of field, to iffy "color science".  But when something forces you to shoot in a certain style, it's very limiting creatively. 

I agree but have you noticed how every other camera has it too? Professional cameras still have it and doing a scene like that on a C200 is horrible. Yeah it has half less but it's still visually easy to spot and if do a real bourne style fight scene with any of these cams you will have to change your settings to something that rolls less. So yeah, you could do that with an EOS R but you have to drop the resolution. But you have to drop it with every other cam too, especially FF ones. I shot a lot of that style of shit back in the day with a Canon 7d in 720p. Dropping the resolution is always an option and it works so these scenes are not out of the question.