I voted for Raw recording on the R

[ntblowz]

While on the topic of R the native iso seems to be the same as 5d2

 

[nickname]

So where is that raw announcement? 

[Andrew Reid]

NAB starts tomorrow

[DBounce]

16 hours ago, ntblowz said:

While on the topic of R the native iso seems to be the same as 5d2

 

Canon recommends shooting at ISO 400 or greater for maximum dynamic range when Canon Log is selected. Lower ISOs may produce less noise, but do so at the cost of less dynamic range (EOS R Advanced User Guide - page 242).

Personally, I do not mind the noise on the EOS R. It looks like film grain, not digital confetti.

[currensheldon]

1 hour ago, nickname said:

So where is that raw announcement? 

Yea, NAB starts tomorrow, but I'm starting to lose hope. Canon has announced a bunch of new camcorders and some serious cinema lenses, so that may be it for them? Guess we still have a few days and Panasonic and Sony have their big announcements on Sunday, so we'll see.

Hoping this and a C200 codec update is around the corner... 

[Rinad Amir]

Id love if Panasonic  announces ProRes Raw

 

[BrunoLandMedia]

This is not 100% on topic but since this discussion has people using the R and C100ii together I thought I would post here. 

So regardless of the RAW rumors, I'm wondering if anyone has a suggestion for me.

I currently own an R and a c100 mark ii. I'm not using c-log because most of my projects are quick turn around and the Wide DR mixed with the R's profile is pretty good. 

The Question: Do I get a second R or c100 mark ii for Wedding and Live Music usage. I've done plenty of 2 camera Wedding and 3 camera live concerts but with the 3rd camera and XA10 camcorder. I'm moving into much high cost projects for weddings and solo/duo/DJ performances. I need a 3rd camera (and can only afford one right now) for what the clients want and wanted to see where you all would put your money assuming what I have already. 

Lenses I have: RF 35 1.8, RF 24-105 f/4, Sigma 18-35 1.8, Canon 16-35 f/4, Canon 70-200 f/2.8ii (planning on adding a lens once I make a camera decision)

My plan is use c-log on the cameras so they match better. These would all be solo shooting gigs (mostly). I like the R for a lot of reasons but it's nice having the built in ND and unlimited record time of the c100. But, if the c-log is just as good on the R, and I have some RF lenses with the idea of expanding, why not get a Grey Market R for $1650/$1700 instead of a used c100 mark ii for $2100+. I got my c100ii for $2400 and that was a darn good deal so 2100/2200 is awesome as well. 

I need to more fast, and I honestly don't have time to shoot a bunch of c-log footage to compare, but I assume the grade well together. I know how to use both camera's well and plan on the c100 being my main shot (unlimited recording) the camera in question to be my B static, and the R I own on my Ronin S moving around the whole time for both wedding ceremony's and the live music stuff. 

Thanks for any advice. Cheers, Chris

[BTM_Pix]

2 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

This is not 100% on topic but since this discussion has people using the R and C100ii together I thought I would post here. 

 

I would definitely recommend you putting this into a new thread so it can get the consideration it deserves.

If Canon announce RAW output at NAB in the next 24 hours then your question will get absolutely buried under the weight of posts about that in this one.

If Canon don't announce RAW output then it will be much the same but with more venom !

[webrunner5]

I would think and hope that the R has a better overall focus capacity than the C100 mk II. Great AF is a must for weddings. SO I would lean more toward another R than another C100. Not counting the stealth factor of the R, and the ability of using a small Gimbal to boot. I don't see much reason to even go with the RF lenses. They aren't cheap or small, and I see no real gain on them for video. Plus using the EF adapter lets you use the ND adapter thingy. A big plus.

I have shot a lot of weddings in my day and I have wrangled with dual setups and more cameras, but I am not sure at times the effort is worth it. If you are paying an extra operator, editing extra footage, stills, that adds more to the final cost and you can price yourself out of the market. Not counting the more stuff you have the more that can go wrong, and it will. There is enough stress in wedding work, is more Really worth it? No clue how you roll, but sometimes less is better, cost wise and sanity wise.

The trouble with Wedding work is there is basically 3 tiers, cheap as hell, normal middle of the road, or OH MY GOD expensive. You Have to fit in one of the 3 or your toast. Moving up is Hard as hell. It takes a bullshitter personality from hell. Sort of like be a used car salesman mindset. I am going to screw the hell out of you and I will smile doing it. Not many can do that. It also takes lots of money to pull that off, double, maybe triple equipment as backups. Charging 20,000 bucks or more for a wedding is balls to the wall stuff, with NO errors, none. They burn out quick, or die from a Heart Attack lol. But there is always some jackass waiting to take their place when they die.

[BrunoLandMedia]

Thanks, I really feel like a question like that would get ignored, that's why I posted here. But you have a good point about the thread. 

@webrunner, weddings are one thing for me, I'm in the middle of the road (or at least that is where I'm shooting for) but only 6-10 a year to supplement the other stuff I do. I'm a working musician who also does studio mixing and live music videos. It's a little all over the place on paper, but it serves me well. I'm never trying to rich on any of it, just make the best of it. When the live music is slow, a couple weddings can pad a month. 

Bottom line though, I need a 3rd good camera to match for these Live recordings, and for a wedding ceremony coming up for sure. Enough work that renting would be wasting because the $$$ is already set. If I'm going to rent for 4 days, might as well put that towards the camera. 

Cheers

[webrunner5]

10 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

@webrunner, weddings are one thing for me, I'm in the middle of the road (or at least that is where I'm shooting for) but only 6-10 a year to supplement the other stuff I do. I'm a working musician who also does studio mixing and live music videos. It's a little all over the place on paper, but it serves me well. I'm never trying to rich on any of it, just make the best of it. When the live music is slow, a couple weddings can pad a month. 

 

Man why Wouldn't you want to get rich? Are you doing yourself or your clients any good with that kind of mindset? Don't you want to try hard to do the best you can? And if you have that goal you can get rich, or at least well off. Skill ought to be rewarded. Time and stress ought to be rewarded. You can only have fun so long without adding a lot of stress. If I have stress I am going to get paid for it, and paid well, or go back to just fun and no stress, who cares, and then why buy all that gear...

[Kisaha]

4 hours ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

Bottom line though, I need a 3rd good camera to match for these Live recordings, and for a wedding ceremony coming up for sure. Enough work that renting would be wasting because the $$$ is already set. If I'm going to rent for 4 days, might as well put that towards the camera. 

Cheers

maybe you should wait for the professional R camera, or the C100mkIII which should be here relatively soon.

If you can't wait, then another R. If you feel lucky, go for a C200, it is what a C100mkIII should have been, but with Raw lite and 5/3 of the cost.

In my opinion all these tools (R, C100mkII, C200) are way overpriced for what they do in 2019, but if you want to go Canon, these are the only options.

 

[KitaCam]

Could it be that the desire for RAW recording ability on the EOS R may be a case of careful what you wish for? Huge files, need for external recorder and additional storage mediums, NLE plug-in hiccups/crashes, higher noise (depending on processing) perhaps etc. Does the information recovery/changes (White balance/Colour Temperature, ISO, Brightness/Sharpness) benefits of RAW really far outweigh that of quality 10bit 4:2:2 CLog2 or CLog3 footage for most peoples uses? Is it a game changing revolutionary workflow? Genuine questions. Please let me know if I'm missing something epic here? In these days of decent EVF's/waveforms/other exposure tools and accurate (enough) in camera white balance, unless you've really hashed the shot then do people need extreme highlight and shadow recovery abilities and white balance correction beyond that provided by quality 10bit 4:2:2 Log? I guess we can say that if RAW recording ability is provided then great(?) it's something one can choose to use or not, so more options the merrier, but I'm keen to really understand the benefits for most uses. From my (very limited) experience, CRM on the C200 is a bit of a beast to deal with in terms of file sizes, FCPx is frequently crashing and the interface is perhaps not as clear as I have spotted in Resolve. I would to say at this point I feel like I might prefer the option for quality in-body 10Bit 4:2:2 at reasonably sized files. Unless I'm missing something? This would go for the EOS R and certainly the C200 (of course not the first to want this). Perhaps I'm being naive here and quality 10Bit 4:2:2 files are also comparably huge and unwieldy? Certainly they seem to be when converted from the Raw CRM files using the Canon Raw Development Tool (whether to ProRes 422 LT, normal or HQ)? Again perhaps I'm missing a trick....

[zerocool22]

3 minutes ago, KitaCam said:

Could it be that the desire for RAW recording ability on the EOS R may be a case of careful what you wish for? Huge files, need for external recorder and additional storage mediums, NLE plug-in hiccups/crashes, higher noise (depending on processing) perhaps etc. Does the information recovery/changes (White balance/Colour Temperature, ISO, Brightness/Sharpness) benefits of RAW really far outweigh that of quality 10bit 4:2:2 CLog2 or CLog3 footage for most peoples uses? Is it a game changing revolutionary workflow? Genuine questions. Please let me know if I'm missing something epic here? In these days of decent EVF's/waveforms/other exposure tools and accurate (enough) in camera white balance, unless you've really hashed the shot then do people need extreme highlight and shadow recovery abilities and white balance correction beyond that provided by quality 10bit 4:2:2 Log? I guess we can say that if RAW recording ability is provided then great(?) it's something one can choose to use or not, so more options the merrier, but I'm keen to really understand the benefits for most uses. From my (very limited) experience, CRM on the C200 is a bit of a beast to deal with in terms of file sizes, FCPx is frequently crashing and the interface is perhaps not as clear as I have spotted in Resolve. I would to say at this point I feel like I might prefer the option for quality in-body 10Bit 4:2:2 at reasonably sized files. Unless I'm missing something? This would go for the EOS R and certainly the C200 (of course not the first to want this). Perhaps I'm being naive here and quality 10Bit 4:2:2 files are also comparably huge and unwieldy? Certainly they seem to be when converted from the Raw CRM files using the Canon Raw Development Tool (whether to ProRes 422 LT, normal or HQ)? Again perhaps I'm missing a trick....

The ability to change white balance, extra stop of dr, no extra processing like sharpening etc is a major benefit. Also I have never seen anything better colorwise then canon 14bit raw (5diii ml). But you def dont need it for every project. As most client projects dont even care its 8bit and dont even care what camera it is shot on, most customers are happy someone was just there to shoot what needed to be shot. 

When is the Canon boot giving a speech /demo / news release? 

[DBounce]

7 minutes ago, KitaCam said:

Could it be that the desire for RAW recording ability on the EOS R may be a case of careful what you wish for

No worries, looks like that pesky option will not be offered. Consider yourself lucky that you have been spared the terrors of raw.

3 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

When is the Canon boot giving a speech /demo / news release? 

They gave the idea the boot a few days ago.

[KitaCam]

Thanks for that. Just thinking though, can that broader amount of DR actually be viewed on screens that most people have either now or in the realistic near future? Is one additional stop revolutionary in some way and is it worth dealing with the RAW workflow and file storage implications? Isn't Canon Log pretty soft anyhow? Not being combative, just querying the real world benefit of RAW vs. Clog2/Clog3. Cheers.

5 minutes ago, DBounce said:

No worries, looks like that pesky option will not be offered. Consider yourself lucky that you have been spared the terrors of raw.

They gave the idea the boot a few days ago.

Haha, I'm one of the 'lucky ones' with the option to record CRM, though perhaps I just don't know how to correctly handle it and don't realise the real real-world benefits! What I can say is that I can imagine myself just swimming in external hard drives at this rate unless I just settle for the SD card friendly C200's 8-bit. Perhaps directly recorded CLog2/Clog3 4:2:2 10bit is not much better in terms of file sizes (vs. RAW), if that's the case then why not have RAW as it can be converted to whatever you like - albeit a bit clunky at present and still with epic file sizes I find....

[zerocool22]

12 minutes ago, KitaCam said:

Thanks for that. Just thinking though, can that broader amount of DR actually be viewed on screens that most people have either now or in the realistic near future? Is one additional stop revolutionary in some way and is it worth dealing with the RAW workflow and file storage implications? Isn't Canon Log pretty soft anyhow? Not being combative, just querying the real world benefit of RAW vs. Clog2/Clog3. Cheers.

Haha, I'm one of the 'lucky ones' with the option to record CRM, though perhaps I just don't know how to correctly handle it and don't realise the real real-world benefits! What I can say is that I can imagine myself just swimming in external hard drives at this rate unless I just settle for the SD card friendly C200's 8-bit. Perhaps directly recorded CLog2/Clog3 4:2:2 10bit is not much better in terms of file sizes (vs. RAW), if that's the case then why not have RAW as it can be converted to whatever you like - albeit a bit clunky at present and still with epic file sizes I find....

Well with prores raw or braw that no longer is the case, its tiny sizes right now. So maybe the next thing is that Canon/sony/panasonic will offer raw but not compressed raw. (which is useless for 90% of the time)

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, KitaCam said:

Thanks for that. Just thinking though, can that broader amount of DR actually be viewed on screens that most people have either now or in the realistic near future?

I can only speak for myself, but all of my TVs are HDR. All of my mobile devices with the exception of my Apple MBP are HDR. And I can definitely see the difference on those devices.

But that said, I also mostly shoot 8 bit on the C200. I would have loved to hear it confirmed that 10 bit would be an option. Likewise, the ability to shoot raw to the Ninja V on the EOS R. Mine lives connected to the Atomos anyway.

[liork]

So what happend with that post? Was it just trolling of Canon USA?

[KitaCam]

Ok cool, thanks for that. But just so I'm seeing things clearly in order to try and get my head around some clear stats. Can't Clog3 achieve up to (a stated) 14 stops of dynamic range? So therefore CRM (RAW files) can achieve 15 stops? Isn't 14 stops sufficient for HDR content (HDR > 13stops?)? So both properly exposed CLog3 and RAW can be used for HDR content creation if acquired in equal to or greater than 10bit (i.e. not currently possible with C200 but yes with EOS R). Please do correct me if I have this totally wrong.

For all those wanting RAW on the EOS R, I totally get it, we all want more, but using DBounce as an example (hope you don't mind), you have a RAW capable C200 in your quiver but choose (totally understandable for a variety of reasons) to mostly shoot 8bit Clog3. You also have the EOS R shooing pretty much in 10Bit 4:2:2 external mode for 24FPS acquisition. RAW seems to come in third place am I right?

Now if the C200 gets it's hinted Clog3 4K 60fps 10Bit 4:2:2 upgrade (manageable file sizes) then great as the C200 can therefore enable HDR content creation without having to acquire in RAW?

2 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Well with prores raw or braw that no longer is the case, its tiny sizes right now. So maybe the next thing is that Canon/sony/panasonic will offer raw but not compressed raw. (which is useless for 90% of the time)

Sorry, not sure I get this. Pure RAW is the holy grail for quality I take it. CRM is Canon RAW lite but still massive in my experience so RAW would be on another scale. However, BRAW offers various levels of compression (Great - Canon should follow suit if possible?) and ProRes Raw results in just smaller more manageable RAW files in general (great again, Canon could take a leaf here and offer ProRes Raw - fat chance you might say).