1D X III vs EOS R5 and R6

[FranciscoB]

I don't argue against the extra quality that raw files give you. In some cameras that could be more evident than others. 

What I meant was the extra hassle and time that raw files impose on your work flow. Sure if it's a one day shoot it's not a big deal. Now multiply that for several days and the amount of extra time you lose dealing with transfer times, possible transcoding and slow performance on your nle for a small to medium improvement on image quality is not worth the effort for most shoots. Not to mention the extra money you spend on cards and storage. And since I always have redundancies for storage, it's a lot of time spent just transferring files. 

To summarize, I'm not against raw but I see people praising it without recognizing the amount of extra time and money needed to deal with it. Want to shoot raw? Go for it. 

[gt3rs]

48 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

230Mbit in 4K/60p 10bit?

Don't think so.

In 24p maybe, but then you have the rolling shutter to contend with.

I took the wrong table 😒

Rolling shutter in crop mode is the same or very similar if not 100% identical between 24fps and 60fps try yourself and you will see 

So with the right table 4k DCI 1.33 crop 24 fps w2ill be 170 Mbits and 340 Mbits at 60 fps 

 

.



 

[Vision]

Ah lads go out and Film its Friday 😁

 

[Matt James Smith ?]

So ... rolling shutter is defo just as bad in crop mode on the 1DX3?

 

[Andrew Reid]

It's why we buy a full frame camera in the first place, to shoot in 1.33x crop!

[gt3rs]

1 minute ago, Matt James Smith ? said:

So ... rolling shutter is defo just as bad in crop mode on the 1DX3?

 

No in crop mode is quite good at whatever framerate... in FF is bad up to 30fps. FF 50, 60 is 16ms... but you lose dpaf.

FF 5.5K or 4k 50,60 good rs no AF
FF 5.5K or 4k 24-30 bad rs, AF
Crop 4k 24-60 good rs, AF

If I don’t need slow motion I mostly shoot 5.5k 24 or 25. If I need slow motion depends if I need AF or not is either 5.5k 60 or 4k crop 60 10bit

I’m mostly tripod or ronin S so the main issue for me is fast pan on tripod but I rarely do. Normal panning following an athlete is not a big issue.

Btw panny at 6k is 28ms so the 4ms is not a huge difference... but here seems the world is coming to an end.

 

You don’t need af or a sport camera just don’t buy it.... you need AF there is not much alternative if any as hybrid at the moment.

Curious to see if the R5 is better or not...

[Andrew Reid]

From Slashcam's test:

[Google translation] At first we thought that this paragraph could be ticked off with three sentences, but surprisingly you have to take a closer look at the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III. First we were amazed by the result of 16ms for the complete 5.5K sensor readout. This is very good value for a 35mm full frame camera. However, this value is also necessary in order to be able to read the sensor fully 60 times per second. (16ms x 60 = 960ms).

Unfortunately, this value is not fixed, but is only so low as long as the sensor works in 4K or 5.5K at 50 or 60 fps. If, on the other hand, you put the camera in a mode with 24, 25 or 30 fps, the sensor allows itself a very moderate 32 ms for a complete readout. This is incomprehensible, especially since many interesting video functions of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III only work with 24-30fps (including the dual-pixel autofocus).
A thermal reason for this seems unlikely, since the sensor does not miss any rows or columns at 60 fps and generates exactly the same debayering as with 24-30fps.

In the 4K crop 1: 1 sensor readout, on the other hand, the camera has a 15ms readout across all frame rates and in this mode it can also use the auto focus at 50 fps. It is therefore also unlikely that the processing behind the sensor readout requires a slower 4K readout.

It is also interesting in this context that a similar behavior can be seen in FullHD: The full sensor readout is 11 ms between 24 and 60 fps. However, if the camera has to deliver 100fps or more, the sensor can suddenly be read out with 7 ms without any visible change in the image detail or debayering quality.

***

So yes, 15ms is better for 4K/24p in the 1.33x crop mode.

But again, this is not why you spend the extra for a full frame camera.

And why is the 1D X III processor fast enough to enable dual pixel AF at 4K/60p in 1.33x crop mode, but not in 4K/60p from the full 5.5K sensor readout?

[Snowbro]

People try to say this camera is a true 1D C II, but it isn't, it's a sports camera that has video features. A true 1D C successor would have LOG 2 and many other features missing from this one. 

[gt3rs]

36 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

It is also interesting in this context that a similar behavior can be seen in FullHD: The full sensor readout is 11 ms between 24 and 60 fps. However, if the camera has to deliver 100fps or more, the sensor can suddenly be read out with 7 ms without any visible change in the image detail or debayering quality.

1080p at 120 is quite soft as in 1Dx II some people say that for 120fps is good and I have nothing to compare but to me is quite bad. I did not really try 1080p 60 as I don't see the use case for me but I would tend to think that is better than 120.....  did you had a chance to compare 1080 modes?

 

36 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

And why is the 1D X III processor fast enough to enable dual pixel AF at 4K/60p in 1.33x crop mode, but not in 4K/60p from the full 5.5K sensor readout?

My pure guess is processing time (power)..... 5.5k pixels + dual pixels and scale down is much more data to process than reading a 1-1 4k pixels + dual pixels..... could they implement center only AF as option or at least when you put the camera in MF switch to fast readout? Only canon engineers could answer this... 

I tend to guess again that the sensor is somewhat similar to the 500 II (FF 6k is ca16 ms) but due to cooling and processing power they cannot do both 5.5K pixel processing and DPAF pixel processing  in 16ms....

I take 5.5k bad RS vs 5.5k good RS but no AF any day but I really depend on AF for others the priority it is probably the inverse. I'm quite sure that they could have implemented a MF mode that is 16ms..... 

[Matt James Smith ?]

Sounds a lot like Canon playing their crippling non-cinema cameras games again.

I realise mine is a specific use case - so this is not a defence of Canon at all - but if the R5 turns out to be the same and rolling shutter is decent in crop mode (assuming it has a decent 1.5/1.6 crop mode) I would actually consider it in place of a C200. Most of my glass is S35 EF mount (Sigma Art zooms, 17-55mm 2.8, etc). So with the ND filter EF adapter, the EOS R in crop mode will *potentially* be a simple move for me. 

Weird I know, but for me it may work.

[Andrew Reid]

20 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

1080p at 120 is quite soft as in 1Dx II some people say that for 120fps is good and I have nothing to compare but to me is quite bad.

Indeed it's very bad compared to Fuji X-T4 120fps.... And Sony A7R IV, and A99 II, and Sigma Fp, and Leica SL, and the SL2, and Fuji X-T3, Samsung NX1, and about 5 more that I have not remembered in the 5 seconds that took

No bias, only facts.

When you pay this much you expect better 120fps 1080p quality.

20 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

I did not really try 1080p 60 as I don't see the use case for me but I would tend to think that is better than 120.....  did you had a chance to compare 1080 modes?

They are identically poor. See the Slashcam test.

20 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

My pure guess is processing time (power)..... 5.5k pixels + dual pixels and scale down is much more data to process than reading a 1-1 4k pixels + dual pixels.....

It's not the scaling down, otherwise 5.5K 60p would have AF.

It's not the processing power otherwise 4K 60p crop would not have AF.

It must be something else, most likely a power consumption limitation.

20 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

could they implement center only AF as option or at least when you put the camera in MF switch to fast readout? Only canon engineers could answer this... 

It would be nice to be able to ask them.

20 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

I take 5.5k bad RS vs 5.5k good RS but no AF any day but I really depend on AF for others the priority it is probably the inverse. I'm quite sure that they could have implemented a MF mode that is 16ms..... 

There is no reason I can see, for Canon not to use the 16ms frame readout time for 24p.

It strikes me as extremely odd crippling again.

[gt3rs]

8 minutes ago, Matt James Smith ? said:

Sounds a lot like Canon playing their crippling non-cinema cameras games again.

I realise mine is a specific use case - so this is not a defence of Canon at all - but if the R5 turns out to be the same and rolling shutter is decent in crop mode (assuming it has a decent 1.5/1.6 crop mode) I would actually consider it in place of a C200. Most of my glass is S35 EF mount (Sigma Art zooms, 17-55mm 2.8, etc). So with the ND filter EF adapter, the EOS R in crop mode will *potentially* be a simple move for me. 

Weird I know, but for me it may work.

Wild guess here....

if the R5 use similar sensor design just more res... 8k 30 is full readout like 5.5k 1Dx so 32ms, 4k 60 is binned like 1080 60 on 1Dx, 4k 120 is like 1080 120 on 1Dx..... if it will also offer a crop mode it will probably be 1-1 pixel read out then it would be a 2x crop. 

Or it has a better cpu and sensor and it does all in  16ms or even 7ms and will have an amazing FF supersampled 4k 120fps that no other camera in the world has.... and then not sure it will offer a crop.

I tend to bet on the first but who knows

 

 

[Andrew Reid]

I seem to remember the amount of data coming off the sensor per second is similar in 8K/30p and 5.5K 60p.

However, the individual frame scan time in milliseconds for 8K resolution is not necessarily going to be the same as for a 5.5K frame.

So the rolling shutter might be even worse on the R5 in 8K. We'll have to wait and see.

We can work out the worst case scenario. All frames have to come off in 999ms or under (under 1 second per frame).

Divide by 30 = 33.3ms

So it can't be any worse than 33.3ms in 30p.

24p can't be any worse than 41ms (shudder).

So I would expect 32ms on the EOS R5 for sure in 8K. Probably less in 4K as it will pixel bin / line skip.

[gt3rs]

35 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They are identically poor. See the Slashcam test.

Correct just check out and they mention same quality from 25-100.....

 

30 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I seem to remember the amount of data coming off the sensor per second is similar in 8K/30p and 5.5K 60p.

However, the individual frame scan time in milliseconds for 8K resolution is not necessarily going to be the same as for a 5.5K frame.

So the rolling shutter might be even worse on the R5 in 8K. We'll have to wait and see.

We can work out the worst case scenario. All frames have to come off in 999ms or under (under 1 second per frame).

Divide by 30 = 33.3ms

So it can't be any worse than 33.3ms in 30p.

24p can't be any worse than 41ms (shudder).

So I would expect 32ms on the EOS R5 for sure in 8K. Probably less in 4K as it will pixel bin / line skip.

The more I think the more I tend to guess that is the same tech as 1Dx  III with more pixels. So FF 8K 30fps and 4k 30fps will be great  but bad RS and 4k 60 and 120 will be soft but good RS..... not sure they will offer a 2x crop although a 2x 1-1 4K 120 for some scenarios would be a nice feature. 

I have hard time to think that they have the tech for 4k 120 super sampled with AF on a FF sensor on a fan less body as no other camera at whatever price can do FF 4k 120fps.....

 

35 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's not the scaling down, otherwise 5.5K 60p would have AF.

It's not the processing power otherwise 4K 60p crop would not have AF.

It must be something else, most likely a power consumption limitation.

 

There must be something if not they could have easily offer 30 frame per second in photo mode.... and in photo mode the RS is 16ms  > 5.5k and DPAF but max 20fps with electronic shutter as here they are competing with D6 and A9II already going to 22 or 25 would have been a good marketing point

[Andrew Reid]

I think your guess will turn out to be right.

EOS R5

8K = very bad rolling shutter and unusable file sizes, impossible to edit

4K = pixel binned mush.

Have Canon really turned a corner or are they playing the same old games with new, higher numbers?!

14 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

There must be something if not they could have easily offer 30 frame per second in photo mode.... and in photo mode the RS is 16ms  > 5.5k and DPAF but max 20fps with electronic shutter as here they are competing with D6 and A9II already going to 22 or 25 would have been a good marketing point

If they are competing with Sony A9 then they really need to change the rolling shutter in stills mode too, it's unusable compared to the A9 in that respect.

The stacked DRAM on the A9 sensor allows for the fastest sensor readout on the market.

It's also why the 4K rolling shutter is so low on the RX100 IV / RX10 IV

[gt3rs]

5 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

If they are competing with Sony A9 then they really need to change the rolling shutter in stills mode too, it's unusable compared to the A9 in that respect.

The stacked DRAM on the A9 sensor allows for the fastest sensor readout on the market.

 

This is why 1Dx III is not a mirrorless they don't have a sensor with that fast read out but the A9 sensor has other problem like less DR also no fast mechanical shutter (led panels are problem in stadium) and also have really limited video modes. Crippled or tech who knows?

Personally for sports I prefer OVF, I tried quickly a colleague A9 on a pro hockey match and I did not like the EVF. I had more problem following the action but maybe using it for a couple of games I would get used.... 

 

11 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Have Canon really turned a corner or are they playing the same old games with new, higher numbers?!

 

Probably a mix.... finally trying to do their best and not cripple but also they don't have a quantum leap on sensors tech that people are dreaming of..... thinking that Canon would come out with a FF 8k 30fps RAW with great RS DPAF with super sampled 4k 120fps DPAF at 4000 USD is  a day dream when their 6 months old 6K FF cinema camera cannot do 4k 120fps..... and no other competitor has similar spec even on the most expensive cinema line

I'm really curious to see what R5 will bring the good and bad...
 

[padam]

2 hours ago, Snowbro said:

People try to say this camera is a true 1D C II, but it isn't, it's a sports camera that has video features. A true 1D C successor would have LOG 2 and many other features missing from this one. 

It is (apart from the internal recording limit), just invest in a lot of very expensive memory cards (which were similarly outrageously priced, when the 1DC came out) shoot in RAW and you have access to Canon Log 2 (but no 4k60p AF since it is FF only)
The 1DC could only record in MJPEG, no peaking, no AF, it was never a true 'C' camera to being with, just a 1DX with heatsinks, 4k, Log and a crop 1080p mode (a useless 1080p60p 720p upscaled mode) and that's it, the 1DX III has similar improvements in comparison to the 1DX II (more recording options, 10-bit with Log or RAW)
They will never do a stills camera with the same processing and codec options as their video cameras.

Of course if they do a mirrorless flagship equivalent with IBIS, it may kill the 1DX III for video, but it's Canon, so they will figure something out to differentiate the two models.

[Andrew Reid]

23 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

This is why 1Dx III is not a mirrorless they don't have a sensor with that fast read out but the A9 sensor has other problem like less DR also no fast mechanical shutter (led panels are problem in stadium) and also have really limited video modes. Crippled or tech who knows?

Personally for sports I prefer OVF, I tried quickly a colleague A9 on a pro hockey match and I did not like the EVF. I had more problem following the action but maybe using it for a couple of games I would get used.... 

I agree OVF is better for sports most of the time.

A9 is far from perfect camera but it is a good example of quite a usable electronic shutter camera!

23 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

Probably a mix.... finally trying to do their best and not cripple but also they don't have a quantum leap on sensors tech that people are dreaming of.....

They have certainly made a leap for Canon, considering the dated stuff they WERE using before!

23 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

thinking that Canon would come out with a FF 8k 30fps RAW with great RS DPAF with super sampled 4k 120fps DPAF at 4000 USD is  a day dream when their 6 months old 6K FF cinema camera cannot do 4k 120fps..... and no other competitor has similar spec even on the most expensive cinema line

I'm really curious to see what R5 will bring the good and bad...

I am also curious to see what the R6 brings as well.

Will it be as good as a Nikon Z6 in terms of the video specs?

Surely it must be. Might even add LOG and 10bit to that.

Then it will be a good cheap camera for the majority.

[wolf33d]

I thought companies could now achieve very decent 4K pixel bined now unlike before? 

 

[TheBoogieKnight]

I don't see a reason it can't be great even if skipped/binned and they might offer cropped modes anyway (which I'd far prefer TBH). With the crazy readout speed they might offer something like 4k oversampled from 5.6k at 60p (what current FF 24MP cameras are effectively are offering at 30p).