Canon silently recalling EOS R5?

[Mustafa Ali]

7 minutes ago, sev7en said:

Dear,

where you found the camera for 3899? I see as minimum 4700 US Dollars.

Here in the US it's $3899 🙂. 

[mechanicalEYE]

2 minutes ago, Mustafa Ali said:

That's correct. Also, thanks for all the tests you have been doing!

I thought so.

You're welcome. 👍 

[ntblowz]

1 hour ago, sev7en said:

This is the price in my Country... 

 

 

I thought you are from Oz with all those Sydney photos from the other thread!

[A_Urquhart]

3 hours ago, Mustafa Ali said:

Here is another way to look at it:

How much was the A7R1V when it came out ?  - $3499 (has basic 8 bit 420 4k 24p, 1080 24/60/120 fps)

How much was the 5d MK1V when it came out ? - $3499 (Cropped 4k 24p, 1080P 24/60 fps)

How much is the R5 currently ? $3899 - So for the extra $400, the R5 does almost everything of what the cameras above do, PLUS you are getting - 4k 10 bit 422 internally , Unlimited 4k 24p 5.1 oversampled in super 35 mode, Unlimited normal 4k 24p which looks amazing once sharpened,  Unlimited 4k 24p HQ over the atomos, minimum, restricted and somewhat useless -  8k, 4k HQ, 4k60/120Fps once the camera overheats. Decide if extra $400 is worth it. But as it is, it is still the only High MP camera that can do all of this and has no real competition. 

Before you compare it to the A7siii, that is a video camera and not a photo camera. Yes 12 mp is fine for photos and online content, but so is 1080p video.... 🤷🏽‍♂️

I agree the marketing of this camera was a total FAIL. And some of the conspiracy theories pointing to canons practices are surely questionable.  I appreciate what Andrew is doing because at the end of the day it is still a win win for us if Canon does something about the overheating. 

So, in reality i'd be spending nearly $4000USD ($6500AUD here in Australia) for a camera limited to 4k 24-30p?

I like (and sometimes need) to shoot at 50p every now and again.....I'd have to worry about the camera shutting down after a few minutes (minutes!) and then being inoperable for 30-mins to an hour? Really? You find this OK? What good is 4K 10bit if you can't record it because the camera won't let you?

I have zero care for 8K and the difficult to edit files the Canon produces without transcoding so that feature is a non issue and shouldn't even be marketed by Canon with the camera in it's current crippled state.

The A7SIII is a hybrid camera, NOT a video camera. Unless you are doing quite a bit of cropping in post, it's 12MP files are good enough for most people that don't need to blow up for billboards.  OH and BTW, and here in Australia the broadcasters I often work for still prefer 1080p files out of camera so there is nothing wrong with 1080p. TVC's, Music Video's etc are a different story but then most hybrid cameras do over 1080p anyway so......it's a moot point.

And there are plenty of other options out there too. 

I really do hope Canon fix the issues with the R5, and if they do....I still won't consider it.  I try to avoid companies that are into shoddy practices, and canon have proved that they couldn't care less for their customers.

 

 

 

 

[Mustafa Ali]

1 hour ago, A_Urquhart said:

So, in reality i'd be spending nearly $4000USD ($6500AUD here in Australia) for a camera limited to 4k 24-30p?

I like (and sometimes need) to shoot at 50p every now and again.....I'd have to worry about the camera shutting down after a few minutes (minutes!) and then being inoperable for 30-mins to an hour? Really? You find this OK? What good is 4K 10bit if you can't record it because the camera won't let you?

I have zero care for 8K and the difficult to edit files the Canon produces without transcoding so that feature is a non issue and shouldn't even be marketed by Canon with the camera in it's current crippled state.

The A7SIII is a hybrid camera, NOT a video camera. Unless you are doing quite a bit of cropping in post, it's 12MP files are good enough for most people that don't need to blow up for billboards.  OH and BTW, and here in Australia the broadcasters I often work for still prefer 1080p files out of camera so there is nothing wrong with 1080p. TVC's, Music Video's etc are a different story but then most hybrid cameras do over 1080p anyway so......it's a moot point.

And there are plenty of other options out there too. 

I really do hope Canon fix the issues with the R5, and if they do....I still won't consider it.  I try to avoid companies that are into shoddy practices, and canon have proved that they couldn't care less for their customers.

 

 

 

 

Have you actually used the R5 bro ? I am shooting video in normal 4k 24p through out the day with appx 50-100 photos (2-4 hours in total but not non-stop) and I still am able to shoot 4k 60 in small bursts when I need it. Your case might be different. But until now, what were you shooting 4k 50p Full frame on that now all of a sudden you find it absolutely necessary ?  Like I said, you are paying $400 more for all the video features (some useful, some not) compared to what someone would pay for an A7r1v when it first came out. Or you can wait till the price drops and firmware fixes. 

"OH and BTW, and here in Australia the broadcasters I often work for still prefer 1080p files out of camera so there is nothing wrong with 1080p. TVC's, Music Video's etc are a different story but then most hybrid cameras do over 1080p anyway so......it's a moot point." -- Thanks for proving my point. You can still shoot 1080 60p on the R5 if 4k 60 is not available and no one will give a shit or know unless you crop a lot in post. 

Plenty of options ? -- Really ? Which Full frame high megapixel camera is an option again ? -- that has nearly the same usable video features as the R5 and amazing Auto Focus ? NONE. If there was one, I'd be drooling over it. 

(usable = Full frame 4k 24 10 bit 422 internally , Unlimited 4k 24p 5.1 oversampled in super 35 mode, Unlimited 4k 24p HQ and 4k 60 over the atomos Ninja )

I also hope Canon fixes this to be honest. Not that I can't make amazing stuff with the camera in it's current state and limitations, but not having the limitations would be great nonetheless. It's more about ethical business practices for me than mere specs that I don't care too much about (8k, 4k 120p). And that's the reason I am in support of Andrew because at the end of the day that's what he is trying to push for - Businesses shouldn't get away for malpractices. 

 

[A_Urquhart]

2 hours ago, Mustafa Ali said:

Have you actually used the R5 bro ? I am shooting video in normal 4k 24p through out the day with appx 50-100 photos (2-4 hours in total but not non-stop) and I still am able to shoot 4k 60 in small bursts when I need it. Your case might be different. But until now, what were you shooting 4k 50p Full frame on that now all of a sudden you find it absolutely necessary ?  Like I said, you are paying $400 more for all the video features (some useful, some not) compared to what someone would pay for an A7r1v when it first came out. Or you can wait till the price drops and firmware fixes. 

"OH and BTW, and here in Australia the broadcasters I often work for still prefer 1080p files out of camera so there is nothing wrong with 1080p. TVC's, Music Video's etc are a different story but then most hybrid cameras do over 1080p anyway so......it's a moot point." -- Thanks for proving my point. You can still shoot 1080 60p on the R5 if 4k 60 is not available and no one will give a shit or know unless you crop a lot in post. 

Plenty of options ? -- Really ? Which Full frame high megapixel camera is an option again ? -- that has nearly the same usable video features as the R5 and amazing Auto Focus ? NONE. If there was one, I'd be drooling over it. 

(usable = Full frame 4k 24 10 bit 422 internally , Unlimited 4k 24p 5.1 oversampled in super 35 mode, Unlimited 4k 24p HQ and 4k 60 over the atomos Ninja )

I also hope Canon fixes this to be honest. Not that I can't make amazing stuff with the camera in it's current state and limitations, but not having the limitations would be great nonetheless. It's more about ethical business practices for me than mere specs that I don't care too much about (8k, 4k 120p). And that's the reason I am in support of Andrew because at the end of the day that's what he is trying to push for - Businesses shouldn't get away for malpractices. 

 

Before I can suggest some cameras to you, what do you shoot? Specifically, what type of stills, what type of video, pro or hobby? 

What scenario do you shoot that requires a Full Frame 10bit camera but the same scenario allows the camera to be out of action for up to 3hrs at a time to "cool down" as is being reported? You saying that a camera that isn't Full frame, 10bit and has Canon's AF isn't usable? Maybe the camera isn't the issue then? And what have you been using until now that all of a sudden, the R5 is the only 'usable' option?

Yes, I can still shoot 1080p50 on the R5 but then I can also do that on cameras that cost far less and require less babying and hassle.

I'll happily backflip on my earlier comment's saying too much time is being wasted on this camera. Good on Andrew for taking the time to rip the heart out of Canon. I wish him well. If you are waisting your time to make this camera usable for your own work, then it's your time I suppose but it's a waste because no specs matter on the R5 if you can't use it. Create with another camera that allows you to shoot when and how you like, not a camera that dictates to you how you must work.

[SteveV4D]

8 hours ago, Mustafa Ali said:

 

How much is the R5 currently ? $3899 - So for the extra $400, the R5 does almost everything of what the cameras above do, PLUS you are getting - 4k 10 bit 422 internally , Unlimited 4k 24p 5.1 oversampled in super 35 mode, Unlimited normal 4k 24p which looks amazing once sharpened,  Unlimited 4k 24p HQ over the atomos, minimum, restricted and somewhat useless -  8k, 4k HQ, 4k60/120Fps once the camera overheats. 

It costs considerably more than that in the UK and for that price, you get cropped 4K at HQ - not fullframe, normal 4K which still looks rubbish even when sharpened judging by samples I saw, 4K over an external recorder, which defeats weather sealing, ease of hand holding and portability.  3 things I would buy this camera for.  Plus some lovely video modes I would love to use but can't.  I also get codecs that are hard to edit, a crap micro HDMI port, no dual card recording, and no RAW output via HDMI, something the competition provides.  What a bargain... 🤔

[Mustafa Ali]

47 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

Before I can suggest some cameras to you, what do you shoot? Specifically, what type of stills, what type of video, pro or hobby? 

What scenario do you shoot that requires a Full Frame 10bit camera but the same scenario allows the camera to be out of action for up to 3hrs at a time to "cool down" as is being reported? You saying that a camera that isn't Full frame, 10bit and has Canon's AF isn't usable? Maybe the camera isn't the issue then? And what have you been using until now that all of a sudden, the R5 is the only 'usable' option?

Yes, I can still shoot 1080p50 on the R5 but then I can also do that on cameras that cost far less and require less babying and hassle.

I'll happily backflip on my earlier comment's saying too much time is being wasted on this camera. Good on Andrew for taking the time to rip the heart out of Canon. I wish him well. If you are waisting your time to make this camera usable for your own work, then it's your time I suppose but it's a waste because no specs matter on the R5 if you can't use it. Create with another camera that allows you to shoot when and how you like, not a camera that dictates to you how you must work.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.. By usable I meant which high MP camera besides the R5 has "usable video features of the R5" let alone the non usable features like 8k/4k 120p.

Why get an apsc camera when the R5 can be used as an apsc camera as well ? I personally love the full frame look and the low light capability of the bigger sensor. Even with APSC, Sony is the only other camera with good autofocus. I had fuji xt-3 in the past and the AF In video was nothing comparable to the a7iii or the EOS R. Even the xt-4 overheats in 15 mins using 4k 60. Second thing is lenses. Canon has the best lens selection overall in my opinion. 

So coming to your point, if you can't create with the R5 which has solid usable video features (except for 4k 120p and 8k), then the problem isn't the camera ? BTW, for work, I shoot portraits, landscapes, corporate videos, promo videos and short films. For fun, I also make youtube videos (travel, vlogs and sketches). 

Ask yourself, did you have a problem with the a7r1v or the 5dmk1v being $3500 at launch with no 4k 24p 10 bit 422 internally, 5.1 oversampled super 35 4k mode, 4k60./120 or 8k. For me specs isn't the issue, their marketing is. If Canon said here is the R5, a beast of a photo camera with 4k 24p and limited 4k HQ and high speed video, most people wouldn't be raging at this point. They marketed this as a 8k PRO video camera which it's clearly not. 

My main issue like I said again is with shady business practices that Canon seems to be doing, if it's true about the faking the overheating and etc. 

[Mustafa Ali]

21 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

It costs considerably more than that in the UK and for that price, you get cropped 4K at HQ - not fullframe, normal 4K which still looks rubbish even when sharpened judging by samples I saw, 4K over an external recorder, which defeats weather sealing, ease of hand holding and portability.  3 things I would buy this camera for.  Plus some lovely video modes I would love to use but can't.  I also get codecs that are hard to edit, a crap micro HDMI port, no dual card recording, and no RAW output via HDMI, something the competition provides.  What a bargain... 🤔

What crop in 4k HQ ? And the normal 4k looks rubbish ? See the video I made comparing both and please be honest with yourself. For reference, check Wolfcrow on youtube, he is a real filmmaker for over 20 years where he did the multiple tests for moire and quality of the normal 4k vs 4k HQ and even he confirms the difference is second to none once you sharpen the normal 4k. Which other full frame camera besides the a7siii is giving you all those 3 things again ? Not to mention if you want highest quality on the a7siii you have to shoot in h265 as well.  I agree, the micro hdmi is horrible and wish it had a full size HDMI or even a mini HDMI... But again, there is a lot to complain and whine about any camera, but once you use it in real world, it is a different story.  Trust me, even I started hating this camera as I started to read the online threads, but when it arrived, and after using it the way I normally use the camera for my needs, I am really liking it even with it's limitations (haven't had a problem yet). Only thing I am mad about is Canon putting in fake overheating timers (if that is true) - Very dishonest and unethical. 

 

[SteveV4D]

11 minutes ago, Mustafa Ali said:

What crop in 4k HQ ? And the normal 4k looks rubbish ? See the video I made comparing both and please be honest with yourself. For reference, check Wolfcrow on youtube, he is a real filmmaker for over 20 years where he did the multiple tests for moire and quality of the normal 4k vs 4k HQ and even he confirms the difference is second to none once you sharpen the normal 4k. Which other full frame camera besides the a7siii is giving you all those 3 things again ? Not to mention if you want highest quality on the a7siii you have to shoot in h265 as well. 

 

Yet another awful comparison video.  Last one was just as bad.  Let's compare how sharp and detail an image is by having a lovely softly lit focus of a face with the background heavily out of focus...  🤔 Very insightful... Canons 1080p in their older cameras was often soft, but you rarely noticed it in faces, only in wider shots like cityscapes and Countryside scenery.  My very old Canon 60d used to capture detail very well when covering close ups of people, but point it at the countryside and that detail fell apart.

If you have any tests, where there is like an abundance of detail, I'll look at it seriously.

The crop 4K is the one you spoke of.  The S35 crop to get unlimited recording of HQ 4K.  I'd rather buy a S35 camera and save some money.  If the fullframe look is so important to this camera, then the S35 crop for HQ 4K is unacceptable.  

If sharpened line skipped 4K is so comparable to 4K downsampled from 8K, it makes a lie of anyone who boasts of its incredible detail compared to cameras recording 4K with a 4K sensor like the A7sIII.  Maybe because the AA filter is spoiling the detail you would otherwise get.  

Sure the R5 has unique features, but frankly so do other cameras.  Does it output RAW at unlimited recording, does it offer unlimited 4K downsampled from a larger sensor.  Is it Netflix approved.  Look theres already 3 features of the S1H it fails to match. 

The R5 is only of value to me if those unique features you speak of matter to my work.  If they dont, then they count for little if the cons restrict the use I would buy the camera for.  Line skipped 4K is okay to use, but would be impractical for my filming, where I do a lot of grading and adjusting of the image and need a strong naturaly detailed image I can work with and not something you have to artificially sharpen to give the illusion of good detail.

[Mustafa Ali]

@Steve,

You obviously didn't see the video. I have shots where background is not blurred at f5.6 so you can look at detail in the trees and the surroundings.. If you really are interested I wouldn't mind shooting some city scapes and etc and upload it somewhere for you to download and test it. Even then, I think you have already made up your mind before even using it and testing it out for yourself. So I would be wasting my time. 

So do you have the S1H ? If not, why haven't you got it already ? That tells me you're only after specs rather than actual usability - S1H was made for video hence it is a better video camera period (if you don't care about autofocus). Silly comparison but ok. On the other hand, If you already have the S1H, why care about the R5 if video is your priority ? 🙂  

To your last statement, you can still use a ninja 5 to get unlimited 4k HQ if you wanted to record country scapes for hours. Grading wise, from my testing, I found no difference in normal 4k vs 4k hq. If you care, check out Wolfcrow's video on youtube on the R5 and different modes compared  - he has extremely resourceful content about filmmaking in general.

Not sure what you are shooting and who in the world is pixel peeping your videos to see every small little detail besides you - Honestly just curious. It would be interesting to know.

I am just sharing my first hand experience. That being said I have no interest in defending the R5 or convincing you to buy it. It's your choice and you know what's best for you. Good luck!

 

[Andrew Reid]

I have shot a comparison between the A7R IV and EOS R5 myself. Blog post coming up.

The A7R IV has the sharper looking 4K and is very good in low light. 8bit not too much of a hinderance really.

The EOS R5 is much softer in the 4K mode we can actually use (pixel binned) but has less aliasing, and moire is well controlled.

It's alright. Does it let Canon off the hook though? Nope.

[SteveV4D]

2 hours ago, Mustafa Ali said:

@Steve,

You obviously didn't see the video. I have shots where background is not blurred at f5.6 so you can look at detail in the trees and the surroundings.. If you really are interested I wouldn't mind shooting some city scapes and etc and upload it somewhere for you to download and test it. Even then, I think you have already made up your mind before even using it and testing it out for yourself. So I would be wasting my time. 

So do you have the S1H ? If not, why haven't you got it already ? That tells me you're only after specs rather than actual usability - S1H was made for video hence it is a better video camera period (if you don't care about autofocus). Silly comparison but ok. On the other hand, If you already have the S1H, why care about the R5 if video is your priority ? 🙂  

To your last statement, you can still use a ninja 5 to get unlimited 4k HQ if you wanted to record country scapes for hours. Grading wise, from my testing, I found no difference in normal 4k vs 4k hq. If you care, check out Wolfcrow's video on youtube on the R5 and different modes compared  - he has extremely resourceful content about filmmaking in general.

Not sure what you are shooting and who in the world is pixel peeping your videos to see every small little detail besides you - Honestly just curious. It would be interesting to know.

 

A lot of misconceptions here.  I don't own the S1H.  I am looking to add a fullframe camera to my range and currently looking at Nikon, Sony,  Canon and Panasonic.  Each have their strengths and flaws.  I was seriously looking at the R5 and R6 before this fiasco.  Panasonic chief flaw is their AF and as gimbal use is a chief requirement for any fullframe camera I buy; it is a major concern for me, despite its superior features, and why I hesitate to go for it.

I saw the video you posted.  I saw no detailed landscape shots.  Just the same shot of the model with background out of foucs at various levels of depth of field, depending on aperture.  All shots cut very quickly and shot in soft light, with OOF background to help sell the argument.  I saw nothing like a 100% cityscape and landscape shot in the video you posted.  Care to share the timecode for the shot you speak of... 

I am not after specs.. if I was I may have fallen into the trap of  the R5 which promised specs but gave us poor usablity both in recording and the codecs used for editing.  The R5 falls far shot of being usable for videos, aside from AF and IBIS, the latter which is wobbly at wide angles and why I have fallen out of love with IBIS after using it on the GH5.

Again I ask, if the downsampled 4K from 8K is so detailed, how can it be so easily matched to line skipped with just a bit of sharpening.  Even Wolfcrow had this to say about HQ vs standard 4K, taken from a link on his big Youtube review of the R5:

"There is definitely a difference, and 4K HQ is objectively better. However, I can hardly see a major difference in resolution in HQ. There is a difference between resolution and sharpness. You can add sharpness later, but resolution cannot be created.  At 100% the difference exists, but it’s too small to fret about. I’m really not sure the 4K HQ mode is true downsampled 8K, because the dissimilarity is striking. I don’t know why 4K HQ mode is this bad, when it should be a lot better."

Which adds weight to my question to you?  Why is downsampled 4K so bad, that line skipped 4K can so easily match it?

As for grading, it depends on the type of grading..   what you're doing with the image and how professionally you colour grade.  I tend to push it harder and a soft line skipped file doesn't cut it.  I want a good image to start with, not soft mush.

My clients don't pixel peep, I do.  That's why they pay me.  I don't pay a mechanic to fix a car so it looks okay by my ill-informed standards, I pay them so it looks good by theirs. That's why you use a Professional.  If I fell into the trap of down grading my work because of clients poor knowledge of video, I would be a poor videographer and professional.

Justifying the R5 with talk of Ninja is apologists talk.  Its frankly insulting to suggest buying an external recorder just to get unlimited recording of proper fullframe 4K.

[Mustafa Ali]

47 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

A lot of misconceptions here.  I don't own the S1H.  I am looking to add a fullframe camera to my range and currently looking at Nikon, Sony,  Canon and Panasonic.  Each have their strengths and flaws.  I was seriously looking at the R5 and R6 before this fiasco.  Panasonic chief flaw is their AF and as gimbal use is a chief requirement for any fullframe camera I buy; it is a major concern for me, despite its superior features, and why I hesitate to go for it.

I saw the video you posted.  I saw no detailed landscape shots.  Just the same shot of the model with background out of foucs at various levels of depth of field, depending on aperture.  All shots cut very quickly and shot in soft light, with OOF background to help sell the argument.  I saw nothing like a 100% cityscape and landscape shot in the video you posted.  Care to share the timecode for the shot you speak of... 

I am not after specs.. if I was I may have fallen into the trap of  the R5 which promised specs but gave us poor usablity both in recording and the codecs used for editing.  The R5 falls far shot of being usable for videos, aside from AF and IBIS, the latter which is wobbly at wide angles and why I have fallen out of love with IBIS after using it on the GH5.

Again I ask, if the downsampled 4K from 8K is so detailed, how can it be so easily matched to line skipped with just a bit of sharpening.  Even Wolfcrow had this to say about HQ vs standard 4K, taken from a link on his big Youtube review of the R5:

"There is definitely a difference, and 4K HQ is objectively better. However, I can hardly see a major difference in resolution in HQ. There is a difference between resolution and sharpness. You can add sharpness later, but resolution cannot be created.  At 100% the difference exists, but it’s too small to fret about. I’m really not sure the 4K HQ mode is true downsampled 8K, because the dissimilarity is striking. I don’t know why 4K HQ mode is this bad, when it should be a lot better."

Which adds weight to my question to you?  Why is downsampled 4K so bad, that line skipped 4K can so easily match it?

As for grading, it depends on the type of grading..   what you're doing with the image and how professionally you colour grade.  I tend to push it harder and a soft line skipped file doesn't cut it.  I want a good image to start with, not soft mush.

My clients don't pixel peep, I do.  That's why they pay me.  I don't pay a mechanic to fix a car so it looks okay by my ill-informed standards, I pay them so it looks good by theirs. That's why you use a Professional.  If I fell into the trap of down grading my work because of clients poor knowledge of video, I would be a poor videographer and professional.

Justifying the R5 with talk of Ninja is apologists talk.  Its frankly insulting to suggest buying an external recorder just to get unlimited recording of proper fullframe 4K.

Hey Steve, 

Out of curiosity what are you shooting on currently ? And like I said, if you want to see some more examples of normal 4k, I will be happy to do it for you and upload it somewhere so you can download it and test it. Just tell me what you want to see exactly i.e. moving objects, static buildings and etc.. This is not to convince you to get the R5, but it would be to help you decide whether it work for you or not. 

Regarding the downsampled 4k which you say is bad - You do realize that you're seeing the 4k HQ and normal 4k at 200% zoom along side the 8k in his video  ? Unless that is your use case, I don't see that to be an issue for me personally. 

Second thing, like I said, I don't care about justifying the R5 or who buys or who doesn't. Everyone's use case is different and just because it works or doesn't work for me doesn't mean the same would apply to someone else. 

Regards,

M

[SteveV4D]

8 hours ago, Mustafa Ali said:

Hey Steve, 

Out of curiosity what are you shooting on currently ? And like I said, if you want to see some more examples of normal 4k, I will be happy to do it for you and upload it somewhere so you can download it and test it. Just tell me what you want to see exactly i.e. moving objects, static buildings and etc.. This is not to convince you to get the R5, but it would be to help you decide whether it work for you or not. 

Regarding the downsampled 4k which you say is bad - You do realize that you're seeing the 4k HQ and normal 4k at 200% zoom along side the 8k in his video  ? Unless that is your use case, I don't see that to be an issue for me personally. 

 

I use the Pocket cameras with GH5 as secondary cameras when I need weather sealing and the occasional photo work (about 2 jobs per year).  A fullframe camera is needed to replace the GH5, hopefully without compromising what I had with the GH5, reliability and strong features.

I'd be intrigued to see  and handle video of line skipped 4K, 4K HQ and 8K in scenes where there is a lot of detail, like woodlands, cities - that sort of thing.  It would make for a interesting comparison.

I didn't say I saw downsampled 4K as bad, that was me quoting Wolfcrow and conjecturing based on his opinion and the fact that some like yourself feel line skipped 4K can be made to look close to HQ 4K with just a bit of sharpening.  

Its interesting that on the one hand, I have some R5 users says that the R5 4K is the best, with amazing detail above and beyond other cameras 4K.  Yet on the other hand, it is barely indistinguishable from line skipped 4K with just a hint of shaprening. 🤔🤔  

The two views are contradictory.  So either line skipped can't be so easily matched with sharpening or there is something wrong with 4K HQ.  This is what Wolfcrow was on about in his blog on comparing the two.  He was was questioning the same thing.  Maybe downsampled 4K from 8K isn't quite as good as we are being led to believe.

[toxotis70]

you dont pay 4000-5000$ to have sub optimal footage....   but the best you can get.

[SteveV4D]

9 hours ago, toxotis70 said:

you dont pay 4000-5000$ to have sub optimal footage....   but the best you can get.

Exactly that.  For me, any fullframe hybrid I get will be a B camera to my BM Pockets and used for lowlight, gimbal work and situations where I need weather sealing.  I've no problem paying that sort of money even for a B camera, but I struggle to do so for a camera where the IQ of the only usable video for fullframe is lower than what I am use to, yet at a price that is more than both my BM Pockets put together.  

[Davos]

7 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

I've no problem paying that sort of money even for a B camera, but I struggle to do so for a camera where the IQ of the only usable video for fullframe is lower than what I am use to, yet at a price that is more than both my BM Pockets put together.  

This is the ridiculousness of the situation. Canon is missing out on a BUNCH of sales over this. You see numerous people on forums stating they'd buy if the limitations weren't there but as they are they won't. People aren't stupid, these cameras aren't impulse buys, they're very considered decisions and this news is EVERYWHERE camera people go online.

Canon makes it's money on the glass, all these missed body sales means no high margin glass sales. If they'd just delivered 4K 60 HQ 4:2:2 unlimited int people would be snapping them up and I honestly don't see how that would have hurt their C line much. Canon just got silly with hype-y specs.

[zerocool22]

1 hour ago, SteveV4D said:

Exactly that.  For me, any fullframe hybrid I get will be a B camera to my BM Pockets and used for lowlight, gimbal work and situations where I need weather sealing.  I've no problem paying that sort of money even for a B camera, but I struggle to do so for a camera where the IQ of the only usable video for fullframe is lower than what I am use to, yet at a price that is more than both my BM Pockets put together.  

True but there is no hybrid IQ wise as good as the bm pockets. But ibis, photography, AF do have their selling points. I will get a hybrid and just keep the pockets and ump for other style projects.

[Video Hummus]

1 hour ago, Davos said:

People aren't stupid, these cameras aren't impulse buys, they're very considered decisions and this news is EVERYWHERE camera people go online.

I think there was a lot of initial impulse buys with the R5...which is worst. They get there camera then find out its a complete usability joke.