Canon R5 new 1.3 firmware ads CLOG3, Raw light and IPB light

[TomTheDP]

15 minutes ago, ade towell said:

Have been hearing that clog3 doesn't seem to give the R5 any more DR than Clog does - anyone compared?

I’ve seen several comparisons. Seems to maybe give a small increase in the highlights. Maybe half a stop at best. Both clog1 and 3 are losing you shadow detail. The dynamic range increase in RAW is mostly in the shadows, and they are very noisy. Overall the R5 dynamic range is just not very good. 

[ade towell]

Yes have got an R6 to try for a week and have to say the DR in c-log feels quite a bit below my Fuji in f-log which is disappointing for a new full frame sensor compared to a super 35 sensor that's a few years old now. Was hoping the clog3 might push the R5 (and eventually perhaps the R6) at least into a similar place with DR. I realise there is more DR in RAW on the R5 but that would not be what I would be using most of the time, a nice  juicy 10 bit file is what I'm after

[ade towell]

Actually just realised the R6 uses the sensor from the 1DX so not brand new but still is way below other full frame cameras for DR in video. Has good DR in photos though so annoying that Canon have limited it so much in video - all part of their product segmentation I guess... 

[Video Hummus]

On 4/1/2021 at 9:07 AM, ade towell said:

Wondering if the RAW light would also allow some of the cheaper cfexpress cards to work better. The price of the officially compatible ones are still eye watering

I've had no problems with my Angelbird AV Pro 256GB in any mode. They offer some of the best $/GB for CFExpress Type B. I was thinking about upgrading to their 1TB card since the released firmware to address the slow boot ups.

They sure bungled the clog3 update with the view assist, wtf. What is the point of a rec709 preview if it's blown out on the screen when correctly exposed? Also, the light versions of the codecs make little sense if the 29m59s recording limits are still there!

There were rumors there was a 1.3.2 firmware version for R5, hopefully it addresses this issue and makes clog3 as easy to record in as clog1.

[TomTheDP]

On 4/3/2021 at 11:18 AM, ade towell said:

Actually just realised the R6 uses the sensor from the 1DX so not brand new but still is way below other full frame cameras for DR in video. Has good DR in photos though so annoying that Canon have limited it so much in video - all part of their product segmentation I guess... 

Yeah the dynamic range for photos on the R6 is really good. Seems more on par with Sony and Nikon vs the EOS R or older Canon DSLRs which were always behind in shadow and highlight retention. 

It's weird on the R5 even in RAW dynamic range is not great. The A7S3 and Panasonic S1 are quite a bit better. The shadows do hold more detail in RAW than CLOG1 and CLOG3 which basically cut off the shadows to reduce noise, but the highlights just aren't there. 

[Video Hummus]

2 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

Yeah the dynamic range for photos on the R6 is really good. Seems more on par with Sony and Nikon vs the EOS R or older Canon DSLRs which were always behind in shadow and highlight retention. 

It's weird on the R5 even in RAW dynamic range is not great. The A7S3 and Panasonic S1 are quite a bit better. The shadows do hold more detail in RAW than CLOG1 and CLOG3 which basically cut off the shadows to reduce noise, but the highlights just aren't there. 

Yeah, I love the new RAW Lite but it kinda isn't worth it when the DR seems gimped even in clog2 mode. So much processing to do to clean up shadows to eek out 0.3 stops extra.

The clog3 mode does offer 1 stop better highlight recovery and its worth using, especially in the 4KHQ. I've been shooting it with cinema gamut and it looks nice with the R5 Cinema Gamut CLOG3 to Rec.709 LUT. You do have to tweak the exposure quite a bit but the highlights recovery much better than clog1.

They just need to fix the damn view assist.

[UncleBobsPhotography]

The zebras doesn't seem to make sense for me in clog3 either, I am wondering if they are linked to the view assist issue. View assist turned off and checking exposure with the histogram seems like the way to go so far.

I've also had this annoying issue with transferring files larger than 4GB. I'm transferring the files directly from my camera since I was planning to wait on buying a CFExpress card reader until I can get a Thunderbolt3 reader to take full advantage of the read speed. When I connect the camera to the computer it only recognizes the camera properly if I use the USB-C to USB-C cable that came with the camera. Using a USB-A to USB-C makes a "USB unit recognized sound", but nothing happens. When using the Canon-cable I'm able to transfer the files, but if I do it through the file-explorer files larger than 4GB shows up as 0bytes. Using EOS Utility to transfer the files fixes the problem, but I just moved some files over earlier today forgetting to use EOS utilities and I am now stuck with 0 byte files and the memory card is supposedly empty. The video-clips are not particularly important, so no big deal this time, but it shouldn't be possible for my videoclips to disappear just because I forget to transfer them the correct way. Anyone else had any experience with this issue? Using a SanDisk Extreme Pro 256 GB CFExpress card.

[UncleBobsPhotography]

24 minutes ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

The zebras doesn't seem to make sense for me in clog3 either, I am wondering if they are linked to the view assist issue. View assist turned off and checking exposure with the histogram seems like the way to go so far.

Figured out the Zebras. As gt3rs mentioned earlier in the thread, I have to set second level to 95 instead of 100. I need to learn how to read more carefully.

[jakdaniel1975]

https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Sony-FX3-vs-Canon-EOS-R5-im-Vergleich---welche-Kamera-wofuer--Hauttoene--Autofokus--Aufloesung--uvm- --- Videoaufloe.html

[gt3rs]

7 hours ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

I've also had this annoying issue with transferring files larger than 4GB. I'm transferring the files directly from my camera since I was planning to wait on buying a CFExpress card reader until I can get a Thunderbolt3 reader to take full advantage of the read speed. When I connect the camera to the computer it only recognizes the camera properly if I use the USB-C to USB-C cable that came with the camera. Using a USB-A to USB-C makes a "USB unit recognized sound", but nothing happens. When using the Canon-cable I'm able to transfer the files, but if I do it through the file-explorer files larger than 4GB shows up as 0bytes. Using EOS Utility to transfer the files fixes the problem, but I just moved some files over earlier today forgetting to use EOS utilities and I am now stuck with 0 byte files and the memory card is supposedly empty. The video-clips are not particularly important, so no big deal this time, but it shouldn't be possible for my videoclips to disappear just because I forget to transfer them the correct way. Anyone else had any experience with this issue? Using a SanDisk Extreme Pro 256 GB CFExpress card.

Thunderbolt3 or USB-C will not make any difference as the bottleneck is the CFExpress.

EOS Utility is a pita for transferring videos...

 

[UncleBobsPhotography]

15 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

Thunderbolt3 or USB-C will not make any difference as the bottleneck is the CFExpress.

EOS Utility is a pita for transferring videos...

 

The CFExpress is rated for 1700MB/s read speed which is 13.6 Gbps. USB 3.1 gen 2 has a maximum bandwidth of 10 Gbps. Is the last 3.6 Gbps some marketing BS which is not achievable in reality?

I see that they have been able to print a tiny "*" after 1700 MB/s, so it wouldn't surprise me.

[gt3rs]

12 minutes ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

The CFExpress is rated for 1700MB/s read speed which is 13.6 Gbps. USB 3.1 gen 2 has a maximum bandwidth of 10 Gbps. Is the last 3.6 Gbps some marketing BS which is not achievable in reality?

I see that they have been able to print a tiny "*" after 1700 MB/s, so it wouldn't surprise me.

From real works test max seems to be around 900 MB/s: https://petapixel.com/2020/09/22/cfexpress-a-real-world-performance-comparison/

[Video Hummus]

The speed ratings on the cards are for "burst" writing or reading. It's a marketing game. I will only buy from manufactures that list "max continuous/sustained" writing/reading speeds. They usually are much lower than the advertised speed and is the number that is the most important for video and high speed shooting.

You also have to remember these CFExpress cards have firmware that will throttle the speed based on temperature and will routinely write slower (but still plenty fast) to keep heat down. There is no sense in writing at max speed if the data being supplied is at a relative constant rate (such as 8K video coming in at (225 MB/s).

[independent]

I don't get the complaints about dynamic range. All recent cameras (non-Arri, non-Red) get around 12 stops—including the R5 in raw. 

Raw is noisy, including Redcode, and NR is a necessary tool in post. If you don't want to shoot in Raw, there are other options out there that will give you a cleaner image with higher dynamic range. 

The tradeoff of course will be more artifacts, limited latitude, or worse color. It's your choice. 

Even the Komodo has tradeoffs. On image quality alone, it has relatively awful low-light and limited latitude with dramatic color shifts. 

If you just can't live without 13 stops of dynamic range or the world will be bereft of your creative potential and professional skills, you have a simple answer: C70. 

 

 

[Video Hummus]

3 hours ago, independent said:

I don't get the complaints about dynamic range. All recent cameras (non-Arri, non-Red) get around 12 stops—including the R5 in raw. 

Raw is noisy, including Redcode, and NR is a necessary tool in post. If you don't want to shoot in Raw, there are other options out there that will give you a cleaner image with higher dynamic range. 

The tradeoff of course will be more artifacts, limited latitude, or worse color. It's your choice. 

Even the Komodo has tradeoffs. On image quality alone, it has relatively awful low-light and limited latitude with dramatic color shifts. 

If you just can't live without 13 stops of dynamic range or the world will be bereft of your creative potential and professional skills, you have a simple answer: C70. 

 

After CLOG3 was added I don't have many complaints. It strikes a nice balance of offering more highlight recovery than clog1 while keeping shadow noise low for easy workflow. I'm sure technically its still behind latest Sony Cameras but comparing them is starting to feel like splitting hairs in 90% of situations. Lots of other things matter after that. Plus we have compressed RAW lite now, and with a bit more effort in post, some amazing results can be achieved for a mirrorless camera (especially one from Canon).

I think after stepping back and looking at the whole package that is the R5 and after having used it for several months now... It's pretty sweet. The 4KLQ thing was massively overblown it was ridiculous. People zooming in on tests charts 200% or 400% and saying it looks like crap (it does). But in the real world after YouTube compression or H264 delivery there isn't that many downsides to using it.

Not to mention the RF mount ecosystem has a bright future with RED KOMODO and future cinema cameras from canon...perhaps Blackmagic will join RF too?!

I would like to see cheap 20/24mm wide F1.8 primes and an updated RP with clog1 and perhaps no crop FF 4K for a replacement for the M50 style camera. A quality, powered digital hotshot mic would be nice with that setup too to keep things lean or at least open up the protocol so Røde, Deity, or Sennheiser can make products for it.

R5 4KHQ, RF 24-70mm, clog3/cinema gamut.

[UncleBobsPhotography]

7 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Not to mention the RF mount ecosystem has a bright future with RED KOMODO and future cinema cameras from canon...perhaps Blackmagic will join RF too?!

I would like to see cheap 20/24mm wide F1.8 primes and an updated RP with clog1 and perhaps no crop FF 4K for a replacement for the M50 style camera. A quality, powered digital hotshot mic would be nice with that setup too to keep things lean or at least open up the protocol so Røde, Deity, or Sennheiser can make products for it.

My only issue is that I've gotten so used to the Variable-ND adapter that it will be annoying to transition to RF lenses. I am hoping for a EF-RF tilt-shift adapter, but that would make the transition even harder.

[gt3rs]

8 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

 

I would like to see cheap 20/24mm wide F1.8 primes and an updated RP with clog1 and perhaps no crop FF 4K for a replacement for the M50 style camera. A quality, powered digital hotshot mic would be nice with that setup too to keep things lean or at least open up the protocol so Røde, Deity, or Sennheiser can make products for it.

 

A 24 1.8 compact similar to 35 1.8 would be really cool, is apparently rumored. 

A wireless audio standard would be super cool so camera manufacturer could implement receivers directly in the camera.... it will never happen but it will be super cool.

 

12 hours ago, independent said:

I don't get the complaints about dynamic range. All recent cameras (non-Arri, non-Red) get around 12 stops—including the R5 in raw. 

Raw is noisy, including Redcode, and NR is a necessary tool in post. If you don't want to shoot in Raw, there are other options out there that will give you a cleaner image with higher dynamic range. 

The tradeoff of course will be more artifacts, limited latitude, or worse color. It's your choice. 

Even the Komodo has tradeoffs. On image quality alone, it has relatively awful low-light and limited latitude with dramatic color shifts. 

If you just can't live without 13 stops of dynamic range or the world will be bereft of your creative potential and professional skills, you have a simple answer: C70. 

 

 

Fully agree, here people complain about the work needed on RAW to get more DR by applying NR, on the Sony thread people are complaining that you cannot turn off NR...... wired...

[danieleciraolo]

I have not seen a serious test where you can see that the a7s3 has more dynamic range than the r5 ... the only tests I have seen are fake where they compared the r5 with no log activated, and no comparison with r5 raw video. I'm not talking about numerical tests ... but about real situations with a lot of contrast. In this test they claim that the a7s3 has less video dynamic range than the r5. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Sony-FX3-vs-Canon-EOS-R5-im-Vergleich---welche-Kamera-wofuer--Hauttoene--Autofokus--Aufloesung--uvm----Videoaufloe.html

[ade towell]

13 hours ago, independent said:

I don't get the complaints about dynamic range. All recent cameras (non-Arri, non-Red) get around 12 stops—including the R5 in raw. 

Raw is noisy, including Redcode, and NR is a necessary tool in post. If you don't want to shoot in Raw, there are other options out there that will give you a cleaner image with higher dynamic range. 

The tradeoff of course will be more artifacts, limited latitude, or worse color. It's your choice. 

Even the Komodo has tradeoffs. On image quality alone, it has relatively awful low-light and limited latitude with dramatic color shifts. 

If you just can't live without 13 stops of dynamic range or the world will be bereft of your creative potential and professional skills, you have a simple answer: C70. 

 

 

All good points. My little grumble about DR mainly comes from being spoilt on the X-t3 and even more so the Panasonic S1 which seems to have quite a bit more DR than the R6 I am testing. I realise the R5 has Raw and clog3 and was trying to ascertain how much difference that would make. It's not the end of the world, is just a little disappointing to go backwards a bit in DR, you get used to a certain way of shooting.

I don't want a c70 or even a Sony A7s3/fx3 for that matter, I'm looking for a decent hybrid that shoots solid 10 bit video and nice stills on the ef lenses we have lying around at work. The R6 and even more so the R5 are both very capable cameras with a lovely looking image. We will be getting one of them no doubt, doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be a little frustrated with the DR in video, particularly when the DR is there in the stills side.

[danieleciraolo]

I have not seen a serious test where you can see that the a7s3 has more dynamic range than the r5 ... the only tests I have seen are fake where they compared the r5 with no log activated, and no comparison with r5 raw video. I'm not talking about numerical tests ... but about real situations with a lot of contrast. In this test they claim that the a7s3 has less video dynamic range than the r5. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Canon-EOS-R5-Firmwareupdate-1-3-0--Canon-Log-3--Cinema-Raw-Light-und-IPB-Light-in-der-Praxis.html