Canon EOS R5C

[Emanuel]

Olympus/Panasonic IBIS, Canon's AF, etc., pity we cannot have all them altogether and some tend to close up the perspective on the tree rather than the forest, but choices are part of this business : )

As above-posted, price point is IMHO much determinant than this or that feature, at least to me handling budget matters in a daily basis : )

Let alone in a pandemic year.

Extras never hurt though and I think competition and sales from a typical market economy is what contributes more to this or that feature and thanks to it makes the things evolve.

 

 

[kye]

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

No expectations on unblurring anything.

I have just re-read all your posts in this thread.

Your expectation is that you're combining digital stabilisation with OIS, but you don't mention it - you just keep talking about digital stabilisation without talking about the whole picture.

This eliminates a huge number of people using either vintage lenses, cinema lenses, or third party lenses.

Let's review your comments.  I've bolded the relevant sections.

On 1/20/2022 at 8:44 PM, Emanuel said:

Looks like pretty decent the electronic stabilization with a few myriad of settings : ) I must confess I feel myself tempted to buy it... who knows? ; ) These Canon cameras are a tank, inside me there's still a happy 5DII camper... This time there's no overheating excuse, well done Canon !

Separated stills mode doesn't bother me at all :- )

Digital stabilisation mentioned without mentioning OIS.

Then @Video Hummus posts an OIS + digital stabilisation test but only mentions digital stabilisation:

On 1/22/2022 at 4:47 AM, Video Hummus said:

I think the micro-HDMI is the worst cripple in my opinion. I honestly think realtime gyro enhanced digital stabilization will be the future. You sacrifice a slight crop and 1-axis of correction (the axis that causes the wobble anyway) for more stable footage without the need for a fast shutter.

Well do we know if that is straight out of camera or has it been seasoned to this guys particular tastes? What recording mode + profile did he use and compression ratio? Hard to be conclusive when we don't know what was done. And even so, if the 8K RAW LT holds up and retains the detail then there is a fix at cost of higher (but not deal breaking) storage requirements. Anglebird has +4TB CFX cards coming. I do think Canon has slipped a little bit with their color. Other brands have made huge leaps in consistency and quality.

In a sense, yes, it might be the future.  Perhaps as manufacturers try to lock everyone in to buying their expensive OIS lenses and lock out older glass through their normal anti-competitive behaviour.  Typical for Canon and their cripple hammer - perhaps the only IP they don't make you pay for.

"More stable footage without the need for a fast shutter".  I'll help you expand this statement.....  
"More stable footage without the need for a fast shutter but absolutely needing to use OIS lenses lest your footage look like you are having a seizure of some kind"

23 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Back again to your post, I think any people's complaint on IBIS or lack of IBIS should end here in this video test, thanks for your post BTW even though anything may not surprise me there from what I've already tested myself using one and another but it's always interesting to know some other people are arriving to the same conclusions of ourselves : ) People cannot expect the best of each worlds. IBIS or digital stabilization helps SHAKY hands (IBIS wobble is connected with a physical solution, as simple as that : ) -- Period.

Other than that, buy a gimbal and stop whining. End of story :- )

Yes, yes it should*

(Note, this requires the OIS used in the test.  Hopefully this fine-print will protect me from misleading people that the things I didn't mention aren't actually needed.  Wow this is cool, I can imply things without mentioning them!)

Also, you can film a high-end TV show on a potato*

(Note, you also need millions of dollars, a professional writer, preproduction consultants, production done by a large studio with dozens of staff on set and in the production office, millions of dollars of equipment and facilities, and engaging multiple post-production houses to edit, grade, mix, and master the show.  See - now my statement is totally true, I just failed to explicitly mention these things but I'm totally sure that no-one would be mislead by my original statement)

20 hours ago, Emanuel said:

For sure not made for wide shots neither as gimbal replacement or do we expect IBIS will stabilize our video for walking !?? ; )

Panasonic and Olympus offer better IBIS, correct, but doesn't replace a gimbal shot, unless your camera movement doesn't justify the use of it.

Seems to me modern digital stabilization is much more effective for shaking hands and the test with the camera attached to the car proves it.

I hate when we are unfair anyway, and so far I don't see anything other than good efforts this time along this camera release in particular (TBH it has surprised me enough to not be silent for the subject matter : )

You mean that test that involved OIS?

Did you know you can film a high-end TV show on a potato?  It's definitely true and I'm definitely not misleading anyone by leaving any information out of that statement.

19 hours ago, Emanuel said:

I did NOT write one replaces another, c'mon... Much different what I wrote.

BTW, I am using IS glass since its introduction. I recall a test done with my 24-105 f/4 coupled to my 5DII 13 years ago even before this community was created by our webmaster. People then found pretty amazing how could an interview be shot handheld using an unexpected focal length going tele with that zoom lens. Still wondering if I hadn't used a tripod, monopod, anything extra to stabilize it, go figure!

I obviously understand the contribution of the conclusions of your test, moreover the whole advantages you've fairly shown with. No doubt on it at all : ) Pretty clear and consensual.

That's not my point. My point is that we cannot compare the digital stabilization of this camera model in particular with anything other from a different capture device, no matter what else. It's apples to oranges :- )

 

That car test (done with digital stabilization on a R5C vs IBIS R5) is very elucidative to everyone. Just not to people who don't watch it or have any bias or beef against, so better to not pay attention to it. I instead appreciate to rather praise and evolve my scope as much as I can, so I am always open to listen some new insight, no worries about.

If you say, ah but let's change the variables such as shutter speed, focal length, etc. and take a new look? Now we're talking... ; ) So, I find it not exactly hopeful but just interesting any test under distinct premises, camera included.

You didn't write that one replaces the other?

Maybe that's true.  I also never wrote that you can film a professional looking TV show on a potato.  Check it.  I never said that exact combination of words.  

Do you know what straw-man argument is?

13 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Your needs don't fit someone's else and vice versa. As much, kind of work, style, etc.. : )

I don't think people are celebrating the lack of IBIS or instead the digital stabilization. I am still waiting to read that. Where? ; )

I just see the test with the camera mounted to the car proves that can even be more effective than IBIS is, or the same at least for shaky shots, as for instance.

In my case, I don't give a damn if Canon's IBIS is inferior to any other competitor, no one pays me to be their fanboy and I don't need stabilization for anything other except when I'm using the gimbal and then no IBIS or any other method are any useful.

So? If they can offer you a product without a feature you don't need, seems to me a better deal to not pay an extra cost for something you don't need, isn't it?

IBIS or lack of it mantra can fit someone's cup but not everyone's.

It's all about that..

EAG :- )

You mean the one with OIS?

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

So far so good. TBH the R5C tests I've seen are promising enough to make it shine within its limits.

....with an OIS lens.

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

No expectations on unblurring anything.

....if you use an OIS lens.

[Emanuel]

Well, you give yourself to all that work only for trying to understand my thinking, expectations, etc.? : D WOW I sincerely feel myself flattered... I wish all my readers every day could think and give me the same feedback on emails, production notes, sms, instant communication and so on. Really, no empty words, you honour me with your reciprocal consideration : )

 

OK, in short I will try to resume all that in order to let it clarified as much as possible:

There's a new kid on the block.

Some other time, overheating didn't allow anything else. Price, this time? Ah, that's OK for what offers but has no IBIS.

Do you need stabilization for what BTW? Shaky shots, other than that, for this camera, gimbal shots apply.

(that 'you' in italic is me or the people I and my partners will put this sort of device in hands)

Will you miss the lack of IBIS for that purpose? Seems not for what I've seen from digital stabilization per se.

Would be better to have IBIS? Yes, of course. There isn't. So?

Well, lack of IBIS won't put us away of there if or/and when I'll see a chance to buy one or a couple of units.

That's it!

I don't mind for anything else. I can read the limitations, all the tech speech and information, the thoughts people are posting over these pages but the fact is: nothing has changed the early idea I got from this reasoning and that order :- )

 

On the straw man argument, yes, but on the opposite, I feel at times compelled to not let my position distorted, intencionally or unintentionally, as happens with my text above-mentioned in this same post.

On the need of native Canon RF lens mount with OIS lens, yes, you're right but I think everyone here has implicit this along the digital digitalization in-camera. Our webmaster even starts his artcle saying is NOT switching, written in capital letters, for some good reason and very inherent although nameless, hence the presumption as much as occurs with the filmmaking process you describe up there. Besides, your note in form of disclaimer is rather productive and elucidative, so welcome. With IBIS is a different story indeed, no doubts on it. Thank you for letting us to not forget it ;- )

[Django]

 

3 hours ago, kye said:

 

The other elephant in the room here is that a lot of people have gotten used to the video look and the look of poor colours.  There also seems to be a huge number of Canon fans who treat Canon colours and looks as the pinnacle, so when you say there's a problem they cannot understand it because Canon is literally the definition (in their minds) of what is good.
If you bring up the image from an Alexa then they just dismiss you because all expensive cameras are in a parallel universe and therefore do not apply.  Never mind that the 'standard' has gotten worse or should show some problems - that's simply not possible, and how dare you to even suggest it.

 

So what have we learned here today? Canon SOOC CS pales in front of an Alexa.. and its EIS can't compete with a 1/2" sensor Gopro? Fair points lol.

We can talk ARRI CS all day.. but let's be real 99.9% of the footage you see from an Alexa has been professionally graded by a (Hollywood) colorist. You out of ALL people here knows this. That's what really sets it in a parallel universe, not just the cost of the camera itself. Without even getting into pro lighting, cine lenses etc. So what exactly is your beef with Canon CS? Please develop, genuinely curious.

There are tons of Canon Raw vs ARRI Raw tests out there. The CS isn't really that different. DR & highlight roll-off are much bigger IQ factors.

The dreaded "video look" is imo really mostly SOOC Rec709 profiles, poor lighting/exposure/grading/shutter angle, lenses etc.

Please feel free to challenge these thoughts.. I consider myself pretty brand agnostic but at this point in the debate I'm really just curious, what gear do you actually own/shoot/recommend? 

 

[Emanuel]

Well, I am just finishing two feature films shot on ALEXA Mini, RED Dragon and a7S, so I should also be considered brand agnostic, no? : D Well, speaking of Portuguese people even if I am doing the whole of my work outside from my UK basis, here's a promotion video sponsored by Canon Europe shot by a French in the beautiful Portuguese land of Madeira island:

 

[Emanuel]

* I stand corrected a couple of posts above, I obviosly meant "digital stabilization", sorry for the typo, failure, whatever you want to call it, I didn't read it twice and as already said earlier in one of these threads, 5 minutes is too short to edit any mistake, error, etc., mainly for long posts :- )

[cameraeye]

7 hours ago, Davide Roveri said:

but those magnets are a lot stronger than I thought so I'm wondering why one couldn't shoot with the sensor in that mode

I would hazard a guess (also with a complete lack of engineering background) that the kind of vibrations that the magnet couldn't curtail are from small and strong vibrations e.g. from mounting to a car. Shaking by a few pixels would ruin the shot and make it hard for creative control.

[kye]

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

On the need of native Canon RF lens mount with OIS lens, yes, you're right but I think everyone here has implicit this along the digital digitalization in-camera.

Unfortunately I don't share your thought that everyone knows this.  I've seen many conversations in the past, both here and elsewhere, saying that digital stabilisation / EIS will make IBIS and OIS obsolete.  Perhaps it will, in action camera products, but not if you want to maintain a 180 shutter, as I would imagine the majority of people who shoot 8K RAW would be interested in doing.

An additional factor that comes into play is the general lack of understanding about how these things actually work.  Of course, we can't expect everyone who uses a product to understand how it works - none of us could ever use a computer ever again as they're now hundreds of times more complex than any person could ever understand - but knowledge is power and there are consequences to people not understanding some of these things.

A lack of understanding about ISO limitations might cause someone to suggest that they can darken an image with aperture to get a deeper DoF and simply compensate by raising ISO.  This is true but if their understanding of ISO is that "higher = brighter" then they're going to risk ruining an entire shoot because they didn't understand the limitation of the technology.

Same with digital stabilisation.  It does have a stabilising effect, just like raising ISO has a brightening effect, but it's not the same as IBIS or OIS, in the same way that raising ISO isn't the same as turning your lights up.

Any time a conversation begins with a faulty understanding of reality, the danger is that it goes in strange directions that are misleading and outright wrong.  There were many references in this thread to digital stabilisation being a substitute (or even an upgrade) for IBIS.  Anyone who knows that OIS and IBIS are similar (which they are) might conclude from these comments that digital stabilisation can be a good substitute for IBIS and OIS.  The fact that the tests presented included OIS and this was basically ignored in pages of discussion is misleading at best.

1 hour ago, Django said:

We can talk ARRI CS all day.. but let's be real 99.9% of the footage you see from an Alexa has been professionally graded by a (Hollywood) colorist. You out of ALL people here knows this. That's what really sets it in a parallel universe, not just the cost of the camera itself. Without even getting into pro lighting, cine lenses etc. So what exactly is your beef with Canon CS? Please develop, genuinely curious.

There are tons of Canon Raw vs ARRI Raw tests out there. The CS isn't really that different. DR & highlight roll-off are much bigger IQ factors.

The dreaded "video look" is imo really mostly SOOC Rec709 profiles, poor lighting/exposure/grading/shutter angle, lenses etc.

Please feel free to challenge these thoughts.. I consider myself pretty brand agnostic but at this point in the debate I'm really just curious, what gear do you actually own/shoot/recommend? 

There is something magical about ARRI colour.  It is magical in both its RAW form and in the Prores files from it too.  It is expensive though.  
There is magic from the older BM cameras (OG BMPCC and BMMCC) but in many ways these cameras are a PITA to use, and also limited to 1080p, which for many isn't enough.
There is magic in the ML RAW files too, even when graded with a simple LUT.  However, there wasn't magic in the compressed files.

A couple of people have expressed that the compressed files from the latest Canon cameras have "clay" like skin-tones. Now, we know from the 5D3 that the RAW was great (thanks to ML) but the compressed files weren't, so we can deduct that the compression that Canon employ removes some of the image quality.  My impression of ML RAW through Youtube compression was that it has this magic, but that normal Canon footage from the Canon you tubers does not.  

I then make the assumption that the lack of magic in the current Canon cameras is from the compression and image processing, rather than assuming their sensors have gotten worse since the 5D days.  Maybe this is a faulty assumption, but I suspect not.  In my experience heavy NR and compressed LOG profiles are generally what result in clay-like skin- tones.  

That leads to the idea that if you want to get great skintones from something like the R5C then you have to shoot RAW.  No problems so far, good stuff, but it gives you a choice.  You either shoot the full 8K RAW with the large file sizes, or you crop into the sensor which you'd have to compensate for in lens choices and more noise etc, or you shoot compressed codecs and lose the magic that is very likely to be present in the RAW.  One way around that is to use an external monitor to get RAW out of the camera but compress it to Prores, which can (as ARRI and BM have shown) retain the magic within skin tones.

That's it.  That's the logic.

My thoughts on the wider topic are this:

• Cameras are giving us more and more pixels, but less and less magic.
  In 2012 Canon released the 5D3, which had a sensor that captured magic (when paired with a hack).  Also in 2012 BM gave us a quirky sub-$1000 camera with a magical image, but the magic was also in the compressed files.
  Now, a decade later, we have cameras that cost 3x, 4x, 5x, or more, the price of the OG BMPCC, but there is no magic.  We have 16x the number of pixels in the image, but no magic.  We have 120p, 180p, 240p, but no magic.
   
• Worse still, manufacturers have managed to brainwash us to not even expect magic.
  The entire point of cameras is to make people feel something.  Images should be emotive.  Colour is a great way to do that because it's subject agnostic.  A CEO giving a quarterly update will have a substantially different effect on people emotionally if their skin looks radiant rather than pallid.  This is something that matters.
   
• Sure Canon RAW might be similar to ARRI RAW, but (as you say) ARRI RAW gets professionally graded and Canon RAW doesn't.
  This is all the more reason for the compressed files to look just as great as the RAW.  BM gave us this in 2012, after all.  In this sense, cameras have gotten harder to get good colour out of instead of easier.  But this gets us into the crux of the matter, which is GAS.
   
• If you're happy with what you have you stop looking at what else you can buy.
  If Canon implemented Prores and a colour pipeline that could keep the magic in the files, perhaps requiring a LUT to be applied in post, then people would be happy and not looking to upgrade.  Lots of people who own a 4K RAW camera that they're not completely satisfied with would probably be interested in an 8K RAW camera.  Almost no-one who owned a 4K RAW camera that made wonderful images would be interested in that same 8K RAW camera.  The manufacturers are in the business of keeping you happy enough to buy but unhappy enough to upgrade as soon as you can.

What do I own?

I own a GH5 with manual and vintage lenses.  I shoot handheld in available light in a verite style with no directing and no retakes.  The IBIS and internal 200Mbps 1080p 10-bit ALL-I codec create a nice image that's easy to work with.  I tested the 5K, 4K and 1080p modes with my sharpest lenses stopped down and the difference in resolution and sharpness was small and so the benefits the 1080p ALL-I files have in the rest of my post-production workflow outweighs that slight IQ bump.
I am not happy with the colour science / DR of the GH5, and this is one of the weaknesses I hope the GH6 fixes.  I am also not happy with the low-light performance of the GH5, which I also hope the GH6 will rectify.

I own a GX85 and GF3 for pocketable fun projects.  These are paired with vintage, manual, or lenses like the 12-35/2.8 and the 12-60/2.8-4 that I plan to get to replace the 12-35.

I own the BMMCC, which I bought as a reference for its magical image and colour science.  I have done dozens of comparisons with it and the GH5 trying to emulate the colour of the BMMCC with the GH5.  I haven't gotten perfect results, but I have learned a lot and still have much to learn.  Being able to do side-by-side tests is the only real way to compare two cameras if you plan on really learning about how each of them works and how to get the best of both.  In theory the 10-bit from the GH5 should be bendable to the colour science (but not the DR) from the BMMCC, but I'm yet to really nail it.

I own the OG BMPCC, which I bought as a small (pocketable!) cinema camera to use for fun projects.  Turns out the screen isn't visible with my polarised sunglasses (a terrible design decision) and isn't really visible in bright conditions anyway, requiring an external monitor, and negating the point of the camera over the BMMCC.  The GX85 was the replacement for this and I'm just yet to sell it.

What do I recommend?

I recommend people point their cameras at interesting stuff.  Assuming they're already doing that, I recommend that they study and increase their skills in story-telling, directing, lighting and production design, composition, editing, colour grading, music and sound design and all the creative aspects of film-making that are relevant to what they do and the roles they play.

I recommend people practice and get as much experience with things.  So many people on social media ask questions that they could answer themselves.  So many more people on social media endlessly parrot things that "everyone knows" but are actually outright bullshit.  I've lost count of the number of times I've read something, questioned it, done a test myself in an hour or two, and realised that this "common wisdom" is actually just flat-out wrong.

I recommend that if a problem can't be solved by learning more or working around it (one of the reasons to practice and try things yourself) I recommend that people spend money on basically everything except their camera.  Lighting, modifiers, grip, supports, audio, and lenses are far better upgrades than cameras, most of the time at least.

In terms of cameras, which I know was what your question was actually about, I recommend that people truly understand their needs.  Everyone wants the perfect camera and there isn't one and there never will be one.  This means that in order to get the camera with the fewest compromises you have to work out what your priorities are, then starting at the bottom start removing them until you're left with a list of just your top priorities that can be met by a camera.  I would suggest that existing lenses and other ecosystem factors would probably be high on this list for most people.

My philosophy is that you miss all the shots you don't take, so priority #1 is getting a setup that you can use.  
Fast primes might be great, but if you film in the remote wilderness and can't carry the gear there then it's game over, pack lighter.  If you need to shoot fast then primes won't work either - ENG cameras had long zooms for this reason.  Would ENG footage have looked nicer if they could have gotten blurrier backgrounds or if there was better low-light performance?  Sure.  But primes were never going to work, and a lens that weighed 20kg/44lb was never going to work either.

Priority #2 is having the equipment allow you to get the best content in your shots.  
For me size is a factor here.  I regularly shoot in private places (like museums or art galleries etc) where professional cameras aren't allowed.  I could afford a medium-sized cinema camera but I'd get kicked out of those places in a heartbeat.  I also appreciate not hassling people around me with a large camera, and I don't appreciate the unwanted attention that it brings.  For me, a GH5, lens, shotgun mic and wrist-strap is about as large as I'm willing to go.

Priority #3 is having the nicest images come from the camera.
This is why I use vintage and manual prime lenses.  I want my images to look as cinematic as possible.  Not because it's cool, but because it suits the subject matter and aesthetic of what I shoot and the effect I want them to have on my audience.  It also makes me happy to shoot, and it's pretty obvious that I enjoy the technical aspects of it as well, so this is part of the experience for me.  I prefer the look of a vintage lens with IBIS rather than a modern lens with OIS.  I like the lack of clinical sharpness that vintage and manual lenses give me, because, once again, this suits my target aesthetic.
This forum spends lots of time talking about this level - the image from the camera.  It spends less time talking about the practicalities that are associated with those choices (priority #2) and even less time talking about Priority #1.
Worse still, we spend basically zero time discussing aesthetic, which is what the whole imaging system is designed around.  It's just assumed that more resolution is better and sharper lenses are better, etc.  I have the distinct impression that the people here who could actually talk about their aesthetic, what the emotional experience of that aesthetic is designed to be, and how their equipment and process is designed to maximise this.

[Emanuel]

22 minutes ago, kye said:

Unfortunately I don't share your thought that everyone knows this.  I've seen many conversations in the past, both here and elsewhere, saying that digital stabilisation / EIS will make IBIS and OIS obsolete.  Perhaps it will, in action camera products, but not if you want to maintain a 180 shutter, as I would imagine the majority of people who shoot 8K RAW would be interested in doing.

An additional factor that comes into play is the general lack of understanding about how these things actually work.  Of course, we can't expect everyone who uses a product to understand how it works - none of us could ever use a computer ever again as they're now hundreds of times more complex than any person could ever understand - but knowledge is power and there are consequences to people not understanding some of these things.

A lack of understanding about ISO limitations might cause someone to suggest that they can darken an image with aperture to get a deeper DoF and simply compensate by raising ISO.  This is true but if their understanding of ISO is that "higher = brighter" then they're going to risk ruining an entire shoot because they didn't understand the limitation of the technology.

Same with digital stabilisation.  It does have a stabilising effect, just like raising ISO has a brightening effect, but it's not the same as IBIS or OIS, in the same way that raising ISO isn't the same as turning your lights up.

Any time a conversation begins with a faulty understanding of reality, the danger is that it goes in strange directions that are misleading and outright wrong.  There were many references in this thread to digital stabilisation being a substitute (or even an upgrade) for IBIS.  Anyone who knows that OIS and IBIS are similar (which they are) might conclude from these comments that digital stabilisation can be a good substitute for IBIS and OIS.  The fact that the tests presented included OIS and this was basically ignored in pages of discussion is misleading at best.

I think other than much more, for sure, we both share the same love for knowledge and the mandatory aspect of a lot of it (good example BTW), as well, contempt for the misleading idea of pretentious obsolescence over still useful technology, to begin with.

TBH I hate the idea to see something rather helpful to be replaced for something inferior : )

Aside a particular weakness for ingenious technology invariably consequence of many years of development, effort of many and commitment to not be easy to see it down the hill all of a sudden, as occurs so many times, seems like a nonsensical waste...

This concern and the purity of your defense on a 180º shutter is actually the proof the way you see motion pictures as the most high standing we ALL, without exception, must care about.

In a line: cinema is time.

So I am not here saying your rants have no reason to be widely accepted, on the contrary : )

 

My straightforward point is how much the superior technology can impede something an inferior one will allow.

I recall when 8-bit YCbCr 3:1:1 1440x1080 HDCAM format was replacing the option for 35mm film but to actually overcome the 100 thousand bucks of cost for film stock, processing and the leftover to spend at the lab (the average for a feature film).

The difference between to work in this industry or making (arthouse) movies, or not, for many ; )

If some inferior technology will be the key to open gates I am unable to reach in some other way -- 'the fairly enough', I am ready to sacrifice it because there are other options I need to catch. Sometimes only to survive, some other occasions the remaining way just to accomplish it.

 

EAG :- )

[leslie]

4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

 

 

If you have a 1990 bmw e30 that needs a good home, i'm your man 😉

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, kye said:

(...)

This forum spends lots of time talking about this level - the image from the camera.  It spends less time talking about the practicalities that are associated with those choices (priority #2) and even less time talking about Priority #1.

Worse still, we spend basically zero time discussing aesthetic, which is what the whole imaging system is designed around.  It's just assumed that more resolution is better and sharper lenses are better, etc.  I have the distinct impression that the people here who could actually talk about their aesthetic, what the emotional experience of that aesthetic is designed to be, and how their equipment and process is designed to maximise this.

Just perfect. Hats off. 100% agreed. Thanks for writing it because people need to fully realize that : ) Other than that, everything else is useless :- )

[Django]

4 hours ago, kye said:

A couple of people have expressed that the compressed files from the latest Canon cameras have "clay" like skin-tones. Now, we know from the 5D3 that the RAW was great (thanks to ML) but the compressed files weren't, so we can deduct that the compression that Canon employ removes some of the image quality.  My impression of ML RAW through Youtube compression was that it has this magic, but that normal Canon footage from the Canon you tubers does not.  

I then make the assumption that the lack of magic in the current Canon cameras is from the compression and image processing, rather than assuming their sensors have gotten worse since the 5D days.  Maybe this is a faulty assumption, but I suspect not.  In my experience heavy NR and compressed LOG profiles are generally what result in clay-like skin- tones.  

That leads to the idea that if you want to get great skintones from something like the R5C then you have to shoot RAW.  No problems so far, good stuff, but it gives you a choice.  You either shoot the full 8K RAW with the large file sizes, or you crop into the sensor which you'd have to compensate for in lens choices and more noise etc, or you shoot compressed codecs and lose the magic that is very likely to be present in the RAW.  One way around that is to use an external monitor to get RAW out of the camera but compress it to Prores, which can (as ARRI and BM have shown) retain the magic within skin tones.

Your assumption is faulty because you are basing yourself on 5D3, a 2013 camera that had very soft FHD as it used pixel binning (resolution was closer to 720p) and on top of that had 8-bit compressed files with no log option. The IQ jump from that to 14-bit ML RAW was colossal.

Now the R5/R5C is light-years away from that. The compressed files have super chunky bitrates, downsample from 8K and we have 10-bit 4:2:2 Clog3.

Pop those files in Resolve, and grade your heart away. The image holds. Beautiful skin tones can be achieved.

Use "neutral" instead of default "Eos cinema" in the Log color matrix options and you've got Canon's ARRI emulation. Pop an ARRI lut and with minor tweaks you are almost there. 

Now of course going RAW unlocks the full IQ potential. No doubt about that.

But again the 10-bit compressed files a more than usable and imo have more mojo than Sony as you can turn off NR unlike A7S3/FX3.

In any case you have every option in R5C, shoot RAW or compressed with many bitrate/codec/resolution options.

5 hours ago, kye said:

This forum spends lots of time talking about this level - the image from the camera.  It spends less time talking about the practicalities that are associated with those choices (priority #2) and even less time talking about Priority #1.

Worse still, we spend basically zero time discussing aesthetic, which is what the whole imaging system is designed around.  It's just assumed that more resolution is better and sharper lenses are better, etc.  I have the distinct impression that the people here who could actually talk about their aesthetic, what the emotional experience of that aesthetic is designed to be, and how their equipment and process is designed to maximise this.

I agree with most of your points but the thing is, we're not all the same types of shooters. Which is why indeed there is no perfect camera... for everyone or every situation. Hence the lack of consensus on a forum like this.

Obviously some people can't live without IBIS. Others can't without a decent PDAF system. etc

We can also talk aesthetics all day but its such a subjective/endless topic. 

In the end this R5C is either for you or it isn't. Many other options out there.

Not many options when it comes to 8K RAW on a hybrid though. 

Either this or Z9. Problem with Z9 is Zero effort seems to be done on the video OS side.

The brilliant thing about R5C imo is that its two camera systems in one.

R line and C line fused (or rather split) together. That is something new and unique that sort of redefines hybrid shooting.

 

 

[Simon Young]

People whining about some sort of clay like skin tones with the new Canon codecs/sensors have too much time on their hands, what are you even talking about?

I owned the R5 and it was impeccable as a stills camera, but it certainly had it short comings in the video department - but skin tones and colors are as per usual outstanding, even with the 10bit h265 codec. 

The whole Alexa worshipping is getting ridiculous and if you really want that but can’t afford it, buy the a7siii and Emotive colors -  only 1 percent would know the difference.

[Emanuel]

3 hours ago, Django said:

(...) there is no perfect camera... for everyone or every situation. Hence the lack of consensus on a forum like this.

Obviously some people can't live without IBIS. Others can't without a decent PDAF system. etc

We can also talk aesthetics all day but its such a subjective/endless topic. 

In the end this R5C is either for you or it isn't. Many other options out there.

Not many options when it comes to 8K RAW on a hybrid though. 

Either this or Z9. Problem with Z9 is Zero effort seems to be done on the video OS side.

The brilliant thing about R5C imo is that its two camera systems in one.

R line and C line fused (or rather split) together. That is something new and unique that sort of redefines hybrid shooting.

On the spot : ) The release of this new camera is to celebrate. Their merit. No criticism is able to change that :- )

[kye]

6 hours ago, Django said:

Your assumption is faulty because you are basing yourself on 5D3, a 2013 camera that had very soft FHD as it used pixel binning (resolution was closer to 720p) and on top of that had 8-bit compressed files with no log option. The IQ jump from that to 14-bit ML RAW was colossal.

Now the R5/R5C is light-years away from that. The compressed files have super chunky bitrates, downsample from 8K and we have 10-bit 4:2:2 Clog3.

Pop those files in Resolve, and grade your heart away. The image holds. Beautiful skin tones can be achieved.

Use "neutral" instead of default "Eos cinema" in the Log color matrix options and you've got Canon's ARRI emulation. Pop an ARRI lut and with minor tweaks you are almost there. 

Now of course going RAW unlocks the full IQ potential. No doubt about that.

But again the 10-bit compressed files a more than usable and imo have more mojo than Sony as you can turn off NR unlike A7S3/FX3.

In any case you have every option in R5C, shoot RAW or compressed with many bitrate/codec/resolution options.

I agree with most of your points but the thing is, we're not all the same types of shooters. Which is why indeed there is no perfect camera... for everyone or every situation. Hence the lack of consensus on a forum like this.

Obviously some people can't live without IBIS. Others can't without a decent PDAF system. etc

We can also talk aesthetics all day but its such a subjective/endless topic. 

In the end this R5C is either for you or it isn't. Many other options out there.

Not many options when it comes to 8K RAW on a hybrid though. 

Either this or Z9. Problem with Z9 is Zero effort seems to be done on the video OS side.

The brilliant thing about R5C imo is that its two camera systems in one.

R line and C line fused (or rather split) together. That is something new and unique that sort of redefines hybrid shooting.

ML RAW from a 5D3 has magic that I haven't seen from a Canon compressed file yet, but it's great for you that you're not seeing it because you can be happy with what they give you.  Some others can see it and those comments are in this thread if you wanted to go back and see, so I was talking with them about it when you jumped in and questioned the discussion.

The purpose of these threads is to discuss these cameras strengths and weaknesses right?  That's what this is.

5 hours ago, Simon Young said:

People whining about some sort of clay like skin tones with the new Canon codecs/sensors have too much time on their hands, what are you even talking about?

I owned the R5 and it was impeccable as a stills camera, but it certainly had it short comings in the video department - but skin tones and colors are as per usual outstanding, even with the 10bit h265 codec. 

The whole Alexa worshipping is getting ridiculous and if you really want that but can’t afford it, buy the a7siii and Emotive colors -  only 1 percent would know the difference.

It's great that you can't see what we're talking about.  My advice is keep it that way - life would definitely be easier if I didn't!

There isn't any worshipping going on, simply that there is a camera with a high standard of image and it makes sense to compare using this as a benchmark.  

If someone was a sprinter and said that they're great but they're no Usain Bolt then no-one would claim worshipping was going on.  If a restaurant served a great meal you might say it was spectacular and certain elements reminded you of El Bulli no-one would claim worshipping was going on.  

Having cameras that are getting more and more expensive, have huge specifications and even greater expectations, and saying "they're great but over the last decade we haven't gotten closer to an Alexa" isn't Alexa worshipping either, it's just having a benchmark.  It's not even like it's an irrelevant or inaccessible benchmark - most of the productions on Netflix or other streaming services are shot with ARRI gear and the Alexa range is probably the camera I see the most footage from and I enjoy seeing the most.

[Emanuel]

Do you already realize this is the first camera full hybrid?

With the C label under the $4,500 mark?

Let alone RAW video (RAW light), 8K 60p, 4K 120p without overheating...

 

This is no less than such a milestone!

 

EAG :- )

[Django]

2 hours ago, kye said:

ML RAW from a 5D3 has magic that I haven't seen from a Canon compressed file yet, but it's great for you that you're not seeing it because you can be happy with what they give you.  Some others can see it and those comments are in this thread if you wanted to go back and see, so I was talking with them about it when you jumped in and questioned the discussion.

The purpose of these threads is to discuss these cameras strengths and weaknesses right?  That's what this is.

 LOL, I'm very familiar with 5D3 ML RAW. Shot with it for years. It had mojo sure! But so does the R series, and as a pro owner I think I'm qualified to "jump in" the discussion. I'm visibly not alone thinking R5/R5C has great CS/skintones. Actually the people claiming poor skin tones etc don't seem to be Canon shooters, including yourself. I'm just curious and challenging these comments. It's ok we don't have to agree, it's a subjective matter. But what are these views based upon? Random YT videos? Mushy old FHD 8-bit 5D3 compressed footage? I'm just trying to understand the point of reference.

Again the point seems moot because R5/R5C has RAW in many flavours if 10-bit 4:2:2 log isn't good enough for your taste.

Or is ARRI Alexa & 5D3 ML RAW the only worthy contenders of good skin tones in your playbook? 

If that's case you might be setting yourself up for eternal disappointment.

 

[Django]

3 hours ago, kye said:

Having cameras that are getting more and more expensive, have huge specifications and even greater expectations, and saying "they're great but over the last decade we haven't gotten closer to an Alexa" isn't Alexa worshipping either, it's just having a benchmark.  It's not even like it's an irrelevant or inaccessible benchmark - most of the productions on Netflix or other streaming services are shot with ARRI gear and the Alexa range is probably the camera I see the most footage from and I enjoy seeing the most.

More biased hearsay. Netflix always pushes for highest resolution and hence most popular Netflix shows like Stranger Things or Zack Snyders Army of the Dead were shot on RED Monstro 8K:

The Cameras Behind Popular Netflix Originals: Films and Series

Of course ARRI get used but Varicam LT & Venice are probably even more popular due to form factor etc. 

In the end though,  it's easy to base your CS reference point from your favorite show/film but again the actual camera used is only part of the equation, most of the "magic" happens in post with the pro colorist grading the footage.

Here is an article about going FF on Ozark with the Venice, a very grade-heavy show. The DP  states:

"It’s been tough with the 4K camera equipment requirement, you’re basically looking at RED or Panasonic Varicam. The last few years have been amazing for cinematographers to have new choices.”

How the Sony VENICE Evolved the Look of ‘Ozark’

And that was already 2 years ago. Today Netflix are pushing +4K capture.

In short, ARRI isn't the only game in town..

[hyalinejim]

On 1/22/2022 at 7:40 PM, kye said:

Does what you describe above still apply for ML RAW files "developed" with the Arri LogC to 709 LUT in third party ML applications, or exported as CinemaDNGs and processed in the Resolve Raw Panel?  

You might be able to check this for yourself by downloading raw stills of the studio comparison scene from older and newer cameras and then converting to DNG and then trying each of those workflows.

[Emanuel]

You know what's the problem here and each time a new camera is released?

People need to justify why don't buy the new toy and start to elaborate a reason for themselves based on their earlier investment invariably to protect.

It seems pretty clear to me the same vibe I found at the film school with a substantial part of the instructors there, especially those more connected with an academic career despite not everyone, when were used to hate the other ones of same generation working and getting acknowledgment outside of the bubble, that is, the usual inner circle.

To my eyes it's all about that and I'm pretty sure a lot of you think the same, just better to be politically correct and don't admit it.

In four letters: PITA. For a simple reason: no other fallacy is distorting more the truth than this one here. I'm sorry to have to write it. I don't make my day to look like impolite and I guess there's the risk to sound like one. So kill the messenger then but here's my two cents.

- EAG