Canon EOS R5C

[gt3rs]

@Django I feel that by the time you decide the R5 II and maybe even the R5c II will be available 😃

Maybe a used R5 when the new model will be announced is not a bad idea.

[Django]

4 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

@Django I feel that by the time you decide the R5 II and maybe even the R5c II will be available 😃

Maybe a used R5 when the new model will be announced is not a bad idea.

Lol I know I’ve been going back & forth a lot with purchase decisions but this will probably be a fall purchase (maybe even early as next month). R5 mk2 is expected in 2024 and R5Cii 2025 so those aren’t really a concern to me.

Besides R5 & R5C are already at an attractive retail & used price so I will not be waiting for replacement models to purchase. 

What really put me back in the Canon camp was trying out R5 with latest FW on a shoot. I also played around with a Z8 and got mixed feelings although I really like the specs and the files.
 

So in the end I’m still not at all sure what way to go, hence all my questions and research about R5 vs R5C. I really want the R5C for all the cine features, codecs, no record limit, 8K60p and the fan.. but I’m afraid I’ll miss IBIS and that the battery life may still be on the short side. R5 has IBIS and decent battery life plus I loved having C1 8K, C2 4K, C3 4K120 custom modes. But lack of exposure or magnification during recording, no shutter angle and the pain of editing 8K h265 files may push me towards R5C in the end..

Besides a good compromise might be R5C + R3 for handheld/run&gun/action shots. That’s my dream combo!

[gt3rs]

15 hours ago, Django said:

Lol I know I’ve been going back & forth a lot with purchase decisions but this will probably be a fall purchase (maybe even early as next month). R5 mk2 is expected in 2024 and R5Cii 2025 so those aren’t really a concern to me.

Besides R5 & R5C are already at an attractive retail & used price so I will not be waiting for replacement models to purchase. 

What really put me back in the Canon camp was trying out R5 with latest FW on a shoot. I also played around with a Z8 and got mixed feelings although I really like the specs and the files.
 

So in the end I’m still not at all sure what way to go, hence all my questions and research about R5 vs R5C. I really want the R5C for all the cine features, codecs, no record limit, 8K60p and the fan.. but I’m afraid I’ll miss IBIS and that the battery life may still be on the short side. R5 has IBIS and decent battery life plus I loved having C1 8K, C2 4K, C3 4K120 custom modes. But lack of exposure or magnification during recording, no shutter angle and the pain of editing 8K h265 files may push me towards R5C in the end..

Besides a good compromise might be R5C + R3 for handheld/run&gun/action shots. That’s my dream combo!

I think best for you is to rent a R5c for a day and try the hell out it.

For me when I do video 9 out of 10 times I pick the R5c as A cam and eventually the R5 as B cam. 

If you plan to use quite a bit 4k 100/120 the R5c is noticeable sharper than the R5, can also record audio (separately on the SD) but does not have Face AF in 100/120 fps. I try not to use the R5 in 100/120 as the quality is not too great and the editing is a pain due to h265 10bit 4:2:2, R5c XAVC so much faster.

One recent R5c 4k 120 fps segment. Don't look at the motion cadence as it was shoot at 1/2000, F2.8. It was a test for a lens and I did not have an ND filter for that lens diameter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AjNP0MdwXs


Fro anything slow motion R5c wins hands down with 8k and 4k 60p and better quality 4k 120...

[Django]

54 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

I think best for you is to rent a R5c for a day and try the hell out it.

For me when I do video 9 out of 10 times I pick the R5c as A cam and eventually the R5 as B cam. 

If you plan to use quite a bit 4k 100/120 the R5c is noticeable sharper than the R5, can also record audio (separately on the SD) but does not have Face AF in 100/120 fps. I try not to use the R5 in 100/120 as the quality is not too great and the editing is a pain due to h265 10bit 4:2:2, R5c XAVC so much faster.

One recent R5c 4k 120 fps segment. Don't look at the motion cadence as it was shoot at 1/2000, F2.8. It was a test for a lens and I did not have an ND filter for that lens diameter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AjNP0MdwXs


Fro anything slow motion R5c wins hands down with 8k and 4k 60p and better quality 4k 120...

Ah good point about the higher quality 4K120p. Looks excellent in that clip you provided, thanks. Another point for R5C!

R5C also has that Face Only AF which is really really nice for certain situations.

Renting an R5C isn't easy atm but I will try and hunt down a store that has one and try it to see if I can live without IBIS.

You mentioned earlier in the thread that not having custom modes was a PITA. I assume there is at least a "My Menu" type page or maybe even custom button where you can quickly access FPS/S&Q settings? Would love to know what is your fastest method to switch resolution and frame rates.

 

[gt3rs]

1 hour ago, Django said:

 

You mentioned earlier in the thread that not having custom modes was a PITA. I assume there is at least a "My Menu" type page or maybe even custom button where you can quickly access FPS/S&Q settings? Would love to know what is your fastest method to switch resolution and frame rates.

 

Yes, it has mymenu.

You can also assign a button to change the S&F framerate quicky, but it does not work for me as I normally go from 8k RAW to 4k 120 10bit and back.  

 

[kye]

19 hours ago, Django said:

Ah good point about the higher quality 4K120p. Looks excellent in that clip you provided, thanks. Another point for R5C!

R5C also has that Face Only AF which is really really nice for certain situations.

Renting an R5C isn't easy atm but I will try and hunt down a store that has one and try it to see if I can live without IBIS.

+1 for actually trying one in real life.

In terms of stabilisation, there aren't any specifications that tell you anything worth knowing, you have to actually try the individual implementations to see how well they work.  If you are going to try one in real life and stabilisation is of particular interest, make sure to take the relevant lenses so you can include how good or not their OIS is, and take into account their relative focal lengths, etc.

[Django]

4 hours ago, kye said:

+1 for actually trying one in real life.

In terms of stabilisation, there aren't any specifications that tell you anything worth knowing, you have to actually try the individual implementations to see how well they work.  If you are going to try one in real life and stabilisation is of particular interest, make sure to take the relevant lenses so you can include how good or not their OIS is, and take into account their relative focal lengths, etc.

Of course testing a camera for yourself is always the ideal thing but it ain't that easy when it comes to the R5C. It's just not the most available camera. Kind of a niche product like the 1DC, but I will certainly try to hunt one down when I get back to Paris..

Not a lot of comp tests either on YT but I did find this R5C vs Z9: Canon R5C vs Nikon Z9 Hands On Camera Comparison

The stab tests are interesting since they're using longer 100mm lenses. Clear advantage to Z9.

In other areas such as DR I was surprised to see the R5C had the edge, and the Z9 had it for AF.

Although not the most scientific tests that video has got me curious about the Z8/Z9 again so I will definitely spend more time on the Nikon before I commit to either R5/R5C!

 

[gt3rs]

1 hour ago, Django said:

Of course testing a camera for yourself is always the ideal thing but it ain't that easy when it comes to the R5C. It's just not the most available camera. Kind of a niche product like the 1DC, but I will certainly try to hunt one down when I get back to Paris..

Not a lot of comp tests either on YT but I did find this R5C vs Z9: Canon R5C vs Nikon Z9 Hands On Camera Comparison

The stab tests are interesting since they're using longer 100mm lenses. Clear advantage to Z9.

In other areas such as DR I was surprised to see the R5C had the edge, and the Z9 had it for AF.

Although not the most scientific tests that video has got me curious about the Z8/Z9 again so I will definitely spend more time on the Nikon before I commit to either R5/R5C!

 

You are right that is far from a scientific test, especially when they do not publish the AF settings that they are using. Btw the use case of people facing away is something that improved a lot with the latest firmware the video was made before the new fw. 

The stabilization test is a wired one either you mount both cameras on the same bracket or is not really scientific.... is even a different framing.....

As I said multiple times the Z9 seems a really good camera, so it make sense to learn and test both cameras before investing.

 

[kye]

2 hours ago, Django said:

Of course testing a camera for yourself is always the ideal thing but it ain't that easy when it comes to the R5C. It's just not the most available camera. Kind of a niche product like the 1DC, but I will certainly try to hunt one down when I get back to Paris..

Not a lot of comp tests either on YT but I did find this R5C vs Z9: Canon R5C vs Nikon Z9 Hands On Camera Comparison

The stab tests are interesting since they're using longer 100mm lenses. Clear advantage to Z9.

In other areas such as DR I was surprised to see the R5C had the edge, and the Z9 had it for AF.

Although not the most scientific tests that video has got me curious about the Z8/Z9 again so I will definitely spend more time on the Nikon before I commit to either R5/R5C!

Yes, as @gt3rs says, the least they could have done is mount both to a $10 flash bracket, but they didn't.

I believe there's a way to test the stabilisation of cameras such that you can repeat the same test and (shock horror) actually compare the stabilisation characteristics of various cameras.  Of course, no-one does it, and sites that have the technical rigour don't have the budget and those with the budget (e.g. Undone, etc) don't have the technical rigour, so we're left with whatever random tests are haphazardly done online by random folks.

Do you shoot 180 shutter, or go for a shorter exposure?  If it's the latter then gyro data might also be of some help if either of them record it and if it's important enough to you.  I suspect that even if you do shoot a 180 shutter, if you were able to stabilise in post at a low strength then you might not notice that the motion blur doesn't exactly match up with the image movement.  I haven't tried it, but I suspect that reducing image movement by a decent amount, maybe half, might not be visible.  I'd be curious to see a test of that, but I don't have a camera that records gyro data.

[MrSMW]

5 hours ago, Django said:

Although not the most scientific tests that video has got me curious about the Z8/Z9 again so I will definitely spend more time on the Nikon before I commit to either R5/R5C!

I suspect your ‘niggles’ with the Z8 might have been more because of your Canon background and stuff…well it works differently despite being ‘essentially the same thing’.

I remember being a Nikon DSLR shooter and borrowed a friends 5Dsomething equivalent to my D3 or D3s for a short period of time and thought, “your shoot with this piece if shit?!” But the reality was it was basically the same tool but I just wasn’t in tune with it.

Ditto tried a Sony A7ii I think it was and another, “really?” moment but it was probably as good or better even than my Fuji X Pro2’s of the time.

Fast forward to today. The R5 is probably better for my needs than my S1H and then the R3 better still with both Z8 and Z9 probably an even better pairing.

Do I want to flip? Yep, but not because I need to today but because I need to for that next gen spec I actually yes, do need.

I am pretty sure all of this stuff will meet my needs so it’s more a case of picking something and then getting super-familiar with it.

For me, that means waiting 5-7 months, hope that Panny have an S1 successor out on sale and then getting my hands on one at the same time as a Z9 and an R3 and then making a final decision.

I’m sitting in my camping car right now. Motorhome In English, RV in American. Previously I had/towed a caravan for my work away from home needs, (about 70 nights a year) but very first day I got it and drove it away from the dealers, I thought maybe I had made a mistake…

Nope. It was just new and a bit alien. It’s like a glove now.

I don’t miss the caravan at all and I won’t miss the 6lb 3 1/4oz S1H, grip and Leica 24-90 but boy is it a combo for the ‘23 season 😉

[Django]

4 hours ago, gt3rs said:

As I said multiple times the Z9 seems a really good camera, so it make sense to learn and test both cameras before investing.

Will do that for sure, what I'm doing now is my research so I know exactly what to look for and how to set up the cams when I do get them in-hand. Its also not just about the bodies but of course the lens systems. Nikon Z has great glass but not a lot of them have OIS compared to Canon. Not the same specs/price points either. The Nikon S 35mm f1.8 for example has no IS and costs 1000€ whereas the Canon 35mm f1.8 has IS, macro and costs 500€. That said the Nikon has better optics, and the AF motors are totally silent compared to the noisy Canon. The RF24-70mm f2.8 has IS whereas the Nikon S24-70mm f2.8 doesn't have VR (neither does Sony equivalent). All these things are to be considered when choosing a system so yeah its kind of a long research process..

4 hours ago, kye said:

Do you shoot 180 shutter, or go for a shorter exposure?  If it's the latter then gyro data might also be of some help if either of them record it and if it's important enough to you.  I suspect that even if you do shoot a 180 shutter, if you were able to stabilise in post at a low strength then you might not notice that the motion blur doesn't exactly match up with the image movement.  I haven't tried it, but I suspect that reducing image movement by a decent amount, maybe half, might not be visible.  I'd be curious to see a test of that, but I don't have a camera that records gyro data.

I shoot mostly 180 degree, except when I don't lol. Canon gyro data is directly processed inside IS lenses and in tandem with IBIS equipped bodies. You can't apply it in post like on Sony's catalyser or latest BMD cams. 

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

I suspect your ‘niggles’ with the Z8 might have been more because of your Canon background and stuff…well it works differently despite being ‘essentially the same thing’.

Actually I started out photography on Nikon film DSLRs and had a D750 for a while. I've shot with a Z6. So I'm familiar with Nikon. That being said I never was a fan of their menus, UI, AF system and ergonomics. 

I much much prefer Canon for the above, namely the thumbwheel for aperture control and I love the AF customisation (especially the way you can toggle AF servo on/off in stills and completely pause the video AF via custom button). 

Also the R5C has the ever so great cinema menu with all the video assist, LUT support, video AF modes with Face Only, button customisation etc.

I totally recognise this may be complete personal bias but it has nothing to do with brand affiliation. I've shot on Nikon, Fuji and am currently on Canon, Sony & Leica systems. I'm pretty flexible and each system has its pros&cons. 

What I can tell you is that out of all the bodies I've tried across multiple systems, the R3 is by far my favourite one. The specs are almost perfect too. I was all set on getting it but the R5 shoot I did the other day spoiled me and now I absolutely want a +45MP cam for stills. The R5C gives you that plus an 8K RAW mini C70 in one body, if not for the lack of IBIS it kinda ticks all the boxes. 

Then you got Z8/Z9 with 45MP/8K stacked sensors, IBIS, RAW plus that also records in ProRes 422 HQ which is a blessing in post.

I know I'd be happy and set for years to come with any of these cams but it's a big investment with the lenses so one has to choose very wisely!

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, Django said:

I know I'd be happy and set for years to come with any of these cams but it's a big investment with the lenses so one has to choose very wisely!

I hear you and will be sailing in that very same boat over this Winter…

Pros and cons to each option…

A single ‘S2H’ would be my preferred option to simply replace my S1H and then the pair of S5ii’s could remain in their role for quite a few more years.

Nikon or Canon systems would just require massive investment so holding out for something from within L Mount which could be even Leica or Sigma.

As things stand, based on what exists, I think the R3 body would be my number one, but the Nikon pairing plus adapted (and soon native) Tamron lenses pips it for me as a total system. If cost did not come into it, otherwise L Mount because it will simply be upgrading a single body but a system change…big bucks!

Fingers crossed also for Sigma to pop out a compact 70-180 f2.8 in L Mount or something to rival the Tamron and Samyang 35-150.

I am really enjoying the results from the Leica 24-90 paired with the Lumix 70-200 but they are big lumps of glass and really I just want a single f2.8 compact as it can be, 40-120. Wishful thinking…

[Ty Harper]

3 hours ago, Django said:

I know I'd be happy and set for years to come with any of these cams but it's a big investment with the lenses so one has to choose very wisely!

100% true but I cannot stress enough to you just how many R5C users in the forums I'm on are going the EF-L + adapter route and are really loving it (myself included!). If you really need the penultimate IQ, etc, by all means invest in RF-L lenses (and with no judgement either!) but the EF-RF drop-in filter adapter and the .71x speedbooster - coupled with the tumbling price of used EF-L lenses makes that much less of an issue if you already have EF and EF-L glass. There's also a lot of people revisiting lenses like the OG Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 and the EF-S 17-55mm. And while the RF-L lenses definitely give you better AF performance and features - the performance of EF-L glass on the R5C is no slouch at all. It's more a case of EF lenses being really good and the RF lenses being better. Anyways, if you're on FB there are some great R5C/C70 groups worth joining.     

[Django]

2 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

100% true but I cannot stress enough to you just how many R5C users in the forums I'm on are going the EF-L + adapter route and are really loving it (myself included!). If you really need the penultimate IQ, etc, by all means invest in RF-L lenses (and with no judgement either!) but the EF-RF drop-in filter adapter and the .71x speedbooster - coupled with the tumbling price of used EF-L lenses makes that much less of an issue if you already have EF and EF-L glass. There's also a lot of people revisiting lenses like the OG Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 and the EF-S 17-55mm. And while the RF-L lenses definitely give you better AF performance and features - the performance of EF-L glass on the R5C is no slouch at all. It's more a case of EF lenses being really good and the RF lenses being better. Anyways, if you're on FB there are some great R5C/C70 groups worth joining.   

You're preaching to the choir: I've been using EF-L glass for over a decade (been on Canon since the 5D mk1) and have been adapting EF to RF since first EOS-R which I bought on day one with the adapter.

So far my only RF investment has been the 35mm f1.8 IS which is cheap, versatile and compact but not optically on par with L glass and super noisy when it comes to AF motors for video use. Actually most RF lenses I've tried including RF-L are noisy.

That being said, the RF 24-70mm f2.8 L paired with the R5 was a total game changer for me. Optically it is next level, especially for a zoom lens (I'm mainly a prime shooter). In fact it flat out beat my trusty EF-L 35mm f1.4 in many departments. Besides the RF lens IS + IBIS gave an awesome 8-stops of stabilisation resulting in tack sharp 45MP pics at low shutter speeds and super stable handheld video footage. That combo is something else.

And that's the beauty of mirrorless, you can use optically perfect modern lenses or go the vintage route depending on budget but also personal preference. If I ended up going the Nikon route, I'd for sure use my vintage Nikkor AI-S glass but would also invest in some native Z-mount lenses for that great silent modern performance and optical quality when needed. 

 

 

[Ty Harper]

@Django my bad, I took your concerns about investing in lenses as you feeling you had to go all in with the RF lenses - but yes, I agree and would argue that Canon offering EF-only specialized adapters has been the thing driving alot of the R5C love and is also possibly the most un-Canon like gesture/strategy we've seen to date, lol

[gt3rs]

There was a thread a few months ago claiming that RF lenses were not a step forwards compared to their EF equivalents, happy now to see that I'm not the only one seeing the improvements and value. Having said this adapted EF lenses works so well that people can skip RF altogether either by using their collection or by buying quite discounted used EF lenses. 

 

 

[kye]

2 hours ago, gt3rs said:

There was a thread a few months ago claiming that RF lenses were not a step forwards compared to their EF equivalents, happy now to see that I'm not the only one seeing the improvements and value. Having said this adapted EF lenses works so well that people can skip RF altogether either by using their collection or by buying quite discounted used EF lenses. 

I thought when the first RF lenses came out that they were premium lenses, both in optical quality and pricing.  I remember thinking at the time it made sense because the newer RF cameras tended to be premium models and that with all the EF glass around they wouldn't sell RF lenses if they were more expensive but weren't also premium products.

Interesting that people thought they weren't superior.  I don't own or follow the system but I always thought that the (non-budget) Canon glass was high-quality and that they really knew what they were doing.

[Django]

1 hour ago, gt3rs said:

There was a thread a few months ago claiming that RF lenses were not a step forwards compared to their EF equivalents, happy now to see that I'm not the only one seeing the improvements and value. Having said this adapted EF lenses works so well that people can skip RF altogether either by using their collection or by buying quite discounted used EF lenses. 

 

 

I think the general consensus has always been that RF-L lenses while optically superior have a bit of a cheaper feel, are often times bigger than their EF equivalents and are expensive af. It's a valid assessment, Canon went for lightweight hence the cheaper feel but the improved optics do warrant an extra cost and size. In the end you gotta judge it for yourself if they're worth it. I also think different body/lens pairings will yield different results. R5/R5C's 45MP/8K sensor is certainly the best body to resolve RF-L lenses but also expose EF glass shortcomings. And then its also an acquired taste, some vintage (EF-L) lens aberrations bring character/mojo while some optically perfect modern (RF) lenses can be considered clinical / over-sharp. 

I'll admit I had my initial doubts on RF-L glass but seeing is believing and I'm now fully on that bandwagon saving up for that RF-L 24-70mm f2.8 (by the way the RF-L 28-70mm f2 is surely even better but massive in size/weight) and will be on the look out for other RF gems. Still waiting for the RF-L 35mm f1.2 which has been rumoured since the mirrorless launch.. 

[MrSMW]

7 hours ago, Django said:

the RF-L 28-70mm f2 is surely even better but massive in size/weight

If I went for an R3, I’d get this lens, also because A. I think it needs a grip to balance the bastard of a thing and B. because the R3 is very light for a built in grip camera.

Still a 2.5kg unit paired up…but that’s still lighter than my S1H, battery grip and  Leica 24-90 I have been running about with all day at 2.85kg 🤪

But then I’m still considering I really need to get this weight down because it’s a bit nuts…

In the end, same as it ever was, there needs to be a compromise somewhere…

[Ty Harper]

10 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Having said this adapted EF lenses works so well that people can skip RF altogether either by using their collection or by buying quite discounted used EF lenses. 

I think that's the practical assessment, bcuz while the RF line is an improvement (love the 35mm f1.8 and will eventually get the 24-70mm) - I don't know that the percentage to which it is an improvement on the EF line is proportionate to the percentage to which the RF price has increased by compared to the EF versions, much less compared to used EF glass in like-new condition.