Canon C80 coming soon

[Kino]

7 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Number game interpretations. For RAW with no processing you should compare to the max DR possible so it would be 14.9 vs 13.4.

The proof that in 4k Log R5II 13.6 stops of usable DR vs 12, indeed disappointing 😉

And view that you are disappointed can you point hybrid cameras with more than 13.6 stops? I believe only A1 has 0.2 more...

But again, I don't care about the numbers too much as I just open the files from both camera that I own and is definitely visible the better DR.

On Imatest results, the acceptable signal-to-noise ratio at .5 "Medium" will provide the usable DR. Otherwise, using your methodology of max DR, the R5C 8K RAW (16.1 stops) comes out way ahead of the R5 II 8K RAW (15.1 stops) when both are placed on a 4K timeline:

There is no way you can recover the max DR (16.1 stops) on an R5C. So max DR is often pointless, except for camera marketing purposes. I would rate the R5C at about 11 stops, which is confirmed by the usable DR above (10.8). That would mean the R5 II (11.7) is giving us almost 1 stop more than the R5C when 8K RAW is placed on 4K timeline. However, by the same methodology, the R5 II has no advantage (both were about 11 stops) when looking at the 8K RAW source on an 8K timeline.

I absolutely agree with the eye test and everyone should just go with that. As I stated above, it is obvious the R5 II has improved noise performance in the shadows, except at high ISOs where the R5C seems better.

What I'm not seeing is any improvement in the highlight roll-off, which is a problem with the R5 cameras. The Sony A1 by comparison has better highlight roll-off than any R5 camera, including the R5 II.

The new 6K sensor in the C80/C400 (and possibly in the R1) should demonstrate significant improvement in all these areas.

[Kino]

2 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Otherwise, beyond some chat about specs, it's really worth waiting for the camera to get into the hands of real users.  Then the truth will be understood.

As for me, I'm going to guess that we'll see a lot more owner-operators and documentary crews running around with C80's and C400's than we will see them using R1's.  The R1 will likely be a niche camera, used primarily by sports photographers.

I never stated otherwise. We need the R1 and its CRM files to make real assessments about how it performs in relation to the C80/C400. It could be that the faster sensor readout on the R1 undermines any DR advantages seen in all the C400 footage and tests. The AF circuitry is also different. But I can't imagine that Canon spent the last 2-3 years designing completely different and new 6K BSI sensors to be released at the same time in such low-volume cameras.

Also, no one in his right mind who needs a proper cinema cam should go for the R1 over the C400, even if they share a similar sensor and image quality. It just becomes interesting when comparing the R1 with the C80, which is still using SD cards, and lacks the FF 6K 60p RAW, IBIS, and EVF. For those who need portability in the field, which is what the C80 is supposed to offer, the R1 is just another choice and obviously a better hybrid.

[herein2020]

16 hours ago, Kino said:

I have no intention of buying an R1. It's just an idea for the future. For VND, you shouldn't be getting any green shift. On the R5C, I use the Freewell V2 Hybrid VND/CPL (3-7 stop) and it is really impressive in preventing color shift. It is magnetic, easy to use, and comes with a nice case. You should try it.

The green cast does not bother me, and there's no way I am going back to a lens end vND after using a lens mount vND. I get 1.5-9 stops of ND, no X pattern, and the cast is consistent so when I choose to remove it, it takes seconds in post, or a few seconds on set using WB. It also provides another layer of protection for the interior of the camera if I have to switch lenses on set. My point is, casts don't matter in the real world if they are consistent.

 

56 minutes ago, Kino said:

On Imatest results, the acceptable signal-to-noise ratio at .5 "Medium" will provide the usable DR. Otherwise, using your methodology of max DR, the R5C 8K RAW (16.1 stops) comes out way ahead of the R5 II 8K RAW (15.1 stops) when both are placed on a 4K timeline:

There is no way you can recover the max DR (16.1 stops) on an R5C. So max DR is often pointless, except for camera marketing purposes. I would rate the R5C at about 11 stops, which is confirmed by the usable DR above (10.8). That would mean the R5 II (11.7) is giving us almost 1 stop more than the R5C when 8K RAW is placed on 4K timeline. However, by the same methodology, the R5 II has no advantage (both were about 11 stops) when looking at the 8K RAW source on an 8K timeline.

I absolutely agree with the eye test and everyone should just go with that. As I stated above, it is obvious the R5 II has improved noise performance in the shadows, except at high ISOs where the R5C seems better.

What I'm not seeing is any improvement in the highlight roll-off, which is a problem with the R5 cameras. The Sony A1 by comparison has better highlight roll-off than any R5 camera, including the R5 II.

The new 6K sensor in the C80/C400 (and possibly in the R1) should demonstrate significant improvement in all these areas.

 

I have yet to see a single thing in all of your charts and graphs that matters in the real world. I also have yet to have a single customer tell me in the real world that they want a discount or reshoot because my camera did not have enough stops of DR. I have been shooting with the R7 for the past 2yrs and it paid for itself many times over.....to this day I still have no idea how many stops of DR it has nor do I care.

If I went by YT BS, and all of these uselsess charts and graphs I would have been lugging around the C70 to every hybrid shoot and brought the R5 for the photography part of it, and likely had less satisfied customers because I would have had a lower photography and video shot count and missed valuable moments throughout the events because I was too busy fiddling with the gear or switching cameras.

If you are not filming the next Hollywood feature length blockbuster these charts mean nothing and if you are then you still aren't looking at these charts and you are just renting trailers worth of equipment packages that will work for your project.

[eatstoomuchjam]

21 minutes ago, Kino said:

I never stated otherwise. We need the R1 and its CRM files to make real assessments about how it performs in relation to the C80/C400.

Great.  So since we agree that most of the discussion is useless until the cameras are released and in the hands of real users, you can stop the lengthy rants and pasting screenshots from YouTube and reviewer websites and demanding that one camera (that you have never actually touched) is better than another camera (that you have never actually touched).

[Kino]

42 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Great.  So since we agree that most of the discussion is useless until the cameras are released and in the hands of real users, you can stop the lengthy rants and pasting screenshots from YouTube and reviewer websites and demanding that one camera (that you have never actually touched) is better than another camera (that you have never actually touched).

Again, you like to put words in my mouth. I made no such "demands." I posted test results on the R5C, a camera I own and use. When it comes to C400, C80, and R1 comparisons, everything on this thread is speculation. Some are very offended that the R1 should be considered here or that it may turn out to be a better video hybrid than the the R5 cameras. That's not my problem.

[eatstoomuchjam]

The idea that the R1 is a camera that some people might choose instead of the C80 is not offensive.

However, your continuous bombarding of this thread with test charts and graphs to demand that it's a better choice than the C80, once again despite that you have touched neither camera is not necessary.  If the R1 is noticeably better than the C80 in real-world usage once both cameras have been released, Canon will sell more R1's than they would otherwise.  I'd certainly consider it once it's available on the used market or there's a big sale, just as I am considering the C80 now (but no way I'm paying full price).

Regardless, neither camera is "better" than the other - but one might be a better fit for you.  If it is, that's great.  You should get that camera.  If you plan to buy/use neither camera, then you should stop caring about which one is "better."

[Kino]

I never stated that the R1 would be a better on-set cinema cam than the C80. I actually said the opposite way up there. I just think it could be an alternative for those also interested in the C80 (like me) who need something mobile.

Then we had the discussion about why you would get an R1 over an R5 II, which I did not initiate. I only responded to the R5 fans (pun intended) with all those graphs and charts to suggest that the R5 II does not really improve on the highlight clipping problems I have with the R5C. The point here is that the 6K sensor in the C80/C400 is going to offer a substantial IQ improvement on all the R5 cameras, which really can't be compared with proper Cinema EOS.

In the meantime, I've recently seen more RAW C80 footage and it is pretty awesome:

The C80 also looks fantastic in XFAVC 10 bit. Here are some XFAVC files available for download:

Despite the charts I posted above, in most scenarios the differences between the C80 and C400 will be minor. Perhaps you will see some differences in extreme low-light with noise in RAW LQ, but otherwise the C80 looks gorgeous overall. I don't use HFR much, so that C400 advantage doesn't worry me. In any case, RED and Sony should be scared.