Canon C80 coming soon

[herein2020]

2 hours ago, ntblowz said:

If I was all on RF L lens with my FF camera then C80 definitely fit better, those FF lens is not really great on C70 due to 1.5x crop

And I really notice the sharpness when I punch in post, the R5C is way more clearer.

 

I got around the crop with the speedbooster, but it comes with its own problems; lens flaring and probably additional softness plus it only works with EF lenses.

[eatstoomuchjam]

3 hours ago, herein2020 said:

plus it only works with EF lenses

(Or lenses that can be adapted to EF - including Leica R, Olympus OM, and Nikon F)

[Kino]

It will be interesting to see how the R1 compares with the C80 and C400. According to Canon, it is also rated to 16 stops of DR in video:

https://www.newsshooter.com/2024/07/17/canon-flagship-eos-r1-announced/

The use of CFexpress Type B allows for much higher quality 6K RAW than the RAW LT found on the C80, which is also limited to 30p unlike the R1's 60p. The R1's Standard RAW is basically on par with the RAW HQ on the C400.

The R1 will retail for $800 more than the C80, but that might be worth it. You lose the I/O, NDs, and cinema features (e.g., waveforms, anamorphic de-squeeze), but you gain better RAW quality, IBIS, AF, EVF, and hybrid usability.

[eatstoomuchjam]

In my experience, Canon RAW ST is not "much higher quality" than Canon RAW LT.  I'd call it "nearly visually indistinguishable from Canon RAW LT."  I'm told that it can matter for special effects, but for almost anything else, RAW LT is generally enough.

As to the rest, the user interface on my EOS R5 is pretty decent for a hybrid camera, but if I'm going on set, I'll take my C70 over it nearly every single time.

i'm sure the R1 will be fine and people will make great stuff with it - but speaking for myself, I'll be a lot more excited for the C80 to hit the used market.

[Kino]

58 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

In my experience, Canon RAW ST is not "much higher quality" than Canon RAW LT.  I'd call it "nearly visually indistinguishable from Canon RAW LT."  I'm told that it can matter for special effects, but for almost anything else, RAW LT is generally enough.

As to the rest, the user interface on my EOS R5 is pretty decent for a hybrid camera, but if I'm going on set, I'll take my C70 over it nearly every single time.

i'm sure the R1 will be fine and people will make great stuff with it - but speaking for myself, I'll be a lot more excited for the C80 to hit the used market.

So far on my R5C, I've shot everything 8K RAW LT and it looks great. Since it is 8K, the data rate is just over 1000 Mbps. I'm just concerned that the 640 Mbps data rate is very low on the C80. You can see the loss of detail in the CVP test of the different RAW variants in the C400 test. The drop off between ST and LQ is significant:

6K RAW LQ is the best available quality on the C80. While it is the obvious choice for taking on set (over a hybrid), it is a disappointment that they used SD cards and limited the 6K RAW to LQ and 30p. If on-set use is part of your requirement, I just think you are way better off with the C400. It has many advantages over the C80 at a $2500 premium. Then again, I still own the C500 and barely ever use it these days . . .

[eatstoomuchjam]

$2,500 is a pretty big premium.  The body is also bigger and less portable.

And yes, on test charts, there is a visible difference between LT and ST.  I'll still say that on my current cameras, shooting real-world scenes, the difference seems negligible to me.

[herein2020]

7 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

$2,500 is a pretty big premium.  The body is also bigger and less portable.

And yes, on test charts, there is a visible difference between LT and ST.  I'll still say that on my current cameras, shooting real-world scenes, the difference seems negligible to me.

It is so funny pixel peeping vs real world, I could care less about charts and graphs, I'm delivering footage to my clients not a chart so I would also take the C80 or C400 any day vs the R1 for long form or controlled set content. There is no way I would want a frankenrigged R1 vs the C80 or C400.  For that matter, IMO the R5II has put the R1 and R3 back in their rightful places as sports cameras and taken over as the new hybrid video king.

I also think the C80 is plenty good enough for most people's needs, also, the sharpness difference is so negligible that a little post sharpening would make the two look identical.

 

 

[gt3rs]

I have a hard time seeing why for hybrid usage somebody would choose a R1 instead of a R5 II

 

[herein2020]

2 hours ago, gt3rs said:

I have a hard time seeing why for hybrid usage somebody would choose a R1 instead of a R5 II

 

 

The only scenario I could see is if you shoot a lot of sports/fast action and only occasionally needed quick video clips maybe of the awards ceremonies or something like that. In that scenario it would make sense to just switch over to video vs buying another body.

But I think 99% of the time the R5II makes more sense.

[Kino]

R5 II offers very little DR improvement on my R5C (and only in the shadows), whereas the the R1 looks like a significant improvement in both highlights and shadows. However, I will need to see more footage when the camera is released. FF 6K RAW is really the sweet spot for video. The EVF and AF on the R1 are also world class and there is no need to attach a fan/battery compartment to avoid overheating in our L.A. summers. Canon 1-series cameras are simply built to different standards in terms of weather sealing and durability.

Unfortunately, there is no anamorphic de-squeeze on the R1 or R5 II, which is one of my favorite features on the R5C. With either of these cameras, I would need an external monitor. IBIS wobble is another problem that the R5C avoids, since it has no IBIS. Perhaps, there will be an R5C II, but I'm not hopeful.

[gt3rs]

10 hours ago, Kino said:

R5 II offers very little DR improvement on my R5C (and only in the shadows), whereas the the R1 looks like a significant improvement in both highlights and shadows. However, I will need to see more footage when the camera is released. FF 6K RAW is really the sweet spot for video. The EVF and AF on the R1 are also world class and there is no need to attach a fan/battery compartment to avoid overheating in our L.A. summers. Canon 1-series cameras are simply built to different standards in terms of weather sealing and durability.

 

Canon claims 16 stops for both so not sure why you are expecting significant improvements from the r1 vs r5 II. 

In my experience shooting R5c and R5 II (I own both) side by side the R5 II has better DR. The numbers also confirm this. 

On the IBIS issue I agree with you. Same for the overheating.

Btw I owned 1D III, 1Dx, 1Dx II and 1Dx III and I'm so happy that R3 and R1 does not look any better than the R5 II so I can skip those huge body that are a pita on gimbal and heavy. I use big lenses like the 100-300 2.8 on the R5 II and compared to my sports steup of years ago 1Dx III + 200-400 is much lighter and compact for a better picture quality.

[herein2020]

10 hours ago, Kino said:

Canon 1-series cameras are simply built to different standards in terms of weather sealing and durability.

I wish that were true, maybe compared to other mirrorless cameras but that's not saying much these days. 

I highly doubt that the R1 is built to even the 5DIV's standards but it still has a 1D price tag. 

For my needs the R5II is the better fit, but Canon has something for everyone. I do agree 6K Raw is a nice sweet spot that the R5II is missing along with oversampled 4K 60FPS. 

At this point I think they keep excluding it because of overheating. 4K Fine is the only mode where I saw the overheating warning come on after just a few clips on the hot humid Florida heat.

[Kino]

14 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Canon claims 16 stops for both so not sure why you are expecting significant improvements from the r1 vs r5 II. 

In my experience shooting R5c and R5 II (I own both) side by side the R5 II has better DR. The numbers also confirm this. 

On the IBIS issue I agree with you. Same for the overheating.

Btw I owned 1D III, 1Dx, 1Dx II and 1Dx III and I'm so happy that R3 and R1 does not look any better than the R5 II so I can skip those huge body that are a pita on gimbal and heavy. I use big lenses like the 100-300 2.8 on the R5 II and compared to my sports steup of years ago 1Dx III + 200-400 is much lighter and compact for a better picture quality.

I am expecting a DR advantage for the R1 (owing to the larger pixel pitch and better signal-to-noise) as well as a significant improvement on rolling shutter over the R5 II's 17 ms in 8K mode, but we don't have the tests to prove it just yet. The R1 has a near global shutter sensor readout speed, so that may negatively affect DR. Based on what I have seen of the two cameras so far, I really prefer the look of the R1 sensor, which is likely shared in some way with the C400/C80. I'm also not a fan of the magenta bias I've seen in the R5 II footage, but that is just a personal preference.

For the R5 II vs R5C, I mentioned that the former definitely has an advantage in the shadows:

In my experience, NR works well on the R5C 8K when required, so the shadow noise has a solution. Unfortunately, the R5 II does not solve the problem with highlight roll-off. For everyday use, these cameras are nearly identical:

G. Undone's Imatest numbers for 8K are also very close for usable DR (Medium).

11 stops on the R5C interpreted in CLOG3:

10.9 stops on the R5 II interpreted in CLOG2:

 

[Kino]

In the following side-by-side comparison between the R1 and R5 II in RAW video, you can see the blown highlights in the R5 II when looking at the white beam above. That may be caused by a higher base ISO, but the overall DR does seem reduced here. In addition, the R1 retains rich and more accurate colors in RAW. It has better color and tonal separation, whereas the R5 II looks bland and overly magenta. These are just preliminary observations. I'm sure there will be proper tests when the R1 is released.

[eatstoomuchjam]

It sounds like you really like the R1, even to the point of obsessing about micro-differences between images which would be removed during even basic color grading.  Seems like you should get one.

[herein2020]

11 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

It sounds like you really like the R1, even to the point of obsessing about micro-differences between images which would be removed during even basic color grading.  Seems like you should get one.

Pixel peepers are going to pixel peep...and use their pixel peeping to justify their desires and purchases. 

@Kino just get whatever works for you, none of your concerns are my concerns, the R5II is the better fit for me in every way vs the R1. Also, I am as far from a pixel peeper as it gets and even I can tell in the R1 vs R5II screenshots that the R5II is at least 0.5 stops over vs the R1.

And who cares about a magenta shift? All of my footage has a green shift from my vND filter, takes two seconds in post to shift it back, or you can even shift it back in camera with a custom WB tint setting; who knows, the "magenta" shift might even counter my vND's green shift which means it all works out.

Also, I have no idea what highlight rolloff "problem" you are referring to, the R5II when shooting CLOG2 has some of the best highlight rolloff that I have ever seen in a mirrorless camera......but hey, if you need some sort of justification to buy the R1 then have at it. 

I have already shot multiple paying jobs with the R5II and no complaints so I guess my clients are also fine with what the camera can produce.

[Kino]

18 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

It sounds like you really like the R1, even to the point of obsessing about micro-differences between images which would be removed during even basic color grading.  Seems like you should get one.

Not really. It is difficult to recover gradations of tone and color that are not in the original RAW file. As I mentioned, I will need the CRM files to confirm. The R5 II and R1 have very different sensors that should produce visible differences in DR, RS, noise/texture, and color. Since the R1 sensor is likely a variant of the 6K sensor in the C400/C80, I would expect better performance for video than the R5 II's 10.9 stops of usable DR and 17ms rolling shutter in 8K mode (as demonstrated in the tests above).

[Kino]

7 hours ago, herein2020 said:

Pixel peepers are going to pixel peep...and use their pixel peeping to justify their desires and purchases. 

@Kino just get whatever works for you, none of your concerns are my concerns, the R5II is the better fit for me in every way vs the R1. Also, I am as far from a pixel peeper as it gets and even I can tell in the R1 vs R5II screenshots that the R5II is at least 0.5 stops over vs the R1.

And who cares about a magenta shift? All of my footage has a green shift from my vND filter, takes two seconds in post to shift it back, or you can even shift it back in camera with a custom WB tint setting; who knows, the "magenta" shift might even counter my vND's green shift which means it all works out.

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.

[gt3rs]

8 hours ago, Kino said:

Not really. It is difficult to recover gradations of tone and color that are not in the original RAW file. As I mentioned, I will need the CRM files to confirm. The R5 II and R1 have very different sensors that should produce visible differences in DR, RS, noise/texture, and color. Since the R1 sensor is likely a variant of the 6K sensor in the C400/C80, I would expect better performance for video than the R5 II's 10.9 stops of usable DR and 17ms rolling shutter in 8K mode (as demonstrated in the tests above).

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.

[eatstoomuchjam]

Other than gt3rs' actual real-world experience with the R5 II, this is all nonsense anyway.  It is based entirely on pixel peeping crap from internet reviewers.  I'll stick with "if you love the R1 so very much, you should get in the preorder line and enjoy shooting it when it's released."

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.