Jump to content

Dave Yoder

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. It's a stills camera. From the beginning they said the 8K and other video codecs are compromised, which should be apparent considering no other manufacturer is putting out 8K raw in a form factor anywhere near the R5. Figuring out the right gear is part of everyone's job. Would you be happier if Canon had not mentioned the 8K raw? I'm going to buy one if only for the stills capability, even though I'm mostly shooting video these days. There is plenty of information available to make a professional's decision about whether to buy it without the suggestion that Canon is trying to defraud the film making community.
  2. I've been digging and can't find anything on this aspect of the R5... Does anyone know if it'll dual-slot record in 8K RAW on the CFExpress and 4K HQ (not the line-skipping version of 4K) on the SD card at the same time? I know the 4K HQ can record up to 30fps on the SD card but I don't know if it can do both at once, or how that might affect the overheating issues. That for me would be pretty significant... even though it's probably not going to be an ideal long-interview camera, if it had a high quality 4K backup in case of card failure I'd consider looking at the Delkin 2TB CFExpress card coming out, for only a third more than the Sony/Sandisk 512GB options that I'd otherwise go with for reliability reasons.
  3. yeah the IBIS in my A9 was ok but not great. Interesting about the heat issue and IBIS. Ah well. So... it looks like the high-quality downsampled 4K is susceptible to heat issues as well, while the regular 4K is not. I presume that means line skipping or pixel binning? I rather consider that a bigger issue than even the overheating on 8K RAW. I can do without 8K raw, but if I'm shooting 4K I want the best version of 4K available. Since it isn't doing 4K RAW, I'm a bit disappointed it's still going to suffer from overheating, which is a very different thing than just hitting the stop/start button at 30 minutes thanks to 'Yurp. Will I be able to match the lesser 4K to my C300 II in interviews? etc.
  4. Forgot to mention the R6 may prove more popular amongst photojournalists due to its inevitable better low light rendering, which is probably going to be more important than having 45 megapixels. And you can essentially get two for the price of one R5, which is also valuable, having backup bodies in the field.
  5. You'll probably end up seeing both an R5 and an R6 in most photojournalists' bags. I had a Sony A9 for a little while (won in a Sony giveaway) and almost overnight the electronic shutter and eye focus tracking fundamentally changed how I shoot (stills) after decades of that semi-pretentious Cartier-Bresson "decisive moment" stuff. I'll always miss Kodachrome in a Leica R6.2 or Nikon F3T but I can do things with that new tech that simply weren't possible before, and I was pretty good at manually focusing and religiously single-punching in order not to get lazy, or miss moments, leaning on the motor drive. But yeah the R5 is a stills camera. It may sound like it's being hyped as a video camera but I think that's just Sony giving them a bit of a scare. I ended up selling the Sony because it was so hard to match the colors to the Canon palette.
  6. Dave, so did you get to shoot the R5 in 8K RAW? Or any other codec? I read something about rolling shutter on the R5 that makes it almost unusable. Have you seen anything?
  7. I think you're both right in your own ways, at least in long-running 120 4K (I can't imagine a genuine need for 8K RAW though). The R5 isn't a cinema camera, and it is not being classified as such. It'll have some great applications that don't conflict with its limitations, and will be a fantastic backup or sometimes B-camera depending on the subject, but it's still a stills camera. Dave, I'm curious about what you think of the new lenses particularly the 800mm F11 that looks so light it could blow off a table with a little too much breeze. I'm imagining that might be a highly prized lens for backcountry wildlife work, due to its portability, but I would think better paired with an R6, though, wouldn't you think? Due to the larger pixel size, to reduce noise from having to bump up the ISO for the aperture. I might be thinking a bit too much from a stills perspective. And, it's still going to be an issue when the light is "nice." Probably all comes down to the noise of the sensor, whether it can be pushed that far.
  8. I wonder if it were able to buffer two or three seconds of preroll that doesn't demand processing, whether that could allow you to keep it framed and watching and recording only when you've seen something you want to capture... I'm sure that's wishful thinking
  9. I see what you mean, I just hadn't heard of RAW being equated to any LOG profile. I'd thought of LOG profiles more as means to deal with it not being RAW. That said, it's going to be RAW LITE, isn't it? So the gamma will be baked in, but the color will really be where the RAW data is? Probably an oversimplification, but I prefer that to the true Canon RAW. I can hit exposures more easily than dealing with mixed light sources, or other colour challenges.
  10. yeah I think we're talking the same thing. I don't think Canon Log 2 is an option on the R5 though, I think it's only Log 1, which is a pity. I prefer log 3 though...
  11. I dunno. They needed a high megapixel camera in the R5 anyway, considering the lower MP option would be the R6, and I wonder whether it was not more a matter of, regardless whether 8K is in demand or not, the camera can do it--but it can't also downsample and compress to 4K RAW--so why not just go ahead and include it as an option, since the hardware is already in place? I admire that they didn't just resort to pixel binning for a 4K RAW option. I understand there's also an 8K ALL-I option, I think. I rather suspect it had more to do with the feasible hardware options than hype, otherwise why not include 4K RAW when it's time-limited, which would have the same affect in making it almost unusable as the primary tool for a pro cinematographer. I don't know, I'm just speculating. But if it's important, and feasible, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot in 8K RAW and do some base grading in Resolve and then downsample to an editable format. That'd get expensive of course, but if someone else is paying for it... why not?
  12. So that 4K ALL-I "enhanced 4K" might run even hotter and suck more power than the 8K raw. Crazy times. I had a Sony A9 for a while and was blown away by the eye tracking but sold it because I didn't like the colours coming out of it. I've been waiting for the R5 ever since. That said, I really liked how the back LCD articulated in place so you could treat it like a Roller viewfinder. I don't like how the R5's has to swing to the left. I understand gimbal operators will like that better, but I really liked holding that little Sony in my hand like a baby bird that fell from its nest and quietly tracking people as they walking into an inch-thick shaft of light between buildings... I think it's gonna be awkward tapping the subject you want to track with it swung out like that. The Sony changed how I want to shoot.
  13. LOL good point... downsampling AND compressing raw rather than a simpler compressed feed to the card. If we want that, get a good computer and have a couple beers.
  14. It's a relief that you can, kind of, dual slot record in 4K 10-bit to the SD card while shooting one of the 8K options. Interesting recording limits, but this isn't really geared toward interviews, other than b-cam angles, is it? I wish they'd included a 4K raw option but it's hard to complain. If you're gonna use it for shooting RAW, it's probably going to be for a very particular thing anyway. I do hope they add the other LOG profiles at some point.
  15. I'm with Ray, also having come from a stills background where I ONLY shot RAW, and being shocked at the low quality of the widely accepted codecs when I started in video. It wasn't like going back to shooting jpegs, it was a far worse experience for me. Had to recalibrate, so to speak, the arrogant assumption that I wouldn't have to go back to the basics when I started into moving images. I knew audio would be a challenge, but I hadn't expected the imagery to be so difficult to wrap my head around. And it's not only how much more you can do, but how much faster you can do it with a great program like Resolve. The only purpose of a JPEG is to throw away as much data, information, as it can get away with. That is its only goal. That data is your color and gamma and, if I may bloviate a bit, art.
×
×
  • Create New...