Hybrid's are always a compromise, but I'm curious why Canon chose these compromises here. The main criticism I have is the need to switch between photo/video OS. As a stills cameras, it is stills only as it cannot shoot video in photo mode and also doesn't have ibis. As a pro cine camera (utilizing the EOS C OS), it doesn't have NDs, utilizes a micro-hdmi port and can't autofocus the lens mount at certain resolutions since it uses the 16.7Wh LP-E6 style battery which doesn't have enough output. Most pro-cine camera take external batteries like the Canon BP-A30/A60 with up to 90Wh and some aftermarket batteries have built in D-Tap to power your FF/Wireless TX/etc. The camera's footprint itself is not exactly ergonomic either in either photo or video mode as a result.
I'm curious who the target market is for this. I give credit for them trying this approach as nobody has tried this yet. Most hybrid cameras on the market are a mix of 70% stills and 30% video more or less, but Canon tried to give it a 50%/50% mix with the photo/video side each giving up certain features. You would have to have a specific use case where you would be willing to put up with those compromises such as only wanting to carry 1 body on a job that requires both pro-stills and pro-video.
But the one positive is I think they got the price right. Any proper cine camera alone will cost way more than this and it won't be able to do any stills at all. You are mostly getting Canon's full featured cinema OS and body here along with most of what the R5 can also do in stills. Personally, I still enjoy prefer hybrids that can do mostly stills/video 70%/30% combined with a proper cine camera that can do 100% video duty. This half and half approach isn't where I would spend my money..
I'm curious who the target market is for this. I give credit for them trying this approach as nobody has tried this yet. Most hybrid cameras on the market are a mix of 70% stills and 30% video more or less, but Canon tried to give it a 50%/50% mix with the photo/video side each giving up certain features. You would have to have a specific use case where you would be willing to put up with those compromises such as only wanting to carry 1 body on a job that requires both pro-stills and pro-video.
But the one positive is I think they got the price right. Any proper cine camera alone will cost way more than this and it won't be able to do any stills at all. You are mostly getting Canon's full featured cinema OS and body here along with most of what the R5 can also do in stills. Personally, I still enjoy prefer hybrids that can do mostly stills/video 70%/30% combined with a proper cine camera that can do 100% video duty. This half and half approach isn't where I would spend my money..
Upvote
0