Canon officially announces the Canon EOS R5 C

[entoman]

All this discussion about "its a bad camera because ibis is missing. I am such a professional, I need an uncompromised video and photo tool".

I would replace the word "professional" with "perfectionist" - there are plenty of non-pros who want to achieve "professional" results and the highest possible keeper rates. And to refer to people who demand the best results as "posers" is ignorant and insulting.

Just keep one R5 and buy one R5C. Thats the perfect solution. You have the perfect photo camera with great video features with ibis, in case you realy need this.
And you have one more video centered camera that offers unlimited recordings and everything one can wish for, except ibis.

Yes, that would be the ideal solution, but there are many pros who haven't yet built up their business to the point where they can afford to buy both cameras. Further, there are many established and highly respected pros who like to keep their expenditure on gear quite low - e.g. Keith Cooper of Northlight, who uses an R5 as his main camera, and a RP as his secondary camera.

 

[peters]

I would replace the word "professional" with "perfectionist" - there are plenty of non-pros who want to achieve "professional" results and the highest possible keeper rates. And to refer to people who demand the best results as "posers" is ignorant and insulting.

Okay, thats true, that was a bit over the top on my end.

Yes, that would be the ideal solution, but there are many pros who haven't yet built up their business to the point where they can afford to buy both cameras. Further, there are many established and highly respected pros who like to keep their expenditure on gear quite low - e.g. Keith Cooper of Northlight, who uses an R5 as his main camera, and a RP as his secondary camera.

Okay, thats certainly true.
But what also applies is: what you pay is what you get.
The R5C is without a doubt the most versatile and complete 2-in-1 camera on the market. At a rather cheap price you get 2 very very well outfitted cameras. A high end photography camera which covers any kind of phtography AND a professional small cinema camera with excellent quality.

Currently only 2 cameras on the market get close to this kind of combined feature set - the Nikon z9 and Sony a1. Which are both even more expensive. (Z9 1000 USD and a1 even 2-3000 USD more.) At a closer look, one could argue that the R5C even beats both cameras features on the video side. It offers 120p 4k oversampled from 8k (which is pretty insane!), 8k60 internal raw, better viewfinder, Time-code in, bigger codec selection, better video monitoring tools. The Sony and Nikon got a bit higher fps and are a bit more refined for photographers, especialy because they offer ibis and got 6mp more.

 

[yeahright]

Yes I think that's correct, so digital stabilisation would only be of value for stills during bursts, and the first frame in the burst would only have OIS (assuming a stabilised lens is fitted). This just further underscores my comments that for critical sharpness with stills, IBIS is invaluable, particularly with unstabilised optics. The saving grace is that most recent EF and RF lenses have extremely good OIS, and luckily for stills shooters, the R5 is cheaper than the less suitable R5C.

Digital stabilization is also of no use during bursts. Digital stabilization crops the image so that the framing stays the same from image to image when really the camera sees a different framing due to camera shake. In stills photography, even when shooting bursts, the different framing of consecutive frames is irrelevant, since you don't play the frames taken during a burst like a video but instead only select those that best capture the moment and/or are sharpest.

 

[SteveC]

Keith Cooper of Northlight, who uses an R5 as his main camera, and a RP as his secondary camera.

Wow, I have the same gear as him. I must be just as good a photographer then.

(Switching irony off!)

 

[entoman]

Wow, I have the same gear as him. I must be just as good a photographer then.

(Switching irony off!)

Well you have the satisfaction of knowing that the gear you use is good enough for professional usage!

It's perhaps surprising how many pros use the R and RP models, but they are great for tripod work or anything else that doesn't need high burst speeds or IBIS.

Both are ideal as cheap(ish) backup bodies.

 

[stevelee]

Digital stabilization is also of no use during bursts. Digital stabilization crops the image so that the framing stays the same from image to image when really the camera sees a different framing due to camera shake. In stills photography, even when shooting bursts, the different framing of consecutive frames is irrelevant, since you don't play the frames taken during a burst like a video but instead only select those that best capture the moment and/or are sharpest.

If you want a series of stills aligned, you do that in post, such as Photoshop. The purposes for that can include focus stacking, merging to HDR, and creating time-lapse video from stills. I can see no point in pre-cropping in the camera. The exception is for in-camera HDR, but that doesn’t involve the digital stabilization setting directly.

I took quite a few photos of the total solar eclipse in 2017. I decided to put some of them together to get a pseudo-time-lapse video. Except at totality shots were made through an extremely dark filter. So you have portions of a bright disk against a black background. Of course I used a tripod, but the sun was moving in the sky, and I wasn’t using a tracking motor. Every now and then I needed to move the camera to keep the sun in the picture. The apparent rotation of the sun would change. No “stabilization” would have taken care of that. Photoshop was completely baffled in trying to align. So I painstakingly aligned images, mostly using sunspots as a reference. The resulting video was rather crude, but the general idea worked, and I think was worth the trouble. Eclipse video

 

[JN-]

Does anyone know if the “Slow/Fast” 4k 100/120 fps is still either line skipped or is it downsampled ?

 

[SteveC]

Well you have the satisfaction of knowing that the gear you use is good enough for professional usage!

It's perhaps surprising how many pros use the R and RP models, but they are great for tripod work or anything else that doesn't need high burst speeds or IBIS.

Both are ideal as cheap(ish) backup bodies.

That was my intent. I don't ever want the camera to be the limiting factor. I can (presumably) fix my own incompetence and improve, that way.

 

[entoman]

I don't ever want the camera to be the limiting factor.

Yep, once we reach a certain level of competence as photographers, it's natural to desire the best available tool for the job, and not to compromise. So as a competent stills photographer, the R5 is a better fit for me than a R5C, as my interest in video is minimal. The R3 and "R1" would be even less of a compromise than the near-perfect R5, but I prefer to use an accessory grip rather than having it built-in to the camera. Also, while I'm a competent photographer, I'm not a rich one, and couldn't justify the expense of a £5000+ body.

Conversely, folk who have not reached that level of competence as photographers, often believe that a "better" camera will make them better photographers, which is rarely the case, although a better camera can improve keeper rates due to better AF, metering and fast burst speeds to "capture the moment".

 

[cayenne]

Yes, I've seen that, and his findings with the 800mm on the R5 concur roughly with mine - I can manage sharp shots at 1/60, he can manage sharp shots at a crazy 1/30, which can probably be explained by him simply having steadier hands.

He finds about a one stop difference between using the combined IBIS and OIS of the R5 and the OIS-only of the RP. I don't have an RP available, so I can't comment. But even a one-stop advantage can make the difference between a sharp shot and an unacceptable one. Alternatively you can shoot at the same shutter speed but use a lower ISO setting, which again is a big deal for me personally.

As I've posted previously, I stopped using my *unstabilised* 180mm F3.5 with my (now sold) 5DS simply because the lack of any stabilisation in either body or lens made it virtually unusable in my quite shaky hands. On the R5, that is now my most commonly used lens - that's how good the IBIS is. Of course, it's entirely possible that someone with much steadier hands than me would see less of a difference, I can only judge from my own experience.

IF the digital stabilisation of the R5C is so good, presumably Canon will cease to to incorporate mechanical IBIS in the R1 and other future bodies, and replace it with digital stabilisation. Now that really would be interesting to see.

Yes...BUT....

One of the GREAT thing about mirrorless cameras is the almost endless ability to adapt fully MANUAL lenses....especially vintage ones for looks which both stills and video folks enjoy.

IBIS would be an amazing option to have for that.

C

 

[cayenne]

Okay, thats true, that was a bit over the top on my end.

Okay, thats certainly true.
But what also applies is: what you pay is what you get.
The R5C is without a doubt the most versatile and complete 2-in-1 camera on the market. At a rather cheap price you get 2 very very well outfitted cameras. A high end photography camera which covers any kind of phtography AND a professional small cinema camera with excellent quality.

Currently only 2 cameras on the market get close to this kind of combined feature set - the Nikon z9 and Sony a1. Which are both even more expensive. (Z9 1000 USD and a1 even 2-3000 USD more.) At a closer look, one could argue that the R5C even beats both cameras features on the video side. It offers 120p 4k oversampled from 8k (which is pretty insane!), 8k60 internal raw, better viewfinder, Time-code in, bigger codec selection, better video monitoring tools. The Sony and Nikon got a bit higher fps and are a bit more refined for photographers, especialy because they offer ibis and got 6mp more.

As I'd mentioned earlier I the thread, if the R5C had IBIS I'd be on a waiting list now too.

And if it was just a few more dollars more...I'd lay that out happily and be on that list.

This R5C only came out like what $500-$600 more than the R5?

Hell, add another $500-$1K for IBIS, no problem.

C

 

[neuroanatomist]

One of the GREAT thing about mirrorless cameras is the almost endless ability to adapt fully MANUAL lenses....especially vintage ones for looks which both stills and video folks enjoy.

People still play vinyl records. Honestly, I don't get it. I'm not going to buy a horse and buggy to take my kids to school. To each their own, though.

 

[dirtyvu]

It all depends on whether you are viewing the R5C as a pro video tool with sub-optimal stills capability (which is what the camera is), or whether you believe the camera should reflect Canon's slightly misleading advertising that it is "ready for anything". The latter implies that the specification and performance for stills is to the same standard as for video (which it is not).

Canon themselves have said that the combination of OIS and digital stabilisation is sub-optimal for stills photography (and causes a minor crop) and that stills photographers should really be considering the R5 instead:

If you're a high end video user and *really truly need non time-limited 8K*, and are content with just OIS for stills, get the R5C.

If you're a serious stills shooter, *and* you really need the combination of IBIS and IOS for the best stabilisation for your genre of photography, or if you use non-stabilised lenses, get the R5...

then what camera do you consider a hybrid cinema camera? certainly not the a7s3 or fx3. no 24.00 fps. no timecode. no 8k. no shutter angle. no dci. only 12mp photos.

certainly not the a74. no 24.00 fps. no timecode. no 8k. no shutter angle. no dci. no 4k60 uncropped. only 5 fps in uncompressed raw shooting.

the R5 is fantastic but it doesn't have the cinema tools that make shooting easier.

 

[entoman]

then what camera do you consider a hybrid cinema camera? certainly not the a7s3 or fx3. no 24.00 fps. no timecode. no 8k. no shutter angle. no dci. only 12mp photos.

certainly not the a74. no 24.00 fps. no timecode. no 8k. no shutter angle. no dci. no 4k60 uncropped. only 5 fps in uncompressed raw shooting.

the R5 is fantastic but it doesn't have the cinema tools that make shooting easier.

I haven't suggested that the R5C isn't a hybrid cinema camera, in fact I think I've made it pretty clear that I think it's a superb camera. I'm not a videographer, but the R5C seems to be near-perfect for video use, especially considering the relatively low price. The only fault I can find from a video perspective is that it lacks a full size HDMI port.

But Canon advertise it as being ready for anything, and it isn't "ready" for shooting stills with non-stabilised lenses, due to the lack of IBIS. For stills, the digital stabilisation is non-functional, so we are back to relying on OIS, which is less efficient than the synchronised OIS and IBIS of the original R5.

Instead of "ready for anything", a more accurate (though less catchy) slogan might be "class-leading for video, and adequate but not outstanding for stills"

 

[neuroanatomist]

Instead of "ready for anything", a more accurate (though less catchy) slogan might be "class-leading for video, and adequate but not outstanding for stills"

LOL.

“Wheaties. The Breakfast of Champions Some People Who Win Some of the Time.”

“M&Ms – Melts in Your Mouth, Not Melts Somewhat More Slowly in Your Hands and Will Stain Your Clothes if You Wipe Those Gooey Hands on Them.”

 

[twoheadedboy]

I haven't suggested that the R5C isn't a hybrid cinema camera, in fact I think I've made it pretty clear that I think it's a superb camera. I'm not a videographer, but the R5C seems to be near-perfect for video use, especially considering the relatively low price. The only fault I can find from a video perspective is that it lacks a full size HDMI port.

But Canon advertise it as being ready for anything, and it isn't "ready" for shooting stills with non-stabilised lenses, due to the lack of IBIS. For stills, the digital stabilisation is non-functional, so we are back to relying on OIS, which is less efficient than the synchronised OIS and IBIS of the original R5.

Instead of "ready for anything", a more accurate (though less catchy) slogan might be "class-leading for video, and adequate but not outstanding for stills"

Again, simply ludicrous to suggest a person can't get a sharp photo without sensor and/or lens stabilization - just ask Ansel Adams, or me and my 4+ years of 5D MK IV/R shots, most of which were with unstabilized lenses walking around.

The camera can take 45 MP raw photos and shoot 8k 60p. It does not have the IBIS of an R5, or the hardcore cine features/modularity of cameras sometimes costing 5x more, but a pro need not make any quality compromises in the photos and videos they capture...as opposed to an R5 (video issues w/time limits and heat) or C70 (not full frame, no 8k). At best, IBIS would give a slightly higher percentage of sharp photos in specific situations at a slower shutter speed than without. You can still take multiple exposures, still use DPAF, still adjust your settings to a higher ISO or bigger aperture or both, use a tripod or monopod or brace yourself against something, etc. etc. etc.....

 

[stevelee]

For stills, the digital stabilisation is non-functional,

For stills, the digital stabilization makes no sense. It is a video thing.

 

[chrisrmueller]

I haven't suggested that the R5C isn't a hybrid cinema camera, in fact I think I've made it pretty clear that I think it's a superb camera. I'm not a videographer, but the R5C seems to be near-perfect for video use, especially considering the relatively low price. The only fault I can find from a video perspective is that it lacks a full size HDMI port.

But Canon advertise it as being ready for anything, and it isn't "ready" for shooting stills with non-stabilised lenses, due to the lack of IBIS. For stills, the digital stabilisation is non-functional, so we are back to relying on OIS, which is less efficient than the synchronised OIS and IBIS of the original R5.

Instead of "ready for anything", a more accurate (though less catchy) slogan might be "class-leading for video, and adequate but not outstanding for stills"

I’m not trying to defend Canon or anything, but I would argue that it will be outstanding for stills. I think the R5 has an amazing sensor and I love the images I get out it. Before the R5, I never had the privilege of using IBIS. And I am still not sure if IBIS is really doing anything for me personally because I shoot with the first edition 70-200/2.8 IS (and it’s still phenomenal).

That said, the style of photography I shoot requires me to shoot at at the slowest 1/160, so perhaps I’m not the target use case for IBIS. But as a stills camera, I believe the R5, even if it didn’t have IBIS, is amazing as a photo camera purely on the ease of use, AF, and sensor.

I think if the use case requires really slow shutter speeds, handheld, then you could argue that it’s only adequate—but then again, were the 1DXiii, 5Div, and R only adequate stills cameras?

 

[entoman]

I’m not trying to defend Canon or anything, but I would argue that it will be outstanding for stills. I think the R5 has an amazing sensor and I love the images I get out it. Before the R5, I never had the privilege of using IBIS. And I am still not sure if IBIS is really doing anything for me personally because I shoot with the first edition 70-200/2.8 IS (and it’s still phenomenal).

That said, the style of photography I shoot requires me to shoot at at the slowest 1/160, so perhaps I’m not the target use case for IBIS. But as a stills camera, I believe the R5, even if it didn’t have IBIS, is amazing as a photo camera purely on the ease of use, AF, and sensor.

I think if the use case requires really slow shutter speeds, handheld, then you could argue that it’s only adequate—but then again, were the 1DXiii, 5Div, and R only adequate stills cameras?

I agree - the original R5 (which I own) would still be a superb camera if it didn't have IBIS. I also own a 5DMkiv and previously had a 5DS, so I'm able to make a direct subjective comparison of the stabilisation of each of these cameras.

With the R5, if you're using RF lenses in which the OIS synchronises with the IBIS, I'd estimate at least a 3 stop advantage in stabilisation, compared with using OIS stabilised EF lenses on the 5DS. That makes a huge difference in terms of being able to use slower shutter speeds and/or lower ISO, for static subjects. With moving subjects, it allows you to use smaller apertures for more depth of field, if you need it.

But the biggest advantage of IBIS is that it enables you to much more easily hand-hold non-stabilised lenses (of which I have 3). IBIS alone provides an extra 1.5-2 stops of "handholdability" with my EF 180mm F3.5L at close distances (1:2 to 1:4)

Another advantage is that IBIS allows you to stabilise completely manual lenses from Laowa, Zeiss, Samyang etc.

For context, the lenses I use include RF 24-105mm F4L, RF 800mm F11, EF 180mm F3.5L, EF 100mm F2.8L macro, T/S-E 24mm F3.5L, EF 100-400mm F4-5.6L Mkii, and Laowa 25mm F2.8 Ultra-Macro. Obviuosly the effect of IBIS varies according to which lens is used.

Undoubtedly the R5C is a much superior camera to the R5 for videography, but the camera's digital stabilisation is non-functional with stills photography, so in terms of usable shutter speeds, the R5C is probably on par with the 5DS (which is OK, but certainly not a patch on the superb OIS/IBIS of the R5).

 

[entoman]

Again, simply ludicrous to suggest a person can't get a sharp photo without sensor and/or lens stabilization - just ask Ansel Adams, or me and my 4+ years of 5D MK IV/R shots, most of which were with unstabilized lenses walking around.

The camera can take 45 MP raw photos and shoot 8k 60p. It does not have the IBIS of an R5, or the hardcore cine features/modularity of cameras sometimes costing 5x more, but a pro need not make any quality compromises in the photos and videos they capture...as opposed to an R5 (video issues w/time limits and heat) or C70 (not full frame, no 8k). At best, IBIS would give a slightly higher percentage of sharp photos in specific situations at a slower shutter speed than without. You can still take multiple exposures, still use DPAF, still adjust your settings to a higher ISO or bigger aperture or both, use a tripod or monopod or brace yourself against something, etc. etc. etc.....

Don't mislead - I haven't said that "a person can't get a sharp photo without sensor and/or lens stabilization", what I've said is that having OIS or IBIS (and preferably both) makes a very significant difference to the ability to hand hold at slow shutter speeds. And I'm not just talking about very slow speeds (1/30 or below) - stabilisation makes long zooms and telephotos MUCH more usuable. My rough estimates are in the post above.

Sure, you can turn the ISO up from 400 to 6400 to compensate for the lack of stabilisation with stills, if you are content with much higher noise levels and lower dynamic range. Or you could find a handy tree or lamp-post to brace yourself against, but they can be hard to come by in open situations such as deserts, beaches, grasslands...

Oh, and you are clearly unaware that the stunning landscapes taken by Ansel Adams, to which you refer, were taken on large format cameras, so the degree of magnification to produce the final prints is very low, unlike the very high magnification when enlarging a 1.5" across FF image to a 24" print! High magnification hugely exaggerates camera shake, if you didn't know.

Furthermore, for almost all of his famous landscapes, Ansel Adams had his camera mounted on a very sturdy TRIPOD. - I assume you comprehend that stabilisation is deactivated (or manually switch off) when working with tripods?

By the way, you can't "ask" Ansel Adams - unless one of your two heads is able to communicate with the deceased.