Interview: Canon engineers talk Canon EOS R development

[Sharlin]

I guess this is what you get when photo-centric websites ask about video specs. The C700FF sensor is indeed full frame. Specifically, it's 38 x 20 and shoots in a 1.89 aspect ratio.

Canon is just reserving FF 4k readout for higher priced models. Why is that so hard for them to admit and consumers to understand?

Ooooooor it might have something to do with the fact that the C700FF has 11MP resolution, is actively air-cooled and costs $35000? The engineering constraints are completely different in that kind of a body! There's no way you can even compare it to a sealed $2000 30MP body.

 

[drd79]

This is all interesting. Thom Hogan states that the crop leads to BETTER quality in video, not worse, because full sensor use results in interpolation with resulting smear and artifacts. The negative is the loss of angle, requiring a wider lens.

The info you were given is somewhat misleading. A cropped 1:1 image will have better IQ than one created using pixel binning. If one uses pixel binning, then the pixels have sizable gaps between them, and the surrounding pixels are expanded to fill in the gaps. But beyond that, a super-sampled image provides the highest image quality of all.

Let's compare the Sony a7III and a7RIII to what Canon does. Canon gives you only one option, 1.8x crop 1:1 readout.
The a7III does full sensor readout and super-samples at 6K in FF with no binning, along with an option for an APS-C crop at 1:1 in 4K.
The a7RIII has a much higher pixel count so rather than sampling each pixel in FF, they bin pixels. The a7RIII also allows you to film in APS-C offering a 6K oversampled image that is converted to 4K.

If what Canon was saying was true, they could have given an option for both FF and APS-C. The reason we have a 1.8X crop is so the Canon Cxx line would be the only Canon cameras with APS-C and 4K. If you want FF, with full readout from Canon it is only available in the $33,000 C700. If you look at their cinema line vs. their entire lineup, it's easy to see their product segmentation is the real reason for gimping the EOS R.

Canon's cheapest FF 4K camera with full sensor readout is $33,000.
Sony's cheapest FF 4K camera with full sensor readout is $2,000.

 

[padam]

Sony A7sII reads every pixel in FF and downsizes ... much better than crop

If we compare with the same field of view (obviously there is that crop on the Canon) the A7sII does not look any better than the 5D IV or the EOS R, it is less detailed and while the filesizes are much smaller the quality does suffer from the heavy compression.

The A7III (or A9) does raise the bar in terms of detail, although it is weird that it does not maintain a true 16:9 aspect ratio, it squeezes it a little bit (somewhat proving that 6k downsampling is not that easy to implement).

 

[padam]

Ooooooor it might have something to do with the fact that the C700FF has 11MP resolution, is actively air-cooled and costs $35000? The engineering constraints are completely different in that kind of a body! There's no way you can even compare it to a sealed $2000 30MP body.

That's true, but they could very easily put a more video-centric FF sensor in any body they would like.
But for now, they won't even do that for a lower-end cinema camera, let alone mirrorless cameras. Their best sensor available right now is the one 1DX II and it's up to them if they want to release a mirrorless model like that and at what price.

 

[drd79]

If we compare with the same field of view (obviously there is that crop on the Canon) the A7sII does not look any better than the 5D IV or the EOS R, it is less detailed and while the filesizes are much smaller the quality does suffer from the heavy compression.

The A7III (or A9) does raise the bar in terms of detail, although it is weird that it does not maintain a true 16:9 aspect ratio, it squeezes it a little bit (somewhat proving that 6k downsampling is not that easy to implement).

What are you basing the image quality comparison on? You are the first person I've EVER heard say that the 5D mkIV has better quality video than the a7sII.

The Sony has a gapless lens design in front of the sensor and bigger photo diodes. The Canon does not have gapless pixels, and it's sensor uses smaller diodes to accommodate Dual-Pixel AF. This design is dated in comparison, and captures less data per-pixel. Not to mention the huge ISO advantage on top of the additional 2 stops of DR, the Sony is noticeably sharper and more detailed. The codec that Sony uses is also found in their $100,000 broadcast cameras, it is as rock-solid as it gets.

The slight stretching of the frame (only present in 4K@24p on one model, the a7III) is definitely a bug that that Sony needs to fix. Fortunately for me, I have no use for 24p. I shoot 1080@120p or 4K@30p, and deliver to 1080@30p for 99% of what I do (professional sports). Since I'm shooting for broadcast TV, my output is always at 30fps and gets sampled down 720p for HD broadcast. We still deliver in 1080p because most content gets distributed on the web where 1080p is an option, unlike broadcast which is still stuck at 720P.

For my personal stuff, the a7III provides the best quality imaging I can afford for stills and video in one package, with one set of lenses. At work, if I'm shooting to tape I'll always grab the a7III because it is small, and lightweight, allowing me to handle the camera easier at more angles than I can with a heavy broadcast camera. The best part is that the image quality is indistinguishable from our $100,000 ENG cameras, and our editors love it because it is the same codec and color profile they are used to working with already.

I'm really excited that Canon is coming out with new stuff, I started as a Canon shooter originally. As I got more serious about broadcast television, and got more high-end gigs I noticed that in the sports world, Sony dominates for video, and Canon dominates for stills. For people like me, who shoot both stills and video professionally, a camera that forces a crop at your highest-quality settings is a deal-breaker. I often shoot on a long prime, and don't have the time to swap lenses between stills and video. Canon gave the professional crowd a big middle-finger with their implementation of 4K in the 5DkmIV and EOS R.

 

[BurningPlatform]

Ooooooor it might have something to do with the fact that the C700FF has 11MP resolution, is actively air-cooled and costs $35000? The engineering constraints are completely different in that kind of a body! There's no way you can even compare it to a sealed $2000 30MP body.

The C700FF sensor is actually 20.8 MP.

 

[Sharlin]

That's true, but they could very easily put a more video-centric FF sensor in any body they would like.
But for now, they won't even do that for a lower-end cinema camera, let alone mirrorless cameras. Their best sensor available right now is the one 1DX II and it's up to them if they want to release a mirrorless model like that and at what price.

Easily? What are you talking about? The C700FF is their first FF camera that does oversampled uncropped 4K. There's a reason it's priced like that. The 1DX2 has a 20MP sensor and 1.3x cropped 4K — yes, it's the exact same 1:1 sampling as in other Canon 4K stills bodies. Yes, Canon could release a lowish-resolution higher-fps less-cropped-4K FF mirrorless, and maybe they will.

 

[Sharlin]

The C700FF sensor is actually 20.8 MP.

Oops, right, confused with the non-FF C700 resolution. It's apparently Canon's first sensor that records oversampled uncropped 4K.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

Actually C700 FF reads full sensor for 4k. This is from their marketing material:

"Capable of ProRes and XF-AVC internal recording up to 4K to CFast™ cards, the camera can also record 5.9K RAW up to 60 frames per second with the optional Codex CDX-36150 Recorder. The camera uses the full 5.9K of the sensor to create oversampled 4K, resulting in improved video quality. "

I stand corrected. You are right, the 700 FF does appear to be able to down-sample the 6K FF sensor to 4K.

 

[NorskHest]

Just got done playing with this, it felt great in your hands, the 24-105 felt cheap but was nice, the adapter was solid, the variable nd and polarizers will not work in telephotos, I was told Canon will be making a more video centered r body but no other details. The wheel on the lenses is interesting, the lack of second wheel and no joystick is awkward. But all in all it's not a bad first step.

 

[padam]

What are you basing the image quality comparison on? You are the first person I've EVER heard say that the 5D mkIV has better quality video than the a7sII.

There are several comparisons out there, I'm not going to link them. The cropped 4k on the Canon is a little sharper than the A7sII with much higher bitrate (but huge file sizes) and no motion artifacts (the Sony XAVC-S interframe codec causes macroblocking) and 8-bit 4:2:2 sampling in case of the 5D Mark IV and the colors are clearly better (they always were).
Of course as a tool it can be considered as fiddly to use (and the EOS R fixed most of those points while being cheaper) and the rolling shutter is not good and it is not a full-frame camera in 4k mode, but apart from that it is a nice camera for video (and photo) that got too much trashing, because it is certainly doesn't carry the same level of importance as the 5D Mark II did.

While the A7III is obviously sharper, personally I don't feel like it's that important for video (especially if people are being filmed and not landscapes with lots of detail).
It's kind of boring that one comment just gives a huge wave of protective response with no sense for balancing from either sides, whether that's Canon or Sony.

They are all good cameras with different strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Jethro]

Just got done playing with this, it felt great in your hands, the 24-105 felt cheap but was nice, the adapter was solid, the variable nd and polarizers will not work in telephotos, I was told Canon will be making a more video centered r body but no other details. The wheel on the lenses is interesting, the lack of second wheel and no joystick is awkward. But all in all it's not a bad first step.

Why??

 

[NorskHest]

Why??

Because its canon, why make it so simple!?!? Menus are a little different aswell, if you shoot on a D series like the 1D or 5D having this camera as a back up or switching between the two systems will take some getting use to.

 

[RayValdez360]

This is all interesting. Thom Hogan states that the crop leads to BETTER quality in video, not worse, because full sensor use results in interpolation with resulting smear and artifacts. The negative is the loss of angle, requiring a wider lens.

the crop is 1.8 though. if it was super 35 it would be less of an issue. that means even s35 lens will lose MMs

 

[Jethro]

Because its canon, why make it so simple!?!? Menus are a little different aswell, if you shoot on a D series like the 1D or 5D having this camera as a back up or switching between the two systems will take some getting use to.

I get the whole 'canon' thing and that sort of goes without saying - but are you saying that the polarisers etc literally won't work on legacy teles, or just not as well as on (say) primes? All the teles?

 

[NorskHest]

I get the whole 'canon' thing and that sort of goes without saying - but are you saying that the polarisers etc literally won't work on legacy teles, or just not as well as on (say) primes? All the teles?

I'm saying that the new mount with the polarizers will work on all lenses but some of us were hoping that the drop in filter would drop in to the slot on the tele lenses and they wont work for that.

 

[Jethro]

I'm saying that the new mount with the polarizers will work on all lenses but some of us were hoping that the drop in filter would drop in to the slot on the tele lenses and they wont work for that.

Ah clang - I see what you mean!!

 

[Ozarker]

As I always said: "EF lenses are legacy in relation to Canon R. They will perform *within their mount- and communications-related limits*.

Some folks here did not (want to) believe it. So, here's one prof. Other EF limitations will surface in due course.

You know, it isn't about EF limitations. EF continues to function like it always has. It didn't get worse. You keep implying people have blinders on. The only person around here that refuses to believe things is you.

BTW: Are you in love with those big, heavy new RF lenses like I am?

 

[Ozarker]

Ooooooor it might have something to do with the fact that the C700FF has 11MP resolution, is actively air-cooled and costs $35000? The engineering constraints are completely different in that kind of a body! There's no way you can even compare it to a sealed $2000 30MP body.

Sharlin, look at all the ink you just wasted. Conspiracy theories, and Canon being evil, are a given around some members.

"Canon should stuff every high end camera feature into a sub $500 body or else Canon is crippling the cameras in a scheme to force people to give Canon their money."

In other words. "If it doesn't have everything a C700 and 1DX Mark II have for under $500, Canon is screwing you."

 

[Bennymiata]

Having worked with some large Japanese companies, standards between them can vary.
What is an acceptable amount of heat generated by one company's products is acceptable to company number 1, may not be deemed acceptable by company number 2.
I think Canon is very cautious about their cameras and would prefer to seal their cameras up to weather proof them, rather than allow them to be open to the atmosphere to let out the heat.
Full sensor 4K rendering makes a lot of heat. It's OK in your PC or a large camera, but in a small camera the heat can cause components to fail faster - and Canon wants to make stuff that takes a beating and lasts for years of heavy use.
IMHO, this is the conundrum that Canon faces. How do they weather seal their bodies, yet allow the processors to cool without burning the hands of their operators?
Short videos of a couple of minutes or so are not so bad, but if a camera is left on recording for half and hour or more, how do you dissipate the heat properly if your body is sealed?
I think Canon would rather weather seal a body and take the heat from the internet for crippled video, rather than have their cameras fail in use.
Let's face it, most pros don't do 4K video anyway, so for all intents and purposes, the video they give you and the great focussing system that comes along with it, is more than adequate for most amateurs and pros alike.
That's my take on it.