Canon EOS R5 10 Days Later: REALITY CHECK
- Thread starter SwissFrank
- Start date
Someone who likes to hear himself speak. I watched a two minutes of it, but was bored to death. I can't imagine anyone who could watch almost 25 minutes of this. Maybe it gets better, maybe not, but I had already wasted enough time. He does not know any more that what has already been published.
I've added that channel to my ignore list after watching his take on the original R announcement. A lot of dramatic pauses and squinty looks into the camera boiling down to "No 2 card slots, crop in 4k, it's a turd". Without having used it or even seen it in person.
It sounds like nothing changed in the past 2 years, I would've assumed the Sony money had run out by now.
Talk about bait and switch. This isn't a reality check. It is a conjecture check.
And does he seem like an old Rachel Maddow clone that hasn't shaved?
And does he seem like an old Rachel Maddow clone that hasn't shaved?
I was hoping there'd might be some reaction to his commentary at some point. I guess people just want to talk about style these days. Maybe Canon should forget actual content and just work on styling as that's all that anyone cares about :-D
Well, honestly, since there was no content to his commentary, which is 100% comprised of pseudo-intellectual styling without any substance whatsoever, it's a bit hard to react to his commentary other than to critique his delivery, which seems to be very derivative of the Jeff Goldblum school of narration, except that Goldblum actually knows his performances are parodies.
??? He made some points:
-- as exciting as the 8k is, it's probably useless as no-one can display 8k except Imax and they have their own cameras for that
-- therefore the R6 may be the one that actually sells: if you se aside the 8k, then the next biggest reason to go Canon is the lenses and the R6 gives you that.
-- although the camera at first glance should bury Sony, it may be expensive enough that despite outspeccing the Sony the Sony survives fine
-- however, the R6 may be cheap enough that it steals sales from the small-sensor video-champ Fujis and Panasonics.
I can't imagine how you didn't hear any substance. Were you watching the same video?
Funny how different people are. From reading the 5R specs, you focus on the 8k video while I never considered it relevant. Go figure...
Sorry if this has been asked and answered elsewhere (I've been deep into the mysteries of homeschooling, and endless chores--including fence repair, which prompted me to buy and learn how to use my first circular saw)...
But does the 8k or the 4k allow for decent still captures? I'm not sure of the term, maybe "frame grab" or something along those lines?
But it is inevitable, whether we are talking about hard drives or megapixels or RAM or horsepower or any kind of cutting edge upgrade, the chorus of, "You'll never need it, oh what a waste, I'm so smart and can see the future..."
Does anybody remember when a 40MB hard drive seemed bigger than necessary?
One day in the late 90's I was pulling cables in a big main-frame center. Came across a box of older work orders, and saw an overtime requisition form to install an extra 2MB of RAM into the mainframe used for processing water bills. The date of the form was, if I remember correctly, 1988. (Yes, it was TWO megabytes.)
So, 2MB upgrade in 1989 for a mainframe...8k video resolution in 2020 for a pro camera.
Such are the cogitations of a stuck at home dad. Squeeze every last bit of family bonding possible out of this bizarre pause, because hectic days are just ahead.
Cheers!
But does the 8k or the 4k allow for decent still captures? I'm not sure of the term, maybe "frame grab" or something along those lines?
But it is inevitable, whether we are talking about hard drives or megapixels or RAM or horsepower or any kind of cutting edge upgrade, the chorus of, "You'll never need it, oh what a waste, I'm so smart and can see the future..."
Does anybody remember when a 40MB hard drive seemed bigger than necessary?
One day in the late 90's I was pulling cables in a big main-frame center. Came across a box of older work orders, and saw an overtime requisition form to install an extra 2MB of RAM into the mainframe used for processing water bills. The date of the form was, if I remember correctly, 1988. (Yes, it was TWO megabytes.)
So, 2MB upgrade in 1989 for a mainframe...8k video resolution in 2020 for a pro camera.
Such are the cogitations of a stuck at home dad. Squeeze every last bit of family bonding possible out of this bizarre pause, because hectic days are just ahead.
Cheers!
I'll defer to others who have more experience than I, but I would issue this caveat. From what I understand, it is hard if not impossible to have both good video and good stills. You have to choose one or the other. Why?
Good video relies on some intentional blurring between frames. That why video is traditionally shot at a shutter speed that is double the frames per second. For example, if you shoot at 30 fps, you want to use a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second. With video, you don't want to stop the action, you want to "smear" it a bit between frames. So, yeah, I suppose you could shoot 8K action at 1/1000 of a second shutter speed and have tons of frames to choose from (if you really have the time to go through them all) but you won't get decent video.
I will probably be told I am wrong, but that is my understanding.
You pretty much won't get a good sharp shot of a cheetah running at full tilt off of single frame of video, for this precise reason.
Subjects being reasonably still--you might manage.
That sounds a lot like commentary I've heard over the years:
- As exciting as widescreen is, it's probably useless as no-one can display widescreen
- As exciting as HD is, it's probably useless as no-one can display HD
- As exciting as 4k is, it's probably useless as no-one can display 4k
Well, at least he has the courage of his convictions and shares his supporting reasoning. Even if mistaken, he's trying. You're not.
Consider the EOS R. It was hammered before it came out, and even for quite a while after release. I know. I was complaining about it bitterly. But after months of hearing reliable sources praise its utility, and seeing the beautiful work it was producing with the new Rf lenses, I decided to give it a try. Actually it was about a year after release. Firmware fixes had markedly improved AF by then.
Learning how to use the camera, even transitioning from Canon's 5DIV, took some dedication, but now I've customized it so it works better than any camera I've had--except for burst speed. And the lenses? Way better in some cases than the EF lenses they replace. As good in others, and a mix in a few cases. (For example, the RF 15-35--great overall performance and IQ, but more vignette than I prefer at f/2.8 and 15mm.)
Now during press conferences, which are on endlessly, the EOS R seems to be the new standard issue, along with the Rf 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. The combo is everywhere. So the working photojournalists and whoever they work for see that, for all its quirks, the EOS R simply produces great images consistently and reliably.
We'll see when the R5 is released and reviewed by pros and customers around the world whether anything said in the video applies to the quality, performance, and usefulness of the product and its features. My guess is the pundit will be even more wrong about the R5!
Learning how to use the camera, even transitioning from Canon's 5DIV, took some dedication, but now I've customized it so it works better than any camera I've had--except for burst speed. And the lenses? Way better in some cases than the EF lenses they replace. As good in others, and a mix in a few cases. (For example, the RF 15-35--great overall performance and IQ, but more vignette than I prefer at f/2.8 and 15mm.)
Now during press conferences, which are on endlessly, the EOS R seems to be the new standard issue, along with the Rf 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. The combo is everywhere. So the working photojournalists and whoever they work for see that, for all its quirks, the EOS R simply produces great images consistently and reliably.
We'll see when the R5 is released and reviewed by pros and customers around the world whether anything said in the video applies to the quality, performance, and usefulness of the product and its features. My guess is the pundit will be even more wrong about the R5!
Last edited:
From a few minutes with Google, it seems there are 8K TVs from several manufacturers released over the last few years.
Studios were happy to resell movies in improving quality over the years. They'll be happy to shoot movies in 8K so they could sell it in 4K now and resell it in 8K in a few years.
Finally, Canon might be selling 8K in MILC in order to fix any glitches before it sells it in cinema cameras.
What bugs me about digitally shot movies is that you'll see things like "Shot in 6k on Arri" or "Shot in gazillion k on RRRRRED" and then notice "2k DI' in the fine print. So all the colouring, CGI, etc is done in 2k, then it will be upscaled to 4k for release on disk and streaming. 'Proper' 4k movies are few and far between.
Having said that, the codec used on UHD disks gives much better colours, so even upscaled movies tend to look better than their 1080p versions.
Yes, they're for sale, but the video above reports that they're 2/10 of 1% of sales. https://www.statista.com/statistics/818419/world-tv-market-share-by-type/
I only remember one AF-related patch and I don't recall it being that momentous. Is there any chance the R was great all along?
I'm not sure what your problem is with vignetting that can't be addressed in-camera with the appropriate mode? Also not sure what compels you to use f/2.8 at 15mm, when IS should let you do like a 1-second hand-held exposure at f/4, ISO 800 by the light of a single candle? It's not as if f/2.8 at 15mm gives you an incredible amount of subject pop.
And some reason you have passion to defend video/opinion which everyone here knows is bad.
