Canon EOS R5 firmware update coming soon, RAW light to be added? [CR2]

[Bert63]

man you have a problem.

I have many. I can make you a list. Luckily, being butt-hurt by false promises from paid YouTubers isn't one of them.

 

[DBounce]

I hope they add some kind of Raw option for 4k or 1080p

I mean, if you had 1080p available to record in RAW (24, 50 & 120fps) along with the lite raw code, I think that could cover 90% of what mostly anyone would want to do with the camera

Clog3 to bring the available dynamic range up to snuff (I think I read its stuck around 11 with clog and clog 3 should bring that up by at least 1 stop?)

throw in maybe 4k RAW as an option,

Do something about recovery times on the camera

a7siii killer right there

It would have to be cropped not oversampled as raw is not processed.

 

[SteveC]

Another vote/hope for additional button customization.

The "Rate" button is utterly useless to me and cannot be reassigned.

 

[vignes]

I think what you are stating here is paranoia and not based on real-world testing. I have been working with the R5for 2 weeks now, and have shot several projects with it. I shoot a lot of narrative feature work and will absolutely use the R5 as a B-Cam or C-Cam. Having that little camera on set and being able to basically pull it out of my back pocket and grab 8k RAW b-roll that can cut in with Red or Arri A-Cam footage is a huge benefit to me. I don't need to use it to shoot talking head docs or youtube videos...thats ridiculous. Yes, the R5 has less DR than the A-Cams, but being able to take steps to mitigate those differences with lighting/framing care is part of why I get paid. Getting the high quality 8k Raw and 4k HQ on a small mirrorless that can also shoot with my A-Cam primes with a PL adapter is simply freeing. On top of that, I can take the R5 with the A-Cam lenses on location scouts and capture pre-production stills with the director of a quality that extremely accurately show what we need to add/change in the frame on the day of.

When you shoot 5minutes of 8k RAW and eject the CFexpress card, and its too hot to hold, it becomes quite obvious that limits are not marketing ploys to sell more cinema cams. For those of us working in serious cinema, its crazy to even consider using the R5 or any of the other hybrids as an A-Cam. There is far too much at stake cost and time wise for each setup. Cinema cams have their target use. I'm very excited though, to be able to supplement them with the R5, which opens up possibilities.

this is how I read it... its an open forum and it's my opinion but look if you feel good about Canon and how they produced the R5... it's your opinion but don't start a reply like this, okay.

again... not sure why blame the CFE-B cards. Canon has used it in 1DXIII and they know the characteristics of CFE-B card. So, there is no reason to put the blame on the card and how it works.
the same card is used in different models and brands... so it's Canon inadequacies or ignorance to be blamed.

 

[Mike9129]

It would have to be cropped not oversampled as raw is not processed.

Point taken

I'm not up to date on my workings of cameras, I just know the results I want!

I wonder if they could deliver the existing 4k HQ in a prores package instead of h.265.

Probably more processing?

 

[Bert63]

Either way it is an odd omission and one that would be great to see rectified.

I don't disagree.

My point is how something that was mentioned by someone, somewhere, at some time somehow becomes transformed into something cited as fact, and then the outrage and complaining that follows when whatever was said whenever it was said doesn't show up in reality when the final product hits the streets.

By the way - I was over on Reddit and saw an incredible video in 4K120 of two bees flying head-on into each other in slow motion with the caption MAYDAY-MAYDAY!

Now I know what everyone wants to use their R5 for. I can't imagine the number of takes that took.

 

[DBounce]

Yes, it's to protect their full frame 8K CINI lineup. Of course. Btw, it's shutting down because of overheating.

And no 8K raw over HDMI why? No technical reason not to enable that one. So why leave it out if nothing to protect?

 

[Tyler_CR13]

Hoping they increase the 7minute recording limit for high frame rates...Audio recording at high frame rates would be nice too.

 

[Mike9129]

?????

Which part is wrong? That sigma 18-35 1.8 is a great lens that would fix the issue with having to work with the x1.7 crop (someone mentioned x1.6 as well, so I'm not sure which is correct) for the wide shots.

More to the point, if theres a PL mount adapter for the R5 that you can mount super 35 sized glass onto, wouldnt that then work perfectly with the crop for 4k?

Do I have that wrong? Let me know, I'm my head it should...

 

[karchner14]

Another vote/hope for additional button customization.

The "Rate" button is utterly useless to me and cannot be reassigned.

I have that on my list too

 

[Matthew19]

To me as a retired marketer, it seems obvious what Canon will do to deal with this is:

• Announce a very tasty Cineline RF mount camera with much less recovery problems etc.
• At the same time or a day after announce a "coming" firmware update for the R5 & 6 to make it a little better, but not much better so that impedes the new Cineline RF camera (and that's a mistake because it will p-s off existing users even more?)

This makes sense. Canon is creating a problem and then solving it, framing the overheating as the enemy, not the company itself.

 

[TAF]

If they do the bug fixes correctly, then the R5 = a7iv + a7r4 + a7siii.
Just needs 1080-120p/240p, 1hr record limit in basic 24p recording .

1080/240 would be the thing that gets me to open my wallet later in the year when inventory has stabilized...

VGA/480 or faster would have me hunting for one now.

 

[Stu_bert]

At minimum the following should be added:

• 8K output over HDMI... this should be easy on the system as no compression needed and HDMI 2.0 supports 8K @30p. So no excuses not to enable it.
• 4K HQ @24p internal recording without recording time limits.
• Non-recording operations should not impact available recording time.
• Recovery time needs to be removed. Imposing a record limits is one thing, but requiring 2 hours plus to restore the camera to full functionality is frankly ridiculous. I believe these limits are artificial. And testing would seem to support this suspicion.

It does (HDMI) but it's not supported by any of the current external recorders.

Funny, the biggest “bugs” on the list are all artificial: overheat warning, crippled dynamic range due to C-Log with max DR of 12 stops, recording limits, no 8K out... even though HDMI 2.0 supports 8K @30p, etc...

Yep I said this a while back, yet no one supports it. Why? Cause probably the overhead of processing 8K is a design challenge even on an external recorder....

 

[Bert63]

again... not sure why blame the CFE-B cards.

He didn't blame the cards. He cited them as a point of fact.

 

[SecureGSM]

It does (HDMI) but it's not supported by any of the

Yep I said this a while back, yet no one supports it. Why? Cause probably the overhead of processing 8K is a design challenge even on an external recorder....

Because HDMI 2.0 does not support 8K@30 10bit 4:2:2?

 

[tomislavmoze]

I have many. I can make you a list. Luckily, being butt-hurt by false promises from paid YouTubers isn't one of them.

well not sure where you got the idea I was butt-hurt, I was just asking about something that one reviewer mention (I personally don't like him but still think that he does really objective reviews). Also I knew I saw it here also https://www.canonrumors.com/feature...e-for-both-the-canon-eos-r5-and-canon-eos-r6/

 

[SecureGSM]

well not sure where you got the idea I was butt-hurt, I was just asking about something that one reviewer mention (I personally don't like him but still think that he does really objective reviews). Also I knew I saw it here also https://www.canonrumors.com/feature...e-for-both-the-canon-eos-r5-and-canon-eos-r6/

the feature was likely removed in firmware v1.0 due to a bug or a “condition“ identified. Likely fixed now and will be included in upcoming firmware release.

 

[Ozarker]

Which part is wrong? That sigma 18-35 1.8 is a great lens that would fix the issue with having to work with the x1.7 crop (someone mentioned x1.6 as well, so I'm not sure which is correct) for the wide shots.

More to the point, if theres a PL mount adapter for the R5 that you can mount super 35 sized glass onto, wouldnt that then work perfectly with the crop for 4k?

Do I have that wrong? Let me know, I'm my head it should...

I never said you were wrong. I’m simply trying to wrap my head around why one would choose an EF-s lens to get the wide shot when there is wide EF glass. EF-s doesn’t make a lens wider and the camera crops it... making it narrower. Could be I am picturing the whole discussion wrongly. I also had no idea there was such an animal as “Super 35” sized glass. All Canon cinema super 35 sensor cameras use EF glass or something else adapted.

 

[Bert63]

well not sure where you got the idea I was butt-hurt, I was just asking about something that one reviewer mention (I personally don't like him but still think that he does really objective reviews). Also I knew I saw it here also https://www.canonrumors.com/feature...e-for-both-the-canon-eos-r5-and-canon-eos-r6/

I didn't say you were butt hurt, I said I didn't get butt-hurt. You made the connection.

The point stands. People listen to YouTubers talking about this or that and the next thing you know it comes out as 'fact' somewhere.

Jared Polin might have made the claim. Granted - let's say he did.

Did he follow up to confirm it?

Did he let people know that this supposed rumor or point of fact that he learned through a conversation he may or may not have had with a "Canon Ambassador" wasn't showing up on the early spec sheets he was supposedly seeing?

And oh by the way, who was the "Canon Ambassador" and was he stating a fact or just talking smack over his fourth tequila shooter of the night?

Did Polin just as readily let the viewers know that it wasn't going to happen at launch?

Nope. Spit it and forget it.

Like most YouTubers, he put it out there and the eager (mostly very young) masses grabbed it hung on to it like a dog with it's favorite toy.

Fast-forward to reality and it isn't there and all of a sudden it's a promise broken. Not that there was ever really a promise made in the first place.

When someone mentions a YouTuber as a point of reference for a 'fact' I'm very, very skeptical if not dismissive.

 

[Stu_bert]

Because HDMI 2.0 does not support 8K@30 10bit 4:2:2?

Yep I said that also in my earlier posts....

Only recorder I could find which supports any 8K is the Atomos Neon and I don't believe the module has been released. Most of the recorders I looked at, stopped at 4k60p

HDMI supports 4K120, again, 4:2:0 only, and the only Sony camera which does 4k120 to the Ninja sends it as 4k60p....

So no RAW support, no 8k support, no 120 support for external. And maybe that's cause there hasn't been a need, or maybe cause it's difficult to design. Probably why Canon either dropped the feature(s) or design it to work internal with the associated heat implications.