Canon officially announces the Canon EOS R5 C

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
989
1,166
UK
If video is your primary use case, the R5C is a no brainer even without IBIS. If you plan to shoot a lot of handheld photography at lower shutter speeds (low light) more so than video, stick with the R5.
I agree. If I had any intention of getting seriously into video, as a Canon user, I'd probably go for the R5C. But I'm purely a stills photographer, so I'm very happy with my R5, which is I think the best camera in Canon's stable for my wildlife, landscape and macro photography.

But none of this gets away from the fact that there are many users (e.g. wedding, event and advertising photographers/videographers) for whom it's highly desirable for a camera to be equally competent at video and stills.

And the questions still remains - if Nikon Z9 and Sony A1 can shoot continuous 8K without needing a fan, why couldn't Canon? Arguably, the Nikon doesn't need a fan simply because the larger body dissipates heat more efficiently, but the Sony is even smaller than the R5C, yet manages without a fan.

And if Sony and Nikon can do hi-end pro video work without compromising stabilisation for stills photographers, why can't Canon?

I think the truth is that Canon could easily have kept IBIS in the R5C, but chose to omit it for product segmentation and cost-reduction purposes. As a result they have produced a great hybrid camera at a price that undercuts their main competitor Sony. But in my eyes the Nikon Z9 looks a better tool, whether for stills, video or hybrid users - and it costs about the same as the R5C.
 
Last edited:

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
989
1,166
UK
how well does IBIS stabilise the 180L? I have the Sigma equivalent with IS and wouldn't want an unstabilised version.
When using previous firmware in the R5, I found it difficult to get sharp hand-held shots with the Canon EF 180mm F3.5 macro. So much so that I rarely used it, despite it having fabulous bokeh and being the ideal focal length for stalking insects and small reptiles. Since upgrading to firmware 1.5.0 I've noticed a significant improvement - I can now get sharp hand-held macro shots at 1/125 or even 1/60, which for me is almost a 2 stop improvement.

I don't know how the firmware and IBIS would interact with the Sigma (and Tamron) 180mm macros, but my experience with a Sigma 150mm macro was unsatisfying (too heavy, AF too slow and indecisive, prone to flare) hence buying the Canon 180mm. But I know other photographers (with steadier hands than me) who are very happy with the Sigma and Tamron macros.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

bgoyette

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Feb 6, 2015
119
73
It's not so much a lack of skills.
It is that you get used to IBIS being able to extend you ability to get shots you really cannot get without it.

It's almost like getting a faster lens in the sense that you can stretch the physical capabilities of your equipment that little bit more with IBIS and get the shot you just really cannot get without it.

That's the dependence I think most are speaking towards.
This I agree with...as a proud owner of a GFX100, coming from a Hasselblad H5d...I can say my approach to medium format is completely different today than it was a few years ago, largely because of that systems IBIS...being able to handhold a MF 100mp camera at 1/5 of a second almost feels like cheating...but it's possible and I do it more often than I should. That said...the big red C on this camera tells you this is a Cine product first and a still camera second, just like the R5 was a still camera first and a cine product second. None of the Cine products have IBIS...and there is a good reason for it...heat management is a higher priority, and frankly...most video professionals don't "like" IBIS...(it warps images that can be stabilized in lens or via stabilizer, and when it reaches the end of it's range it tends to "snap" back...ruining motion shots in ways that don't affect still shots. )
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

dirtyvu

EOS 90D
Jan 7, 2019
142
114
yea i also googled his name, but he mentioned on Adorama's R5C live Q&A that he talks with the engineers all the time. And "senior product specialist" is not a marketing role like a spokesperson, it is pretty much what it is - a product specialist -- meaning if he's assigned to handle Q&A's for the R5C, he has in depth hands on knowledge of the product. Also the fact that there are other canon specialists, and technical advisors on these calls and do not correct him. I agree with you, it is dissapointing.
Well in the worst case, it has the cinema feature that the r5 doesn't have and that is face only (where if the person leaves the frame, it doesn't refocus).

I don't know about the specialist thing. I watched another video with another specialist and he seems like marketing.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,795
4,771
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...one of the fundamental advantages of MILCs is IBIS. Omitting it can only be for product segmentation and cost reducing purposes...

...I think the truth is that Canon could easily have kept IBIS in the R5C, but chose to omit it for product segmentation and cost-reduction purposes...

You've make this same claim at least twice now. Both times without a shred of evidence to support it.

What logical product segmentation purpose would it serve? Why would Canon need to segment the R5C from the R5 by not including in-camera stabilization? If someone wants professional Cinema features and stabilization, then not including IBIS is going to what...drive buyers to the less expensive R5? What advantage accrues to Canon to leave it off? So they can sell a less expensive model? That makes zero sense.

And, what does cost reduction even mean in this case? If it means including both without compromising the video features of the R5C would have raised the cost of the camera to a level that was prohibitive and priced the body out of the market, well...okay I imagine that is a possible explanation. But, how can one criticize them for that without knowing what the added cost would have been? Unless you are not disclosing your expert sources, you have zero information to base your claims on.

Top all this off with the comments from many video-centric users that they don't want IBIS in the camera makes your repeating the same unsubstantiated claims only seem more and more well...unsubstantiated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,672
6,100
It’s funny when Panasonic did the same thing to the GH5 and GH5S everybody thought it was fantastic that they dropped the internal IS, mind you they did do a very clever implementation of different aspect ratios.

But when others do it it is a feature, when Canon do it it is crippling. This place has become a bore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Jan 21, 2022
1
4
And the questions still remains - if Nikon Z9 and Sony A1 can shoot continuous 8K without needing a fan, why couldn't Canon? Arguably, the Nikon doesn't need a fan simply because the larger body dissipates heat more efficiently, but the Sony is even smaller than the R5C, yet manages without a fan.
The Sony A1 Records 8K at 4:2:0, It is also limited to 400mbps which keeps the heat build-up down. The R5 HEVC is at 1300mpbs @ 4:2:2, more than triple the A1 and that's not even talking about the RAW bitrates. That's why the A1 able to record to USH II cards cause it's not pumping out that much data compared to the R5/R5C. Plus it's not doing any internal raw or 8K external raw so the A1 is just not as demanding as the R5/R5C. You need to have the proper context when comparing different cameras.

The cost is the main issue with the A1, I don't think it's $2600 better than the R5 even with its limitations and definitely not $2000 better than the R5C. Also not $1000 better than the Z9.

The Nikon Z9 Max HEVC bitrate in 8K is 400mbps as well plus it has a bigger body so it can disperse that heat easily and shoot raw & Prores. I'm curious to see how well the Nikon 8K Raw format compares to Canon Raw & BRAW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

LukasS

Yeap
Dec 24, 2014
113
19
When shooting weddings, waiting 5 seconds to go from one to the other is not an option. Its a lifetime.
While I'm not pro wedding photographer, I would never go to a shoot like this with one body, and never did. Always two bodies and different lenses.

Imaging a world where R5C switches between both modes almost instantly - doesn't solve practical issues with such a workflow - ie. which mode you last used, will it work for current shot you want to record, switching settings to desired one (even with presets) will take time.

This isn't a camera that was meant to give you full immediate access to all functionality (photo and video), nor do I see any practical application to use it like that.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
989
1,166
UK
You've make this same claim at least twice now. Both times without a shred of evidence to support it.

What logical product segmentation purpose would it serve? Why would Canon need to segment the R5C from the R5 by not including in-camera stabilization? If someone wants professional Cinema features and stabilization, then not including IBIS is going to what...drive buyers to the less expensive R5? What advantage accrues to Canon to leave it off? So they can sell a less expensive model? That makes zero sense.

And, what does cost reduction even mean in this case? If it means including both without compromising the video features of the R5C would have raised the cost of the camera to a level that was prohibitive and priced the body out of the market, well...okay I imagine that is a possible explanation. But, how can one criticize them for that without knowing what the added cost would have been? Unless you are not disclosing your expert sources, you have zero information to base your claims on.

Top all this off with the comments from many video-centric users that they don't want IBIS in the camera makes your repeating the same unsubstantiated claims only seem more and more well...unsubstantiated.
Well, my "unsubstantiated claim" is of course just that - my personal opinion, I'm not stating it as fact ;)

Much of what you've written actually appears to be in agreement with what I opined, so perhaps we are misunderstanding each other?

Strong product segmentation has long been a feature that Canon is particularly noted for. The R5, R5C, R3 and Cinema cameras e.g. all have very distinct identities and are aimed at different different user groups. If Canon had put IBIS *and* a fan in the R5C, it would IMO have been a "better" camera (i.e. more versatile, as it would be equally suitable for stills and video)... and more competitive with the Z9 and A1.

But, it would probably have taken longer to design, been more complex to manufacture, and more expensive to produce and sell. They seem to have made an advance decision to keep the price well below that of the competing Sony a1, and omitting IBIS probably helped achieve that requirement. When producing variants and upgrades, Canon (and Nikon, Sony) often "sacrifice" some features on existing models, while adding other features, in order to more strongly differentiate models, and keep the costs competitive. Some call it "crippling" but in reality it's just clever design choices and clever marketing.

The "problem", as I see it, is that by omitting IBIS and including a fan, on one hand they are satisfying the serious videographers, but on the other hand they are disappointing those who shoot roughly 50/50 stills and video. Unlike Sony and Nikon, who pour every conceivable feature available to them into their cameras - hence the A1 and Z9, both of which have IBIS *and* very efficient but non-fan cooling systems, making them both extremely good tools for both 8K video *and* stills.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
989
1,166
UK
The Sony A1 Records 8K at 4:2:0, It is also limited to 400mbps which keeps the heat build-up down. The R5 HEVC is at 1300mpbs @ 4:2:2, more than triple the A1 and that's not even talking about the RAW bitrates. That's why the A1 able to record to USH II cards cause it's not pumping out that much data compared to the R5/R5C. Plus it's not doing any internal raw or 8K external raw so the A1 is just not as demanding as the R5/R5C. You need to have the proper context when comparing different cameras.

The cost is the main issue with the A1, I don't think it's $2600 better than the R5 even with its limitations and definitely not $2000 better than the R5C. Also not $1000 better than the Z9.

The Nikon Z9 Max HEVC bitrate in 8K is 400mbps as well plus it has a bigger body so it can disperse that heat easily and shoot raw & Prores. I'm curious to see how well the Nikon 8K Raw format compares to Canon Raw & BRAW.
I'm a stills shooter, so I bow to your superior knowledge about video specifications and usability.

It would be interesting to know the logical processes of people when weighing up the pros and cons of the Sony A1, Nikon Z9 and Canon R5C. I suspect decisions are made primarily on the basis of compatibility with their existing lens systems. Few will actually switch brands, even if they believe doing so would be advantageous. I also wonder how the ratio of video:stills usage varies between people buying each of these cameras.

I agree about the excessive cost of the Sony A1, but at the time it was launched, it was targeting the Canon 1DXiii and Nikon D6 market, and the price was set accordingly. Now that Nikon and Canon have launched their recent models, I would expect the price of the A1 to drop quite considerably. In the UK, the R5 is currently £4300 and the Z9 is £5300. A more realistic price for the A1 would I think be around £4800.
 
Last edited:

dirtyvu

EOS 90D
Jan 7, 2019
142
114
While I'm not pro wedding photographer, I would never go to a shoot like this with one body, and never did. Always two bodies and different lenses.

Imaging a world where R5C switches between both modes almost instantly - doesn't solve practical issues with such a workflow - ie. which mode you last used, will it work for current shot you want to record, switching settings to desired one (even with presets) will take time.

This isn't a camera that was meant to give you full immediate access to all functionality (photo and video), nor do I see any practical application to use it like that.
As much as people talk about instantly flipping between photos and video in the moment, from my own experience at events, it kind of sucks. Because you often end up in the wrong mode at the wrong time. I recently did a birthday party with the chaos of adults and kids mixed together in a hectic environment. And for the perfect moments, you would like to both take photos and video simultaneously. Actually, for those moments, it would be great to be able to take photos while recording video. You can do this with smartphones.

And that's why I carry 2 bodies. If I'm doing photos, I'll have a friend do video. Or vice versa. The unfortunate thing with carrying 2 bodies is that unless you have a huge budget for everything, one body will often be much better than the other body. I wish I had 2 R5 cams but I don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

dirtyvu

EOS 90D
Jan 7, 2019
142
114
same hardware. but different algorithm in different OS. i will argue that R5C will have better AF than C70 in video mode. althogh the AF behavior may differ between R5 & R5C in video mode. which is better ? im not sure just yet. the only reviews that i know doing preliminary AF test is CVP. in their test, they feel R5C is perform a bit worse than the r5.

I'll watch the CVP video again because I didn't catch the AF comparison between R5 and R5C.

but at the end around the 44 min mark, he says that the R5C outclasses the C70 in AF.
 

TravelerNick

EOS 90D
Dec 4, 2020
121
67
I'm a stills shooter, so I bow to your superior knowledge about video specifications and usability.

It would be interesting to know the logical processes of people when weighing up the pros and cons of the Sony A1, Nikon Z9 and Canon R5C.

I doubt very many people will be comparing those three.

I know Sony wants people to class the A1 with the other pro models but the impression I get is most of the pros looking at it are either already Sony users or are pairing it with Sony FX video cameras.

The R5C has some serious limits related to the batteries and it seems the processor. Maybe it makes sense for a mainly video shooter. But I doubt you'll see it being used by the average PJ shooter or any of the other markets that used to be mostly stills.

The Z9 doesn't seem to have any holes right now. It's cheaper than the A1. The R5C seems you really should budget to add at least the grip and I assume a spare battery. Pushing it pretty close to the Z9. But we don't know what NRaw will be like. They haven't really told us what the other video upgrades are supposed to be. The rumours sound good but we won't know until the firmware shows up. The Z9 is really aimed at what they think the R1 will be. Some of the features will be very useful for hybrid shooting. Grabbing 8K stills for example or the 120 FPS JPG. You'd expect the R1 to at least match those.
 

TravelerNick

EOS 90D
Dec 4, 2020
121
67
The "problem", as I see it, is that by omitting IBIS and including a fan, on one hand they are satisfying the serious videographers, but on the other hand they are disappointing those who shoot roughly 50/50 stills and video. Unlike Sony and Nikon, who pour every conceivable feature available to them into their cameras - hence the A1 and Z9, both of which have IBIS *and* very efficient but non-fan cooling systems, making them both extremely good tools for both 8K video *and* stills.

If you believe that explain the card choice in the A1? Explain the lack of internal raw video. Explain the lack of DCI.
 

TravelerNick

EOS 90D
Dec 4, 2020
121
67
The Nikon Z9 Max HEVC bitrate in 8K is 400mbps as well plus it has a bigger body so it can disperse that heat easily and shoot raw & Prores. I'm curious to see how well the Nikon 8K Raw format compares to Canon Raw & BRAW.

Converting to HEVC requires more processing power . Likely generating more heat. It saves on card space and bandwidth. In the CineD video the Canon rep stated something like 8K HEVC was left off the R5C because the camera couldn't handle the extra requirements.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,771
1,393
If you believe that explain the card choice in the A1? Explain the lack of internal raw video. Explain the lack of DCI.
Some people are going to believe "cripple hammer" no matter what. It's obvious the R5/R5C sensor is not as power efficient as Sony's latest sensor, probably not even as power efficient as the R3 sensor, but it ticks all the other needed boxes (i.e. FF DPAF 8k with the readout speeds to support 60p and in 4k 120p). The R5C is pushing much higher data rates, and that's before accounting for DPAF which shoves the real, internal readout rate/processing much higher. And despite all of this, an R5C with a larger body and a heatsink might not have needed a fan and might have even had IBIS if Canon had limited the video...or shall I say crippled it?...like the A1 and Z9.

The people complaining about the R5C don't want a cinema camera, they want an R5 with improved video thermal limits. It was shown in tear downs that the R5's internals weren't as efficient as they could have been for heat transfer. Maybe Canon should have done an R5P release next to the R5C, replacing the original R5. The R5P could be the R5 with some physical thermal improvements for longer record times. But that's not really their management/production style, and they probably are having trouble making enough R5's as is, despite the thermal limits in video. I doubt they see much of a need to sink the costs into a revision before they do an R5 mark II. The people who can't suffer the thermal limits likely have external recorders, a 2nd body, or an R3.

I know there's someone out there with a legitimate use case where they need to carry one body, with IBIS for stills, without extra junk (ext recorder) and they want it to be an R5, but they run into thermal limits on the video side. And that does suck. Canon should have paid more attention to main board layout and heat sinks in the original R5 and R6 designs. But I doubt that was "cripple hammer", just engineers rushing to meet a deadline as evidence by beta firmware 1.0 which Canon quickly replaced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users