It’s definitely not a gimmick. It can be a very useful feature. And Blackmagic already has a 12k model.8K is a gimmick, this is serious workhorse camera .
8K has no application in the real world
you don’t do any filming, do you?
Upvote
0
It’s definitely not a gimmick. It can be a very useful feature. And Blackmagic already has a 12k model.8K is a gimmick, this is serious workhorse camera .
8K has no application in the real world
Nope , but seriously this is pretty niche , I can see an application for 4K120 in very short clips thoughIt’s definitely not a gimmick. It can be a very useful feature. And Blackmagic already has a 12k model.
you don’t do any filming, do you?
8K is excellent choice for cropping and in-post zoom without quality loss (for lower resolution results, of course)8K is a gimmick, this is serious workhorse camera .
8K has no application in the real world
Yes but would you film hours of footage on it ?8K is excellent choice for cropping and in-post zoom without quality loss (for lower resolution results, of course)
Recycling the excellent DGO sensor is the most important bit in this announcement. Everything else revolves around it and it is a known quality sensor/image. Big difference between a 9mp super35 sensor and a 45mp 3:2 ratio sensor.Nice. Interesting that Canon didn’t try for 8k with this considering everything that’s happened with the R5. This body seems as though it could handle it. Pricing is good, a lot of estimates were $6,000, up to $700.
Yes and no. Canon has been a very traditional company up to the R5 when they let their engineers fly (maybe too close to the sun if you get my drift!)That is what Canon is offering for the money, buy it or don’t buy it, Canon don’t care. People that say ‘it’s only software’ don’t run successful corporations.
This is an entirely different thing than a stills focused FF camera, why is that so hard for people to comprehend?
OK, I LOATHE Cripple Hammer comments but that was good.That's a nail for the cripple hammer.
If it's strictly a "B" cam why would anyone absolutely have to have intermal RAW. With 16 stops of dynamic range and you are already using C200.No internal RAW makes it DOA for any work I would use it for, which is unfortunate because I was hoping for a small form factor Bcam to go with my c200.
An EVF on this camera Are you kidding me? Motion picture camera operator arives on set and request an EVF. Promptly gets replaced.No EVF, even as an option. This is a non-starter it for me.
That is what Canon is offering for the money, buy it or don’t buy it, Canon don’t care. People that say ‘it’s only software’ don’t run successful corporations.
This is an entirely different thing than a stills focused FF camera, why is that so hard for people to comprehend?
DGO sensor, built in NDs, anamorphic desqueeze, video centric tools, timecode input, full sized HDMI port... too much to list honestly. But if you cannot see the benefit good news... you can save about $2k by going with the R5.
Personally I had the R5 and returned it. Too limiting for my use case. This is the perfect dedicated cinema camera for me. Low key but packed with serious features. That said I’m also loving my Sony A7S3. Shooting with picture profile off and loving the image.
But why not? If they use RF mount and accepting rF glasses then the contact would be compatible from EF to RF as well. They just need to update their firmware.According to canon the speedbooster is only compatible with the c70.
Just look at the CVP video I linked earlier, it will not physically fit. You can use the slightly cheaper Metabones adapter with those if you want to.But why not? If they use RF mount and accepting rF glasses then the contact would be compatible from EF to RF as well. They just need to update their firmware.
Yep, all because most people are too stupid to think maybe they should turn the phone sideways to do pictures and video.
The R5 is a fantastic stills camera. Probably the best I’ve owned. That said the images SOOC from the Sony look great. Colors are better than I remember from my A7R2. Honestly it’s a pretty dam good stills camera. The egos are far better in the Canon. I just ordered the handgrip for the Sony. I hate how my hand falls off the bottom of the camera. Video wise, I just did a quick test with picture profile off, and slapped on FilmConvert. I think the image looked good. Not quite Canon good, where colors pop with ease. But pretty good. Where the Sony shines is low light. I set it to auto ISO with a max limit of 12800. The shot without fear of mushiness. It’s a great camera for when you want a shot at night or indoors where lighting is less than ideal. I’ve never been so confident when shooting in less than ideal light as I am with the the A7S3. To me that alone is worth the price off admission. But I am very pumped for the Canon. It looks to be exactly what we’ve all been hoping for... a baby C300 Mk3... much stealthier than the original but just as capable image wise.Really ? How is the comparison of the SOC of it and the R5 , limits withstanding?
Take any pictures ? Thoughts on them vs R5?
not in my area of interest, but eye opening to see videographers comments here. Areas I wouldn't have been aware of and re-enforces my thoughts that some people had odd expectations on the R5
f you're making a video of a person doing something individually then portrait orientation makes sense.