More information about the upcoming RF mount Cinema EOS series of cameras [CR2]

D

Deleted member 384473

Guest
FF is a photographers obsession where it is much easier to keep things in focus. If you are shooting a 50 1.2 wide open it will have to be locked off on sticks and that is boring. Imagine trying to keep a 50 1.2 wide open on a FF camera while shoulder rigged running down a country path. If this camera comes with R5 class IAF it could be an absolute game changer in that respect. But this is canon so I am not holding my breath.

Some one asked why RED doesn't have an RF mount. Becuase people that can afford a RED can afford cinema lenses and a crew. And the same reason they don't have an L mount. No one uses them. It will be interesting to see if Canon brings any RF mount cine glass with this camera and if there will be any new adapter options like RF to PL. The RF 50 1.2 would probably be a $30,000 lens if done as a cine lens.
FF is where the cinema industry seems to heading.

Many aren't using a lens that fast in video unless for special use cases and most def would need a dedicated focus puller.

RED Komodo is RF. All REDs can be build with either EF/PL mounts. Popular are the Sigma Cine Zooms that aren't expensive at all.

What is the logic behind thinking an RF CIne 50 1.2 would be $30K?
 

Juangrande

EOS 90D
Mar 6, 2017
120
161
I know S35 is sort of a cinema standard, it hasn't really been a video 'standard' until relatively recently because lets face it, what does the widest picture you can fit on a 135 format film between the perforations when run through a gate vertically have to do with anything in the digital realm? But that does nothing to address my point about Canon being unmercifully criticized for hybrid camera ff video crops that still equate to larger than S35 sensors when M4/3 cameras with sensors smaller than S35 are applauded for their 'cinematic output'.

If you are disappointed in your R5 you only have yourself and unrealistic expectations to blame. The camera does exactly what Canon said it would do, I can understand if that isn't what you as an individual might need, but that doesn't change the fact that Canon did not say the R5 would do something it couldn't. Though most of the 'limitations' are rather easily and cheaply negated by normal video gear anyway, but meanwhile tell me what it is you do need and tell me what other cameras can do that for well under $4,000.

Probably has everything to do with the fact that when cameras transitioned to digital they kept the lenses from the film era rather than reinventing the format anew which would’ve allowed them to come up with the best solutions since they wouldn’t have been constrained by older parameters.
This execerpt below explains the pitfalls of building upon older constraints perfectly.....


“The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used?
Well, because that's the way they built them in England, and English engineers designed the first US railroads.

Why did the English build them like that?
Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the wagon tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

So, why did 'they' use that gauge then?
Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that same wheel spacing.

Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?
Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break more often on some of the old, long distance roads in England . You see, that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So who built those old rutted roads?
Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (including England ) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since.

And what about the ruts in the roads?
Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match or run the risk of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome , they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Bureaucracies live forever.

So the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process and wonder 'What horse's ass came up with this?', you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. (Two horses' asses.)

Now, the twist to the story:

When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah . The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature, of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system, was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass. And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important? Ancient horse's asses control almost everything and....

CURRENT Horses Asses are controlling everything else.”
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,829
4,494
Because the capabilities are there in the camera. I don’t understand why so many “photographers” want to limit what a camera can do. The camera is capable of shooting all of those except for raw. There’s not as much photography work as there used to be, so when you get a camera you want
It to be a versatile as possible. It used to be physical details of a camera where the clear differentiations of a camera. It’s just not the case and canon is artificially segmenting.

if I prefer to shoot Canon and shoot video and photo. How hard is it to understand I want to have TWO cameras that are redundant. Not 4.However I’m sure you do understand and just want to be a jerk about it.

I have a couple of Sony’s that I use for paid work, I just enjoy shooting the R more. There’s a clear difference in reliability in the two. Card slots, auto focus, dynamic range, but they are not fun to use. Is it so much to ask that the fun one is also functional.
You can ask for anything you like, to feel let down by a product that breaks new ground on specs because it doesn't do a few of the things you personally want when it does practically everything much better than any previous model (particularly the model it is replacing) seems childish. But I get it, I'm the "jerk"!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ramage and SteveC

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,829
4,494
Probably has everything to do with the fact that when cameras transitioned to digital they kept the lenses from the film era rather than reinventing the format anew which would’ve allowed them to come up with the best solutions since they wouldn’t have been constrained by older parameters.
This execerpt below explains the pitfalls of building upon older constraints perfectly.....


“The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used?
Well, because that's the way they built them in England, and English engineers designed the first US railroads.

Why did the English build them like that?
Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the wagon tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

So, why did 'they' use that gauge then?
Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that same wheel spacing.

Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?
Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break more often on some of the old, long distance roads in England . You see, that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So who built those old rutted roads?
Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (including England ) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since.

And what about the ruts in the roads?
Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match or run the risk of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome , they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Bureaucracies live forever.

So the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process and wonder 'What horse's ass came up with this?', you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. (Two horses' asses.)

Now, the twist to the story:

When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah . The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature, of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system, was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass. And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important? Ancient horse's asses control almost everything and....

CURRENT Horses Asses are controlling everything else.”
A great tale to be sure, but it doesn't really stand up to closer scrutiny, indeed most of it breaks down rather easily including the twist...

"...when Thiokol was building the solid rocket boosters (SRB) for the space shuttle, they had to keep shipping considerations in mind, but they didn’t have to alter their design because any particular tunnel that lay between their plant and the Florida launch site wasn’t large enough."

As for the lenses, there has been a wide variety of lenses available in numerous formats for a long time, including high quality video camera lenses based on much smaller tube based measurements. Not saying that historical considerations aren't a reasonable consideration, but I would argue it isn't the reason.
 

Rocksthaman

Eos R , R6 , R5
Jul 9, 2020
115
93
You can ask for anything you like, to feel let down by a product that breaks new ground on specs because it doesn't do a few of the things you personally want when it does practically everything much better than any previous model (particularly the model it is replacing) seems childish. But I get it, I'm the "jerk"!

It literally doesn’t need to have a record limit. The tax is gone. But there is one

The camera has more dynamic range but the log profiles isn’t there to use it.

The camera is overheating” but it’s not hot.

These are not Specs, they are merely software limitations. If you have thousands of dollars in glass in a system, the hope is that you get the most out of it.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,829
4,494
It literally doesn’t need to have a record limit. The tax is gone. But there is one

The camera has more dynamic range but the log profiles isn’t there to use it.

The camera is overheating” but it’s not hot.

These are not Specs, they are merely software limitations. If you have thousands of dollars in glass in a system, the hope is that you get the most out of it.
And what has changed since my last post? You are crying because the camera doesn't have specs you want and feel would be trivial to include, Canon don't want to sell you those specs for $3,899, get over it.

It is Canon's product and they can put any software or hardware "limitations" on it they want, you as a consumer get to choose if you feel the product is worth your money, that is the deal. Constantly whining like a spoilt child over what you feel you are owed or deserve is pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso and SteveC

Rocksthaman

Eos R , R6 , R5
Jul 9, 2020
115
93
And what has changed since my last post? You are crying because the camera doesn't have specs you want and feel would be trivial to include, Canon don't want to sell you those specs for $3,899, get over it.

It is Canon's product and they can put any software or hardware "limitations" on it they want, you as a consumer get to choose if you feel the product is worth your money, that is the deal. Constantly whining like a spoilt child over what you feel you are owed or deserve is pathetic.

No, “Mr Photographer”, your below post notes you’re not giving Canon a pass and you want to know what Canon is not featuring in a $4000 camera.

I noted what they where. That point is simple.

In turn went into your own little issue with people wanting more from their cameras. It’s clearly a thing for you that video shooters would like to have more features in their DSLR/Mirrorless cameras. Just look at your posts. I hope you work for canon the way you defend it. Fair enough that’s your own little internal war.

Canon has great lenses that I have a shelf of. They have capable hardware. They just reserve certain features for the cinema line, but the lines between photo and video have clearly blurred. If I needed different capabilities, I would just go buy them, I already did go by two Sony bodies. No issue there. The cameras are very functional. I enjoy shooting Canon much more, However they have always seemed to be behind on the tech side (ibis, crops, Mirrorless bodies, WiFi), they finally catch up and now seems just as good as the competition and they self cripple .

If you know anything about business the market will set itself.Any consumer not wanting the most value out of their purchases has undervalued their purchasing power. You don’t want to hear about video, stop reading. You know who knows video is important , Canon. They haven’t stopped talking about it since announcing the camera.

Video is the frontier and going to be from here on out a part of the Mirrorless purchasing decision.

Get used to it.
No record limit, C-Log 2/3, no overheating in 4k60, 4K raw ( I know it’s not possible but I’d like it).
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,829
4,494
No, “Mr Photographer”, your below post notes you’re not giving Canon a pass and you want to know what Canon is not featuring in a $4000 camera.

I noted what they where. That point is simple.

In turn went into your own little issue with people wanting more from their cameras. It’s clearly a thing for you that video shooters would like to have more features in their DSLR/Mirrorless cameras. Just look at your posts. I hope you work for canon the way you defend it. Fair enough that’s your own little internal war.

Canon has great lenses that I have a shelf of. They have capable hardware. They just reserve certain features for the cinema line, but the lines between photo and video have clearly blurred. If I needed different capabilities, I would just go buy them, I already did go by two Sony bodies. No issue there. The cameras are very functional. I enjoy shooting Canon much more, However they have always seemed to be behind on the tech side (ibis, crops, Mirrorless bodies, WiFi), they finally catch up and now seems just as good as the competition and they self cripple .

If you know anything about business the market will set itself.Any consumer not wanting the most value out of their purchases has undervalued their purchasing power. You don’t want to hear about video, stop reading. You know who knows video is important , Canon. They haven’t stopped talking about it since announcing the camera.

Video is the frontier and going to be from here on out a part of the Mirrorless purchasing decision.

Get used to it.
That line of criticism always makes me smile, clearly Canon know more about business than you, they sell more cameras than Sony and Nikon combined, and they have been the best seller for 20 years straight, at what point is your mythical market shellacking going to take place because I have been here since the beginning and I've seen that posted every week for the last >10 years.

As for video, sure video is a aspect of hybrids, that's why they are called hybrids, but just like any other market different product lines will have different emphasis on the compromises inherent in either mode, manufacturers also have differing outlooks to their own product lines and product cannibalism. The Sony a7RIII is as video focused a hybrid as the R5 is a stills focused hybrid, anybody looking for a stills orientated camera would be as ill advised to purchase that particular Sony as a video centric shooter would an R5. Why does that have to mean Canon should give you more in the R5? The two are not linked in any way.
 

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
321
169
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
FF is where the cinema industry seems to heading.

Many aren't using a lens that fast in video unless for special use cases and most def would need a dedicated focus puller.

RED Komodo is RF. All REDs can be build with either EF/PL mounts. Popular are the Sigma Cine Zooms that aren't expensive at all.

What is the logic behind thinking an RF CIne 50 1.2 would be $30K?
I guess it all depends on what you mean by the "cinema industry."

Nobody making feature length narrative content or episodic content on the studio level is worried about equipment cost. Reliability, look, capability, sure. But camera and lens are the least of the costs for what I would call the "cinema industry." Most equipment is rented and the real cost in making a film at that level is all people.

And I haven't seen any data on a move toward FF sensors there. Spectacle films have often used large formats, while the bulk of everything seen in a theater up until now has been the width of a Super 35 frame.
 
D

Deleted member 384473

Guest
I guess it all depends on what you mean by the "cinema industry."

Nobody making feature length narrative content or episodic content on the studio level is worried about equipment cost. Reliability, look, capability, sure. But camera and lens are the least of the costs for what I would call the "cinema industry." Most equipment is rented and the real cost in making a film at that level is all people.

And I haven't seen any data on a move toward FF sensors there. Spectacle films have often used large formats, while the bulk of everything seen in a theater up until now has been the width of a Super 35 frame.
Fair enough. That was pretty vague of me.

I agree but my answer had context behind it.

Going based on Camera manufacturers introducing new large format cameras over the last 5 years, but yes, since high quality large FF cameras weren't around like they are now, S35 has been the standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana

MaxDiesel

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 23, 2015
59
11
A native Canon Speedbooster on these RF Cinemas is really outstanding should that rumor bear out. You can shoot lenses with the S35 or get an effective 35mm FF image area with a huge library of EF glass.
Metabones has already made one you can use on current RF bodies.
 
Aug 11, 2020
8
2
Toronto
Hmm I wonder if canon is releasing this to compete against RED and there new komodo camera...i mean besides the 6k vs 4k the offerings seem close
 

andrewtowecreative

Cinematographer | R5 | C300 MK iii
Where/when did Canon mention that after the overheat restriction took place, it would take from 2 hours to as much as 6 hours to cool down?
I’ll answer... they didn’t. It’s not in any official statement and it’s not in the owners manual. That’s pretty significant oversight.
I’m not giving them a pass. I’ll gladly return this camera if Canon failed to address these concerns very soon.
They did, in the announcement video with a development member and 3 youtubers that claim they're in the "cinema" space. And there's documentation, just a single page. They don't state those times. It's something like wait 30 mins and you can use it for 4 more minutes. Something bogus like that. You're wrong to be mad at the initial reason but that after effect reason you're in the right.
 

DBounce

EOS RP
May 3, 2016
280
314
They did, in the announcement video with a development member and 3 youtubers that claim they're in the "cinema" space. And there's documentation, just a single page. They don't state those times. It's something like wait 30 mins and you can use it for 4 more minutes. Something bogus like that. You're wrong to be mad at the initial reason but that after effect reason you're in the right.
Which is the point. The extremely long artificial cool down time, which is apparently not based on actual internal temperature... at all, makes this camera unusable for video in any of the headline shooting modes. No one really cares about line skipped 4K. So while I understand that the lower quality mode continues to function, it is of little consolation.
If Canon based the overheat/recovery off of actual internal temps, there would be no issue at all. Because this camera does in truth, not overheat. I run it 8 hours straight in 4KHQ external. It warms up to it normal operating temperature and never goes beyond that. Image quality remains consistent. The body never gets hot to the touch.
 
<-- start Taboola -->