The Canon EOS R5 C is now Netflix approved after latest firmware update

[EOS 4 Life]

Both the a7iv and R5 measured a similar 14.7/14.6 EV sensor.

Those measurements are 14-bit with the mechanical shutter.
They are also 14+ stops of DR which is the same as CLOG3.
The R5 C gets more dynamic range in CLOG3 so obviously CLOG3 is not the issue.
If you want more dynamic range then why not ask Canon for more dynamic range directly instead of trying to guess why and then asking for whatever you happened to guess?

 

[Marlow]

I have a Sony A1 and A7iv and a Canon R5. The best I can shoot in the R5 is Clog3. If I shoot slog2, I get similar dynamic range to the R5’s footage, if I shoot slog3 (the clog2 equivalent and designed for sensors with 15+ stops) I get a better dynamic range on my cheap a7iv. Some gimmick…

Both the a7iv and R5 measured a similar 14.7/14.6 EV sensor.
According to cined, the R5 with clog3 shows 10 stops, the a7iv and a1 with slog2 are at 13.
Now maybe it’s not the log curve, or maybe it’s because canon forces us to record in h265 and information is lost in the high compression, but all I am saying is, Sony gave me an option to use a log curve developed for high grade sensors, and it made “some” difference.
Even if clog2 cannot be fully utilized, maybe we can get 1 more stop if dynamic range? Maybe for pro’s it will make streamlining footage from a cinema camera and the R5/R5c a little easier since they’re shot in the same log?
My point is, why not give us the options to use what we want to use. I would love h264 compression so I can actually edit the footage and not have to convert it in post.
Maybe the option of 4k120 ipb, etc

To quote a great legend:
I don’t want to know what it’s designed to do, I want to know what it can do.

Canon techs have been super clear about this in various interviews: It's not going to happen. They match the LOG profile on the cameras with the dynamic range, that the sensor is capable of. End of story.

Canon Europe even has a lengthly article on the LOG profiles and which for what on their website.

Gerald Undone did tests using CLOG2 on the R5 C with the Cinema RAW light and also came to the conclusion, that you get a lot more noise in the shadows, which you could clean up in post and get a slight better result, but is that worth it to you ? Adding tons more noise to get potentially a little more information in the shadows seems counter productive to me. And yes, that's what you do, when you use a non-suitable log curve on footage from a sensor, that isn't giving you the information you're looking for to begin with.

And yes, if you're absolute hooked on wanting to use CLOG2 with the R5 C, you'll have to go to a RAW workflow.

/M

 

[TonyG]

Those measurements are 14-bit with the mechanical shutter.
They are also 14+ stops of DR which is the same as CLOG3.
The R5 C gets more dynamic range in CLOG3 so obviously CLOG3 is not the issue.
If you want more dynamic range then why not ask Canon for more dynamic range directly instead of trying to guess why and then asking for whatever you happened to guess?

I am just stating what that the sensor is technically capable of.
I can only comment on the R5 and not the R5c, but IF it has more dynamic range, then it's obviously not a hardware limitation but software.
Maybe the R5ii will have Clog4 to merge the gap? Who knows.
I have noticed on my A1 that using H265 has some weird colour shifts compared to H264. Maybe that is why we loose dynamic range on the R5? Who knows.

And besides, who am I to tell Canon what they should and should not do? They have years of data to know what would satisfy their customers. They know who buys their bodies and how they get used.
If the R5 is not for me, then it's not meant to be. I am just stating what works and what doesn't for me and what I think is lacking from the camera for my use case.
Besides, I just use my Sony body as it works a lot easier for my workflow, especially when I am not a high budget film crew with all the toys. I tried using the R5, but for my needs, it's adding more steps into my workflow to convert H265 footage, and IF I choose to record externally to get more dynamic range or attempt to get enough storage for internal RAW, it is just more workarounds I need to implement into my workflow for no reason.
I currently slap a lens on my body, hit record and I am off to the races. I import my footage into premier, slap my lut and start snipping clips. Easy Peasy.

Canon techs have been super clear about this in various interviews: It's not going to happen. They match the LOG profile on the cameras with the dynamic range, that the sensor is capable of. End of story.

Canon Europe even has a lengthly article on the LOG profiles and which for what on their website.

Gerald Undone did tests using CLOG2 on the R5 C with the Cinema RAW light and also came to the conclusion, that you get a lot more noise in the shadows, which you could clean up in post and get a slight better result, but is that worth it to you ? Adding tons more noise to get potentially a little more information in the shadows seems counter productive to me. And yes, that's what you do, when you use a non-suitable log curve on footage from a sensor, that isn't giving you the information you're looking for to begin with.

And yes, if you're absolute hooked on wanting to use CLOG2 with the R5 C, you'll have to go to a RAW workflow.

/M

And because of the extras required for that workflow (a ninja recorder, the amount of storage to record raw) is why I tried using the R5 but ended up purchasing an A7iv to compliment my A1 while I wait for the A9iii to be released this year. It is supposed to be the A7siii successor. I have been a long time Canon fanboy but the simplicity of Sony for video is a nice feature. For what I need right now, Sony seems to fit the bill for any video work I do. If there was a way to make a Frankenstein between Canon for photo and Sony for video, that would be the ultimate hybrid camera.

 

[Marlow]

And because of the extras required for that workflow (a ninja recorder, the amount of storage to record raw) is why I tried using the R5 but ended up purchasing an A7iv to compliment my A1 while I wait for the A9iii to be released this year. It is supposed to be the A7siii successor. I have been a long time Canon fanboy but the simplicity of Sony for video is a nice feature. For what I need right now, Sony seems to fit the bill for any video work I do. If there was a way to make a Frankenstein between Canon for photo and Sony for video, that would be the ultimate hybrid camera.

A Ninja recorder ??? Why ?? A 2TB CFexpress B card from Angelbird sets you back about 960 EUR or 960 USD. And in the case of the R5 C, you can only record 8k60 internally, while the Ninja V+ only can handle 8k30. The Ninja V+ plus the SSD will set you back more. 2TB miniSSD's are also 550 quid. You can obviously cheap out on that, but it'll bite you in the back when shooting 8k RAW.

The whole point of the R5 C is, that you literally don't need an external recorder for a full on RAW workflow.

Also, why would you want ProRes RAW over Canon Cinema RAW Light ?

/M

 

[TonyG]

A Ninja recorder ??? Why ?? A 2TB CFexpress B card from Angelbird sets you back about 960 EUR or 960 USD. And in the case of the R5 C, you can only record 8k60 internally, while the Ninja V+ only can handle 8k30. The Ninja V+ plus the SSD will set you back more. 2TB miniSSD's are also 550 quid. You can obviously cheap out on that, but it'll bite you in the back when shooting 8k RAW.

The whole point of the R5 C is, that you literally don't need an external recorder for a full on RAW workflow.

Also, why would you want ProRes RAW over Canon Cinema RAW Light ?

/M

I have an R5, not an R5c. I shoot primarily photo with some video on the side.
The R5 external raw output funny enough gets picked up as Clog2 in the Ninja V.
My point is that for my needs, I want to be able to shoot some video as simple as possible, not have to shoot RAW, not have to buy more storage, not have to convert H265, and on top of all that, I get better low light and dynamic range from the Sony.

Here is my current work flow for comparison.
If I shoot H264 4k 24p. On a 128GB V90 card, I can shoot almost an hour and a half of footage. If I shoot 8k Raw to get my maximum dynamic range, I need 2Tb like you mentioned. Thats a lot of storage, and more things to add into my workflow, more things to convert and more things to slow me down.
Like I said, I am not a pro on a film set. For Youtube as an example and other work that I like to be able to turn around quickly, all these things add to my list of more things I need to worry about and do.
Plus let's not forget that if I use auto ISO to expose for me, the R5 does not expose for the face when using clog3 and tends to expose for the scene, where as my A7iv exposes the face when eye tracking is running. Little pet peeves, but for a one man run and gun style shooter, helps make my life easier. Especially for something as simple as trying to film yourself.

 

[Marlow]

I have an R5, not an R5c. I shoot primarily photo with some video on the side.
The R5 external raw output funny enough gets picked up as Clog2 in the Ninja V.
My point is that for my needs, I want to be able to shoot some video as simple as possible, not have to shoot RAW, not have to buy more storage, not have to convert H265, and on top of all that, I get better low light and dynamic range from the Sony.

But this thread is about the R5 C.

The R5 getting CLOG2 is absolutely no chance. It has even less dynamic range than the R5 C. That extra stop of dynamic range in the R5 C was seemingly achieved because of the way CineOS uses the sensor. It's still not enough for CLOG2 though.

And your RAW being picked up as CLOG2 is just a default. You still need to select the correct LOG curve in post. And if you pick CLOG2 ... you'll have more noise in the shadows.

/M

 

[TonyG]

But this thread is about the R5 C.

Yes, I know it is about the R5c, this was my original post.

It would be a very nice addition if they were to add Clog2. Seeing as how the competition offers better dynamic range in their log curves......
Even though the sensor cannot fully utilize the full log2 curve, it would still offer something better than log3. No reason why the user cannot decide for themselves if they want to use Log2 or Log3.

I really, really dislike that I have to use Clog3 on my R5 and it comes out in H265 when I can grab my Sony and record Slog3 in H264...

I compared what I have experienced with my R5 compared to my A1.
If you re-watch Geralds video on the R5c, he got better cleaner results converting to Clog2 with noise reduction than Clog3. Hence why I stated Clog2 would be nice to have, even on the R5.

The R5 getting CLOG2 is absolutely no chance. It has even less dynamic range than the R5 C. That extra stop of dynamic range in the R5 C was seemingly achieved because of the way CineOS uses the sensor. It's still not enough for CLOG2 though.

And your RAW being picked up as CLOG2 is just a default. You still need to select the correct LOG curve in post. And if you pick CLOG2 ... you'll have more noise in the shadows.

/M

Other than CineOS, does the R5 and R5c not have the exact same hardware limitations?
All I am stating is it would be nice to give the user the option to use it if they wanted too. Maybe I would rather have 16 stops of dynamic range and use noise reduction like Gerald did in his video to get better shadow results than what Clog3 has to offer...
Same thing with H264 and H265. The R5c can record H264, why can't the R5? It is not a hardware limitation.

At the end of the day, I am just stating things I think would be nice for my use case and my needs. Maybe the R5ii will have some of these pet peeves of mine resolved. Who knows. In the meantime, this is a Rumor site, and giving my opinion on what I am looking for in my perfect camera and why I am choosing the bodies that I use.

 

[Marlow]

Other than CineOS, does the R5 and R5c not have the exact same hardware limitations?
All I am stating is it would be nice to give the user the option to use it if they wanted too. Maybe I would rather have 16 stops of dynamic range and use noise reduction like Gerald did in his video to get better shadow results than what Clog3 has to offer...
Same thing with H264 and H265. The R5c can record H264, why can't the R5? It is not a hardware limitation.

Hardware wise, IBIS was removed, which allows for better cooling of the sensor and is likely part of why we get another stop of dynamic range out of that sensor additionally to, that Cinema RAW Light (in the R5 C) is quite a bit different than Canon RAW (in the R5).

You also have to consider, that the same optimisations give the R5 C 8k60 RAW recording and all resolutions up to 60 fps are now 8k oversampled, while in the R5 you only have 4k HQ 30 fps oversampled from 8k. So there are other changes that were made to push the sensor further.

Part of this is also, that the R5 C is powered at a higher voltage (9V 3A) to achieve 8k60. You can record 8k60 at regular voltage, but you loose all AF, lens control for focus-by-wire lenses and the multifunction hotshoe, unless you give it that extra juice. Again, not even possible in the R5. They simply optimised and refined quite a bit in hardware.

And yes, there are a bunch of video recording codecs in the R5 C, that the R5 doesn't have, including Super 35 AND Super 16 crop.

/M

 

[WhatDoesMStandsFor]

Other than CineOS, does the R5 and R5c not have the exact same hardware limitations?

You're joking, right? Apart from being the same sensor and processor, they are different cameras with different operating systems. The whole structure for video recording in the R5 C is in line with other Cinema EOS cameras, and it's not limited by the still-centric EOS regular OS. You can't even access the R5 C wifi capabilities in video mode without the WFT-R10 wireless file transmitter, per example. There's a lot of things that it takes so much processing power that they need an external accessory in order to work properly.

So no, it's not the same hardware limitations. It's not even the same software limitations either. They're two different cameras with completely different pros & cons when it comes to shoot video.

 

[TonyG]

You're joking, right? Apart from being the same sensor and processor, they are different cameras with different operating systems. The whole structure for video recording in the R5 C is in line with other Cinema EOS cameras, and it's not limited by the still-centric EOS regular OS. You can't even access the R5 C wifi capabilities in video mode without the WFT-R10 wireless file transmitter, per example. There's a lot of things that it takes so much processing power that they need an external accessory in order to work properly.

So no, it's not the same hardware limitations. It's not even the same software limitations either. They're two different cameras with completely different pros & cons when it comes to shoot video.

So what you’re saying is they have the same hardware (sensor and processor), but different firmware.
So by definition, the same hardware limitations…

Either way, the new firmware update they announced today for the R5c looks interesting. I am curious to see how much the af got improved. The new subject selection method looks interesting.

 

[Szst]

I feel like canon used some kind of secret sauce on the R5C sensor, every side by side comparison with the R5 makes it look on an entirely different level, it can't be just software.

 

[Ryrock77]

So what you’re saying is they have the same hardware (sensor and processor), but different firmware.
So by definition, the same hardware limitations…

Either way, the new firmware update they announced today for the R5c looks interesting. I am curious to see how much the af got improved. The new subject selection method looks interesting.

Not really the same hardware limitations. Canon is clearly getting higher performance out of the same sensor in the R5c.

 

[Ryrock77]

Yes, I know it is about the R5c, this was my original post.

I compared what I have experienced with my R5 compared to my A1.
If you re-watch Geralds video on the R5c, he got better cleaner results converting to Clog2 with noise reduction than Clog3. Hence why I stated Clog2 would be nice to have, even on the R5.



Other than CineOS, does the R5 and R5c not have the exact same hardware limitations?
All I am stating is it would be nice to give the user the option to use it if they wanted too. Maybe I would rather have 16 stops of dynamic range and use noise reduction like Gerald did in his video to get better shadow results than what Clog3 has to offer...
Same thing with H264 and H265. The R5c can record H264, why can't the R5? It is not a hardware limitation.

At the end of the day, I am just stating things I think would be nice for my use case and my needs. Maybe the R5ii will have some of these pet peeves of mine resolved. Who knows. In the meantime, this is a Rumor site, and giving my opinion on what I am looking for in my perfect camera and why I am choosing the bodies that I use.

I'm not following your argument here. It seems like you have a hard time acknowledging the difference between the R5c and R5. I can get the same photo quality out of the R5c that I can from the R5, they are equal. But I cannot match the same results with video between the R5 and R5c.

I'm not really sure how hybrid Canon users don't get what the R5c is about and at the same-time C70 users give the R5c a bad rap because it's technically a Canon cine camera in the cine lineup.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I can only comment on the R5 and not the R5c, but IF it has more dynamic range, then it's obviously not a hardware limitation but software.

The R5 C has active cooling which would cut down on thermal noise so it is not so obvious.
That being said, I have no way of knowing exactly how Canon got more dynamic range out of the R5 C.

 

[Ryrock77]

I feel like the R5C is a bait and switch for R5 owners who thought they were getting the ultimate hybrid video/photo camera when it came out in 2020. Canon has been screwing all their early adopters. EOS R owners have been left with a half finished wreck that can\'t focus for sh*t. And EOS R5 owners were told they were getting the ultimate hybrid video camera only to find out that Canon was going to release the R5C instead of fixing all the problems on the R5. Now the rumors are an R5 mk II is going to be out in 2025. Wow. As a result I\'m eyeing the Z9 which for some reason has all the features of the R5 plus it can shoot unlimited video. Why is that? They\'re both 8k cameras. The Z9 also has a faster 3 millisecond readout speed. Makes me think the R5 can do more than we\'re being told. How is it that the R5 overheats running its sensor in slow mode and the Z9 is running fast and never overheats?

Sounds like you are repeating negative spin you read online. Do you own the R5c?
The R5c is a cine camera, that should clear up any confusion about the differences between the R5 and R5c. Canon should be applauded for giving people a choice between the R5 and R5c. I haven't had the R5 overheat since the firmware that fixed that issue.

The Z9 looks like a great camera but it's lacking in video quality and features.
Ask yourself why you can't find any professional video content from the Z9?

 

[shadowsports]

I passed on 4 gens of the R series. R because of that touchbar and video crop, the RP because it was too small for my medium sized hands + its battery life, the R6 because 20MP. I was coming from a 6D2. Then the R5, and I thought ok, this one is it. Then Flameball. Which was mostly over hyped, but the fact of the matter is, I wasn't going to drop $4k on something I might not be able to turn on when it got too hot. I knew all of the hacks. My 6D2 never failed me, never failed to turn on in the desert or the summer in Montana. Are the cameras in a different class from one another, yes. I still couldn't accept a supercar I could only drive at full speed for half the race. I was very disappointed and took my 6D2 to Europe one last time. Of course Canon started working to address the issue. I don't think the design was Canon's best. The CPU had a thermal pad and no real heatsink. It got hot. Put a CF Express B card near by and it would generate some heat. Things had to be shut off to protect the camera. Canon did take a very conservative approach.

My view of the camera today is much different. The R5 is great. I love my R5 C though. I don't care it doesn't have ibis and that in cine mode it uses DP AF v1 instead of v2. It uses v2 in photo mode and I'm primarily a stills photographer who wanted to experiment in video. I got that and more in the R5 C. Its so compact compared to a C70, and its full frame. Would I like to have ND and better battery, sure, but there are options to address both. I also don't have jello when I shoot WA. Digital IS works great. Ibis is great, but was something I new I could live without. I don't care about PS either, but cool the R5 folks got it.

Now we are going to get enhanced AF/ Subject tracking, Lens breathing correction, power optimization, faster switching between modes, 2x mag and some additional hardware compatibility. I'm stoked. The Camera is fantastic. cLog3 is fine. 13 stops is nothing to shake a stick at. Gerald Undone showed that to everyone. The camera takes beautiful photos and does pro video. Its proven itself as a solid investment. Hasn't let me down and keeps getting better. It might not be for everyone, but works very well for me.

 

[Marlow]

Now we are going to get enhanced AF/ Subject tracking, Lens breathing correction, power optimization, faster switching between modes, 2x mag and some additional hardware compatibility. I'm stoked. The Camera is fantastic. cLog3 is fine. 13 stops is nothing to shake a stick at. Gerald Undone showed that to everyone. The camera takes beautiful phots and does pro video. Its proven itself as a solid investment. Hasn't let me down and keeps getting better. It might not be for everyone, but works very well for me.

It's actually 14 stops for the R5 C, 13 stops for the R5 according to Canon techs, but Canon does not give official figures.

Either way, you are correct, that no matter what measurement, Gerald Undone did show us, that the R5 C indeed has 1 stop more dynamic range than the R5.

I came from the 5D Mk III, tried the EOS R, got frustrated with for video and continued to use my 5D Mk III for stills and held out for the R5 C. I've had that for little over a year now and there are zero regrets. Canon really did get it right with the R5 C.

As for the internal NDs .. just use EF lenses and the filter adapter. Voila. I have yet to buy a single RF lens. No urge to do so either.

For the new AF functionality, I may have to swap to the control ring adapter though It's getting even better.

Here's another funny fact: Canon Cine lenses like the CN-E 18-80 T/4.4 work on the R5 C .. with everything ... but you don't have AF on the likes of the R6 Mk II, so I expect it also still not to work on the R5. There clearly is some secret sauce in the R5 C.

/M

 

[Marlow]

Ask yourself why you can't find any professional video content from the Z9?

Actually you can. VJUS (a production company in Norway, that also has the Andyax YouTube channel) produced a number of music videos with the Nikon Z9. That's just one example.

But that's neither here nor there, as it has nothing to do with this topic.

/M

 

[koenkooi]

I passed on 4 gens of the R series. R because of that touchbar and video crop, the RP because it was too small for my medium sized hands + its battery life, the R6 because 20MP. I was coming from a 6D2. Then the R5, and I thought ok, this one is it. Then Flameball. Which was mostly over hyped, but the fact of the matter is, I wasn't going to drop $4k on something I might not be able to turn on when it got too hot. [...] I'm primarily a stills photographer [...]

For stills the R5 won't overheat if your 6D2 won't, the overheating warnings and shutdowns are purely for video. Stills weren't and aren't affected. But if you want to do video in between stills, then yes, overheating is certainly a big issue.

 

[asingleredcactus@h]

Actually you can. VJUS (a production company in Norway, that also has the Andyax YouTube channel) produced a number of music videos with the Nikon Z9. That's just one example.

But that's neither here nor there, as it has nothing to do with this topic.

/M

It actually has a lot to do with this topic because it begs the question why Canon made an R5C with slow readout and a huge cooling fan when Nikon has made the Z9 readout in 3 milliseconds.