# Industry News: Sony Alpha a7s III images leak ahead of tomorrow’s announcement



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 27, 2020)

> Sony will be unveiling the long-awaited Alpha a7s III tomorrow. For now, it appears a lot of the specifications and now images have leaked ahead of tomorrow’s announcement.
> *Sony Alpha a7s III specifications:* (Via SAR)
> 
> New 12MP sensor with fast readout and S-Cinetone color science
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## marathonman (Jul 27, 2020)

What is wrong with all these camera companies that they can't give us the tools we need?? It's getting ridiculous. This needs to have 245MP sensor and 47.32k at 2400 FPS or it is DOA. It's 2020 Sony..... time to wake up to what the YouTubers need. Time to go back to the drawing board.


----------



## andrei1989 (Jul 27, 2020)

how is the world's highest resolution EVF relevant in a video oriented camera?
also, a bit more pixels and that EVF would have been the same resolution as the sensor...strange choices, sony.. ))


----------



## Mark3794 (Jul 27, 2020)

Usually sony fans complain about the soft 4k on Canon cameras, this camera will do a 1:1 readout of the sensor so i expect it to be pretty soft and not sharp like the A7iii oversampled 4k. We will see.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 27, 2020)

Wow, $4000 for a 12MP camera?


----------



## addola (Jul 27, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> Usually sony fans complain about the soft 4k on Canon cameras, this camera will do a 1:1 readout of the sensor so i expect it to be pretty soft and not sharp like the A7iii oversampled 4k. We will see.


Cinema cameras do 1:1 readout, right?


----------



## adigoks (Jul 27, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> Usually sony fans complain about the soft 4k on Canon cameras, this camera will do a 1:1 readout of the sensor so i expect it to be pretty soft and not sharp like the A7iii oversampled 4k. We will see.



we should wait dpreview to adding R5 ,R6 & A7SIII into video still comparison tool 





__





Image comparison: Digital Photography Review






www.dpreview.com


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 27, 2020)

The EVF MP count is crazy! This is what makes the camera a 4k$ model I think? 

Never thought that we will have this fast more then the high end 5,7MP currently!

Also the dual sd/cfe cardslot is awesome!! The R5 should have this too!

But I think this camera is a bit late.... no RAW internal... and really expensive for a 12MP small video camera with FE mount?
Maybe they could give it a new name like A7v (v for video)?!^^
Astrophotographer will not switch I think.


----------



## derpderp (Jul 27, 2020)

Boring. Next!


----------



## Besisika (Jul 27, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Wow, $4000 for a 12MP camera?


If you like videos, you are ready to pay for it.
There must be a reason for 12MP.
I am still confused though, what does this practically mean? " Records FHD 240fps, 4k120fps 10bit 4:2:2 and 4K120fps raw over HDMI " and only up to 4k60 will be 10bit 4:2:2 internal . Are there external recorders who can do those? For how much?


----------



## sdz (Jul 27, 2020)

Canon is *******.


----------



## csibra (Jul 27, 2020)

$4000, no 8k, no overheating? Who needs this?


----------



## Kit. (Jul 27, 2020)

addola said:


> Cinema cameras do 1:1 readout, right?


Some oversample from 6K (including Canon C700, C500 Mk II... and BMPCC - also with Canon EF mount).


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 27, 2020)

andrei1989 said:


> how is the world's highest resolution EVF relevant in a video oriented camera?
> also, a bit more pixels and that EVF would have been the same resolution as the sensor...strange choices, sony.. ))



Aren’t reported EVF dot counts ”marketing values” ie. total number of RGB subpixels rather than what we usually mean by pixels? (Hence ”dots” instead of ”pixels”.) So assuming there are three dots per pixel (could be four as well) the math would work out toabout half the linear resolution of the sensor.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

16-bit RAW must be very good for astro/night which kinda compensates low res 4000x3000px images. Overall low light performance should be pretty good.

But $4000? Will it actually shoot stills btw??


----------



## toodamnice (Jul 27, 2020)

What do you all think about the 15 stops of DR?


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 27, 2020)

This is so strange. Reading through those specs and seeing all the typical Sony Alpha Bois going nuts...I see a very mediocre camera by comparison. I also laugh at how wrong Alpha Rumors always is - they really do just make things up and credit fake sources. So this can't shoot 4K 120p internally... That means slow motion shots need to use a potentially bulkier cage/rig to support an external recorder or set off on a tripod versus the R5 which can easily be used for handheld clips (*if it's not too hot). A 600mbps bit rate....in what shooting mode? Is that the maximum?!

But, in all honesty, if the camera can shoot in all 4K modes all day, this is a winner. Canon swung for the fences and hit the foul poles. The R5 and R6 sacrificed reliability over winning the spec war and it may come back to haunt them. If these are the specs of the A7SIII, then I feel sorry for Sony shooters that were waiting for this camera for so long. It's internal recording capabilities don't feel that impressive, but if they work reliably, that might be all that matters to people who really use their gear professionally. It appears everyone just wants to stick with 4K. 8K is neat, but impractical for average use.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 27, 2020)

CF Express type A is a odd choice. It is by far better than SD cards, but it is kinda the black sheep of the CF Express world and I would assume SD Express, while not as durable, would still be used there.


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 27, 2020)

andrei1989 said:


> how is the world's highest resolution EVF relevant in a video oriented camera?
> also, a bit more pixels and that EVF would have been the same resolution as the sensor...strange choices, sony.. ))



Not quite, the EVF is 9.44 M-Dots but only 3.14MP. Still, really exciting to see such a high resolution EVF. Hopefully the viewfinder magnification has been scaled up to take advantage of all that resolution.


----------



## RMac (Jul 27, 2020)

addola said:


> Cinema cameras do 1:1 readout, right?


Depends. My C300 (and the C100) I think has a 4k sensor but records 1080 footage. I think generally if you're shooting raw video though, it'll be 1:1 since the whole thing with raw imagery is you're getting the image before it's debayered (at least as I understand it) which means raw footage can't really be oversampled...


----------



## RMac (Jul 27, 2020)

andrei1989 said:


> how is the world's highest resolution EVF relevant in a video oriented camera?
> also, a bit more pixels and that EVF would have been the same resolution as the sensor...strange choices, sony.. ))


I'm guessing that EVF will be pretty nice for checking focus provided your eyes are up to the task.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> What do you all think about the 15 stops of DR?


I think it is exactly the same as every other manufacturer claim of 15 stops for the last five or six years. If you measure it with an oscilloscope you get 15, if you measure it in usable real world output it isn’t because the bottom stops get lost in noise.


----------



## RMac (Jul 27, 2020)

The a7siii shaping out to be a very compelling video camera option.

*Videography wins for R5:*

Detail in 4kHQ due to oversampling from 8k
Internal raw
stabilization (I think - due to larger mount opening)
Autofocus (I'm guessing, we'll have to wait to see for sure)
Ergonomics (subjective)
*Videography wins for a7siii:*

Dynamic Range
Raw footage at a more usable resolution
Higher framerate HD (oversampled 240 FPS 1080 will probably look awesome)
raw video bitrate (16 bit!?!)
*no record limit* (why you do this to us Canon?!?)
no overheating (we'll see on this, but given you're dealing with 1/4 the pixels, I'd think it'd have a much easier time and this is going to be a dealbraker for the Canon for a lot of people doing interviews/docs/other longform stuff)
less rolling shutter (probably, we'll see)
Overall, if you're primarily a video shooter, I'd think that the a7siii would be the camera to get. It ticks many of the boxes that drove me to pick up a used C300 that the R5 doesn't address (Canon, will you ever release a <$10k camera that can shoot a whole interview without hitting an artificial record limit in modes where it doesn't overheat). Pair this thing with an external recorder that has XLR inputs and you're looking at a package that offers a lot of what you get with a C500ii for 1/3rd the price. Of course, having to use an external recorder for a lot of the nicer modes is going to be a major drawback for certain genres of videographer. And I don't see it being a particularly compelling option for stills photographers, although I'm sure it would make very nice 12MP images (and at a rate of 120 frames per second).


***An additional thought***
Just occurred to me that if you were to use an external recorder with the R5/R6, you would bypass the record limit. So that somewhat diminishes that advantage on the part of the Sony (although to be fair, any video mode the R5/R6 is able to record for longer than 30 minutes without encountering thermal issues can be recorded internally by the a7siii, so the a7siii still holds a considerable advantage in this regard).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I think it is exactly the same as every other manufacturer claim of 15 stops for the last five or six years. If you measure it with an oscilloscope you get 15, if you measure it in usable real world output it isn’t because the bottom stops get lost in noise.


I think it should really be very good in the DR area. 15 stops of DR fit nicely into 16 bit RAWs. It should be producing extremely clean images at base ISO, like GFX100 or Hasselblad. Time will tell.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

RMac said:


> And I don't see it being a particularly compelling option for stills photographers, although I'm sure it would make very nice 12MP images



Exactly. It's an E-mount video camera in disguise and it's positioned like that by Sony. For $4000, nobody in sound mind will buy it for stills photography unless for niche low-light genres such as astrophotography.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I think it should really be very good in the DR area. 15 stops of DR fit nicely into 16 bit RAWs. It should be producing extremely clean images at base ISO, like GFX100 or Hasselblad. Time will tell.


No it can never match a larger sensor by definition. It can be the same per area but it already is, it can’t be better than something bigger when made out of the same stuff!

I’m certain we will get no end of ridiculous clickbait claims of amazing this and that, when the actual measurements come out they will be in line with reasonable expectations and current technology, a slight increase across the iso range with the improvement being a little bigger at the low iso end and a little tighter at the high iso end.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Exactly. It's an E-mount video camera in disguise and it's positioned like that by Sony. For $4000, nobody in sound mind will buy it for stills photography unless for niche low-light genres such as astrophotography.


Why persist this fallacy? Big pixels do not perform noticeably better in low light than more small pixels when measured as a sensor/image area.

If your milieu is low light then get the newest sensor you can and don’t worry about the pixel density, surely the R5 and R6 high iso comparisons have put that to bed by now!


----------



## preppyak (Jul 27, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> If these are the specs of the A7SIII, then I feel sorry for Sony shooters that were waiting for this camera for so long. It's internal recording capabilities don't feel that impressive, but if they work reliably, that might be all that matters to people who really use their gear professionally.


Yep, 5 years on from the A7sII and the only upgrades in terms of spec is 4k60 10-bit internally. Every other spec upgrade needs a rig, which diminishes the value of having a small camera at a certain point. Good news is Sony sensor tech has improved a lot even from 2015, so I bet that sensor will be crazy good in low light.

Feels like they might have hit the right niche for a mix of Youtubers and indie filmmakers where the 4k60 10-bit is enough, as people will take that tradeoff for the low-light abilities. Same thing for wedding/event shooters who dont need more than 60fps but have to work in brutal light conditions.


----------



## Jim Corbett (Jul 27, 2020)

The same ugly, squarish design. All the dials cluttered on the right side, and nothing on the left. It induces discomfort just by looking at it. Hopefully, it's functionally ok; Sony people have been waiting for it for ages.


----------



## cornieleous (Jul 27, 2020)

FINALLY!!! They forgot to mention the weather sealing and the amazing high resolution stills it takes though. I bet you could print AT LEAST 8x12 with this MONSTER.

Now the vloggers and fanboys can go buy this (12MP ) BEAST and not worry about our Canon unusable doorstops!!!

I can hear the bragging about not overheating from here. Who cares if much less bit-rate is actually happening, Sony is the champion! Physics and actual real world user experience do not matter, it is the spec sheet wars and bragging rights that matter! (sarcasm).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No it can never match a larger sensor by definition. It can be the same per area but it already is, it can’t be better than something bigger when made out of the same stuff!



I mean it'll be as clean as MF 16-bit cameras at pixel level. Or even cleaner.



privatebydesign said:


> a slight increase across the iso range with the improvement being a little bigger at the low iso end and a little tighter at the high iso end.



I expect the DR and high-ISO advantage to be noticeable compared to other top FF performers, simply because it's 16 bit and has large pixels.

My interest is purely theoretical as I'm not even thinking of buying a 12-Mp camera for $4000, even if it has exceptional IQ. Moreover I wouldn't have been buying it even for $1000.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Why persist this fallacy? Big pixels do not perform noticeably better in low light than more small pixels when measured as a sensor/image area.



Big pixels + 16-bit sensor. It's very important it's 16-bit sensor. 14 bits wouldn't have given it a big advantage.



privatebydesign said:


> If your milieu is low light then get the newest sensor you can and don’t worry about the pixel density, surely the R5 and R6 high iso comparisons have put that to bed by now!



I've already preordered the R5, and the preliminary DR measurements on the R5 are very very promising btw. I expect it to be on par with A7RIV.
But this beast in question will likely beat them all.


----------



## mccasi (Jul 27, 2020)

Why call this a "hybrid camera"? its a pure video camera in a photo body stripped of photo capabilities. let me add still capture to a red camera and you have a better hybrid???
maybe it compares well with an iphone for photos, but i'm not so sure, before cropping you can print an A4 page at 400 dpi...

unambitious internals, so you need to rig this out to use this for the key specs... for $4k... and they complained about the R5... double standards these days


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 27, 2020)

So to be clear, we have a truly dedicated video MILC... that costs $4000 ... for which you have to spend another $1300 for another 3rd Party device to get the 4K120 speeds. 

Will there be lots of complaining about this like we all get with Canon?


----------



## cornieleous (Jul 27, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> But, in all honesty, if the camera can shoot in all 4K modes all day, this is a winner. Canon swung for the fences and hit the foul poles. The R5 and R6 sacrificed reliability over winning the spec war and it may come back to haunt them.



When. Will. People. Stop thinking the R5 and R6 are somehow broken or unreliable because they are not perfect for ridiculous video specs?

Canon didn't miss a thing, rather people are completely failing to grasp the that the R5 and R6 are the mirrorless evolution of the 5D4 and 6D2. They are STILLS cameras with amazing video capabilities that will work fine for many/most of us, whereas most of these other brands focus on video first and manage to create average or poor stills. Wow 12 MP I am sure that will print huge, especially if someone needs to crop part of the frame!!! As you said, the Sony is pretty unimpressive. Frankly if I had a project that required continuous full frame 4K60 or higher, I certainly wouldn't buy a Sony MILC, I would get some professional gear. I have borrowed Sony MILC to try before, and currently own one of their professional NXCAM 4K camcorders, and while their sensors are decent, their cameras are cumbersome to use.

Can we at least wait to see comparison in the REAL WORLD of 4K shooting on all these cameras at COMPARABLE bit rates before continuing to call the Canon releases failures? Everyone reading a spec. sheet and acting like they know so much.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

mccasi said:


> Why call this a "hybrid camera"? its a pure video camera in a photo body stripped of photo capabilities.



By the way. A still image taken from a video-centric Sony camera. Full resolution, no downscaling. Do you like the image quality? Guess what camera it is!


----------



## cornieleous (Jul 27, 2020)

mccasi said:


> Why call this a "hybrid camera"? its a pure video camera in a photo body stripped of photo capabilities. let me add still capture to a red camera and you have a better hybrid???
> maybe it compares well with an iphone for photos, but i'm not so sure, before cropping you can print an A4 page at 400 dpi...
> 
> unambitious internals, so you need to rig this out to use this for the key specs... for $4k... and they complained about the R5... double standards these days



Exactly. Not hard to have low rolling shutter or low heat when you use low resolution and low bit rates. I'm beyond tired of the apples to oranges comparisons and people calling the amazing cameras Canon just released failures because they don't meed the (still unsubstantiated) needs of some vlogger or wedding video use. Go buy the Sony then and be silent!


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 27, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Wow, $4000 for a 12MP camera?




That's just the beginning. The rest of the specs... Meh... Am I missing something?


----------



## Aregal (Jul 27, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Some oversample from 6K (including Canon C700, C500 Mk II... and BMPCC - also with Canon EF mount).


...and some upscale like the ARRI Alexa and Amira. Who would ever use a camera that upscales to 4K?! ARRI was built to fail.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 27, 2020)

marathonman said:


> What is wrong with all these camera companies that they can't give us the tools we need?? It's getting ridiculous. This needs to have 245MP sensor and 47.32k at 2400 FPS or it is DOA. It's 2020 Sony..... time to wake up to what the YouTubers need. Time to go back to the drawing board.



Maybe it won't have a completely ridiculous, unpredictable, laughable overheating problem?


----------



## richperson (Jul 27, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> Also the dual sd/cfe cardslot is awesome!! The R5 should have this too!



I would have liked dual CFExpress slots in the R5, but note that the Sony has CFExpress type A, which is much smaller and half the speed of type B, which is in the R5. It would not have been nearly fast enough for 8k.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

richperson said:


> I would have liked dual CFExpress slots in the R5



I wouldn't. The cost of 2 CFexpress cards would approach and may go beyond a $1000.


----------



## richperson (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I wouldn't. The cost of 2 CFexpress cards would approach and may go beyond a $1000.



Have you compared CFExpress to SD type II?

CFExpress 128GB 1700/1200 read/write $199
SDXC UHS-II 128GB 300/260 read/write $199

Both Sandisk Pro

Which one is more expensive or the better deal?


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Big pixels + 16-bit sensor. It's very important it's 16-bit sensor. 14 bits wouldn't have given it a big advantage.



The difference between 16 bit and 14 bit will be negligible as it will be even less than going from 12 to 14. I bet there's no difference in highlight headroom.


----------



## adigoks (Jul 27, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> Maybe it won't have a completely ridiculous, unpredictable, laughable overheating problem?


im pretty sure you are going to upgrade your iphone with A7SIII , right?


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 27, 2020)

adigoks said:


> im pretty sure you are going to upgrade your iphone with A7SIII , right?



Actually, I think I am going to stick with my iPhone 11 Pro. (psss...it don't overheat  )


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

richperson said:


> Have you compared CFExpress to SD type II?



Sorry. I was thinking in Australian dollars. 256Gb card is 500-600 AUD.


----------



## marathonman (Jul 27, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> Maybe it won't have a completely ridiculous, unpredictable, laughable overheating problem?



Who'd have thought that the YouTubers would be living in such a miserable time where there is such a shortage of affordable options for shooting cat videos. Hopefully Covid "magically disappears" so that the clickbait / faux outrage articles reduce to only 32.751 million per day and the "gurus" can get back to shooting cat videos in far off places instead of competing for YouTube clicks.... ;-)


----------



## DBounce (Jul 27, 2020)

First footage is out. This is from the guy that leaked the images of the A7S3:


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> The difference between 16 bit and 14 bit will be negligible as it will be even less than going from 12 to 14. I bet there's no difference in highlight headroom.


The difference is actually noticeable if you compare 16-bit medium-format raw files against 14-bit at pixel level, 4ex GFX100 vs GFX50.



Sporgon said:


> I bet there's no difference in highlight headroom.



Noise is measured in the shadows. When you're trying to untilise all the DR of your camera, you normally expose to the right.


----------



## NorskHest (Jul 27, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> The EVF MP count is crazy! This is what makes the camera a 4k$ model I think?
> 
> Never thought that we will have this fast more then the high end 5,7MP currently!
> 
> ...


This camera is not late, for the video crowd this could be the almost perfect tool. As long as they keep hevc codec out of this it will be fantastic. If this really does have no record limit, an even better sensor than the old one, that crazy duel card slot creation, 4K 120, their Cinetone color science I’ll start selling off my canon gear. Raw video really isn’t anything to be excited about, if you’ve never edited and stored raw video footage then you don’t get what I’m saying. A lot of people have complained about motion JPEG but don’t understand that codec allowed cameras to capture beautiful imagery and not over heat. All these new codecs are going to make all of our editing lives a living hell.


----------



## agarabaghi (Jul 27, 2020)

Hmm how exactly is it going record externally 4k120? Like to a usb c drive like z cams? 

If sony doesnt have 4k120 internet thats kinda missed option.


----------



## bsbeamer (Jul 27, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> CF Express type A is a odd choice. It is by far better than SD cards, but it is kinda the black sheep of the CF Express world and I would assume SD Express, while not as durable, would still be used there.



There was a rumor that Sony had been ramping up production CF Express Type A cards, so this might be at least part of the reason. Still think those cards are a poor fit, but they also went with Memory Stick for longer than most would have recommended.


----------



## richperson (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Sorry. I was thinking in Australian dollars. 256Gb card is 500-600 AUD.



I wasn't really talking about the dollar amount as much as that an SD card fast enough to run full 45MP bursts or record 4k will cost the same as a CFExpress card, but will be much slower. I think. CFExpress cards seem to be a bargain compared to SD UHS-II cards. Of course UHS-I cards are cheap, but their write speeds are very slow.


----------



## agarabaghi (Jul 27, 2020)

bsbeamer said:


> There was a rumor that Sony had been ramping up production CF Express Type A cards, so this might be at least part of the reason. Still think those cards are a poor fit, but they also went with Memory Stick for longer than most would have recommended.


Depends on the codec used. ALL-I will prob require CFExpress but IPB (from the R5 sheet) could record to v60 / v90 SD cards.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Big pixels + 16-bit sensor. It's very important it's 16-bit sensor. 14 bits wouldn't have given it a big advantage.


All sensors are 16 bit capable until you get to the ADC, they use 14bit files because all the relevant information available can be contained in a 14 bit file. The output that we have seen so far from 16bit files has not been reflected in the DR measurements but mainly from the area advantage 'medium format' digital sensors have. There is no measurable difference between the GFX100 14 bit and 16 bit RAW files until you do stupid things like under expose by six stops.


Quarkcharmed said:


> I've already preordered the R5, and the preliminary DR measurements on the R5 are very very promising btw. I expect it to be on par with A7RIV.
> But this beast in question will likely beat them all.


It should do, but only by an incremental amount. The GFX100 bests the 1DX III (same sensor as the R6 so current tech) by one stop of DR at full sensor readout, when it is normalized for per area performance that DR advantage drops to less than half a stop at low iso, at high iso the GFX100 cooks the RAW file.








__





Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting






www.photonstophotos.net


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

richperson said:


> I wasn't really talking about the dollar amount as much as that an SD card fast enough to run full 45MP bursts or record 4k will cost the same as a CFExpress card, but will be much slower. I think. CFExpress cards seem to be a bargain compared to SD UHS-II cards. Of course UHS-I cards are cheap, but their write speeds are very slow.



Yeah right, probably you're right.
For the R5 however I was thinking about a 128Gb UHS-II card + 256 Gb CFexpress. 64Gb is usually enough for all my photo needs on 5DIV for many days of photo trips, so 128Gb will be more than enough, and I'd write stills to both cards. Extra 128Gb on CFexpress will leave some room for videos.

So in my setup a CFexpress card will have 2 times capacity of an SD card and will cost 2x more.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The difference is actually noticeable if you compare 16-bit medium-format raw files against 14-bit at pixel level, 4ex GFX100 vs GFX50.



No it isn't, the differences between the GFX50 and GFX100 are down to the fact that they are different generation sensors.

Compare the 14 and 16 bit RAW files from the GFX100 and I haven't seen a difference until you go to stupid extremes of six stop underexposure.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yeah right, probably you're right.
> For the R5 however I was thinking about a 128Gb UHS-II card + 256 Gb CFexpress. 64Gb is usually enough for all my photo needs on 5DIV for many days of photo trips, so 128Gb will be more than enough, and I'd write stills to both cards. Extra 128Gb on CFexpress will leave some room for videos.
> 
> So in my setup a CFexpress card will have 2 times capacity of an SD card and will cost 2x more.



You might want to consider a bigger CF Express card for video. 256GB isn't a lot of minutes of footage. Also consider saving some money and just using CF Express(perhaps even a bigger card), it is not some fragile SD card.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> All sensors are 16 bit capable until you get to the ADC



Not exactly - in order to be 16-bit capable, each pixel should be able to accommodate at least 65535 electrons. I don't know the well capacity of GFX100 sensors tbh. I suppose they are 16-bit capable. The 12Mp sensor in question will have a much greater well capacity, I suppose.
Now one-electron noise level will be four times less significant on a 16-bit sensor than on a 14-bit sensor, roughly speaking.



privatebydesign said:


> it is normalized for per area performance that DR advantage drops to less than half a stop.



But it's still better


----------



## cornieleous (Jul 27, 2020)

marathonman said:


> Who'd have thought that the YouTubers would be living in such a miserable time where there is such a shortage of affordable options for shooting cat videos. Hopefully Covid "magically disappears" so that the clickbait / faux outrage articles reduce to only 32.751 million per day and the "gurus" can get back to shooting cat videos in far off places instead of competing for YouTube clicks.... ;-)



Right? I still watch cat videos in 1080P no matter what they were filmed in. How are these amazing vlogger parasite influencers shooting today when all these new tools coming out are fatally flawed garbage? Except Sony, we all know their amazing brick shaped cameras can never do wrong. 

It just makes me laugh how emotionally caught up people get when all of these cameras are pretty capable of making great content by anyone with even marginal skill. Some of these people see one spec. they think should be better and it's 'I'm changing brands and selling all my brand X gear!' In many cases these decisions appear to be made without even having tried the cameras.  

Meanwhile, most people making good content (that doesn't mean boring youtube talking head garbage to me) ignore spec sheet battles and invest in good SYSTEMS of equipment, learn it well, learn the limitations, and work within them. I could truly not care less what brand people use of anything, but I will always, always call out the fanboy lunacy because it detracts from constructive discussion and evolution of all tools from all brands.


----------



## agarabaghi (Jul 27, 2020)

Do we have any idea if the A7 will do 4k120 internal recording?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> You might want to consider a bigger CF Express card for video. 256GB isn't a lot of minutes of footage. Also consider saving some money and just using CF Express(perhaps even a bigger card), it is not some fragile SD card.



I shoot very little video. A few minutes of 8K will be more than enough. Most likely I'll be shooting 4K. If my style/preferences on video change, I'll get another bigger card. But the redundancy is very important to me, there should be 2 cards for redundancy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Not exactly - in order to be 16-bit capable, each pixel should be able to accommodate at least 65535 electrons. I don't know the well capacity of GFX100 sensors tbh. I suppose they are 16-bit capable. The 12Mp sensor in question will have a much greater well capacity, I suppose.
> Now one-electron noise level will be four times less significant on a 16-bit sensor than on a 14-bit sensor, roughly speaking.


You don't need to have 65535 discrete numbers to divide any result by 65535.



Quarkcharmed said:


> But it's still better


Less than half a stop. If that is that important to you then get excited, I don't think less than half a stop is that big a deal, the 1DX III is 0.8 stop better at base iso than the MkII, nobody is suggesting a ground breaking improvement in DR happened there, just a four year incremental product cycle.


----------



## JTP (Jul 27, 2020)

I am a Canon guy through and through, and I will have both the R5 and R6 for weddings. At least Sony kept the AF dial in the same place for changing focus points. The dial is so dang high on the R5 and R6. I have been trying to hold my thumb on my current R where the new dial will be and it really hurts my wrists with lenses like the 28-70 f2. I cannot imagine doing it for a full wedding. Also, for people who use the view finder with the left eye now have a thumb in their right eye. Not a very wise design concept for Canon...


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No it isn't, the differences between the GFX50 and GFX100 are down to the fact that they are different generation sensors.


They are, one is 14-bit one and another is 16-bit!



privatebydesign said:


> Compare the 14 and 16 but RAW files from the GFX100 and I haven't seen a difference until you go to stupid extremes of six stop underexposure.



Yes this is where it becomes noticeable. Extra bitness extracts dynamic range from the deep shadows.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> You don't need to have 65535 discrete numbers to divide any result by 65535.



You need the [0..65535] range to use all the values of a 16-bit pixel reading. Less than 65535 electrons will still be beneficial up to 32767 electrons, where there's no practical difference between 15 and 16 bits.



privatebydesign said:


> Less than half a stop. If that is that important to you then get excited



Tbh it's not very important to me, it's just a mental exercise while waiting for the R5 arrival. 
But GFX100 has very low noise level at high ISOs at pixel level, compared to others. And the R5 btw looks pretty good.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> They are, one is 14-bit one and another is 16-bit!


That doesn't magically make a difference, it doesn't reduce shot noise.


Quarkcharmed said:


> Yes this is where it becomes noticeable. Extra bitness extracts dynamic range from the deep shadows.



So can you show us an example of that from two correctly exposed real world images? I can't find one. I did find a comparison that shows a sub 1 stop difference when the images are underexposed by six stops, but that doesn't mean it would behave the same if the shots had been correctly exposed. But most agree there no real point to the 16 bit option.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Jul 27, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> This is so strange. Reading through those specs and seeing all the typical Sony Alpha Bois going nuts...I see a very mediocre camera by comparison. I also laugh at how wrong Alpha Rumors always is - they really do just make things up and credit fake sources. So this can't shoot 4K 120p internally... That means slow motion shots need to use a potentially bulkier cage/rig to support an external recorder or set off on a tripod versus the R5 which can easily be used for handheld clips (*if it's not too hot). A 600mbps bit rate....in what shooting mode? Is that the maximum?!
> 
> But, in all honesty, if the camera can shoot in all 4K modes all day, this is a winner. Canon swung for the fences and hit the foul poles. The R5 and R6 sacrificed reliability over winning the spec war and it may come back to haunt them. If these are the specs of the A7SIII, then I feel sorry for Sony shooters that were waiting for this camera for so long. It's internal recording capabilities don't feel that impressive, but if they work reliably, that might be all that matters to people who really use their gear professionally. It appears everyone just wants to stick with 4K. 8K is neat, but impractical for average use.



The R5 and R6 are more geared towards photography with video capabilities, so they really didn't sacrifice reliability in that sense. If Canon had added an external vent to allow for longer 4K 120 FPS and 8K recording, then they would have sacrificed the durability and usefulness of the camera for various harsh outdoor environments. The A7S III is geared towards videography with the ability to take photos, but only 12MP photos and no weather sealing listed. It's proof that even at the $4,000 price point that you really can't have it all (at least not yet).


----------



## Dragon (Jul 27, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> Usually sony fans complain about the soft 4k on Canon cameras, this camera will do a 1:1 readout of the sensor so i expect it to be pretty soft and not sharp like the A7iii oversampled 4k. We will see.


No way around that without grotesque aliasing. The Bayer grid is what it is.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Noise is measured in the shadows. When you're trying to untilise all the DR of your camera, you normally expose to the right.


Yes, but my point is that I doubt the 16 bit will allow you to exposure more to the right.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 27, 2020)

I am happy that Sony users get their long awaited camera, but my goodness that website is a hot mess. Never mind the comments section. The person who runs the site has trouble maintaining professionalism, taking jabs at Canon, using hyperbolic language that should stay in the comments section, and she/he pats herself on the back when she/he finally gets a rumor right... despite missing on so many rumors.

They say things like: 
"The smallest rolling shutter effect in the world!"
" World’s best EVF in any mirrorless FF camera with 9.44 milion dot resolution?"

greatest anything "in the world" is usually something you hear out of couple kids bragging to one another. Usually, the more professional terminology is to say is "class leading" or "best in class".

And the way they get their sources is via an anonymous contact form. Bwahaha! That might explain why so much garbage gets published. One source they published said: " Dials: Looking from the back panel of the camera, video dial for video mode selection left to EVF, photo dial for photo mode selection right to EVF. Exposure dial unchanged. " Clearly wrong.

It does make me appreciate how information here is dispensed. Keep up the good work Craig.


----------



## chrisgibbs (Jul 27, 2020)

andrei1989 said:


> how is the world's highest resolution EVF relevant in a video oriented camera?
> also, a bit more pixels and that EVF would have been the same resolution as the sensor...strange choices, sony.. ))



The EVF is simply a proof of concept, it'll be in future Alpha bodies.


RMac said:


> The a7siii shaping out to be a very compelling video camera option.
> 
> *Videography wins for R5:*
> 
> ...



Sony are crafty here, they're going to sell two cameras *again* both the A7RlV and A7Slll. This is exactly what they did at the original launch of the Alpha 7 cameras. We bought both. The A7S became our defacto *backup* for stills and the A7R backup for video.


----------



## Nelu (Jul 27, 2020)

chrisgibbs said:


> The EVF is simply a proof of concept, it'll be in future Alpha bodies.
> 
> 
> Sony are crafty here, they're going to sell two cameras *again* both the A7RlV and A7Slll. This is exactly what they did at the original launch of the Alpha 7 cameras. We bought both. The A7S became our defacto *backup* for stills and the A7R backup for video.


I don't remember getting one, I think I ran out of Kool Aid


----------



## mariosk1gr (Jul 27, 2020)

Guys the R5 is an amazing class leading stills camera that shoots also exceptional video with some drawbacks. Sony a7s III is something different. Its a milc body that does video mainly. Its like you comparing apples to oranges! As I have seen from all these tests so far, R5 is delivering at last 15 stops DR in stills world and it's not anymore behind competition regarding DR. That's a huge step for me! Also with exceptional Af performance, 12/20fps, HEIF 10-bit files, 8 Stop IBIS, and weather sealing to last, this is a Dream stills camera for the professional protographer, period! Sony is not even close to this! Now regarding video specs, R5 has the most innovative specs in Milc world as of now! That's another period! 8k Raw, 4K oversampling from 8k, 4k 120fps and all these internally is insane really but with a big drawback that we have to see how Canon will address it! And I say this cause Canon and the word "reliability" is the same thing for a very long time! What I have seen from video image quality so far from R5 is pretty impressive. DR is on another level, highlight rolloff is great for the first time and slomo 120fps is free from artifacts. Canon heard and did massive steps in the right direction... BUT they had to sacrifice some video features in favor of photographers that expect a body that will last no matter the case! Does that make me angry as a videographer also? OFC and today I canceled my R5 preorder also with a pain in my heart. I hope that there is going to be solution in the near future. As for A7S iii, if it doesn't overheat then in video area Sony will have a win-win. BUT for a hybrid shooter and the professional photographer there is no competition between the two!


----------



## Kit. (Jul 27, 2020)

Aregal said:


> ...and some upscale like the ARRI Alexa and Amira. Who would ever use a camera that upscales to 4K?! ARRI was built to fail.











Can I shoot on the ARRI XT/SXT/Mini or Amira?


Question:Can I shoot on the ARRI Alexa XT/SXT/Mini or Amira? Answer:The ARRI Alexa XT/SXT/Mini and Amira are fantastic cameras, and we stream plenty of content that was captured with these cameras....




partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com


----------



## scyrene (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I mean it'll be as clean as MF 16-bit cameras at pixel level. Or even cleaner.



At the risk of reopening an old debate, in photography we capture images. Unless you're cropping to a single pixel, I don't really see the relevance of measuring anything on that basis.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 27, 2020)

THe list of features in this article matches word for word pretty much as found at Sony Alpha Rumors.

....with the exception of this major one: 

"_*no overheating, no recording time limit*
 (They are claiming to not have overheating issues for at least 1hr even at the highest framerate.)"_


----------



## MiJax (Jul 27, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> THe list of features in this article matches word for word pretty much as found at Sony Alpha Rumors.
> 
> ....with the exception of this major one:
> 
> ...



I wouldn't be surprised to find a fan or extended heat-sinks on it. Its their video/low noise specific camera and weather resistance isn't high on the feature list for their intended audience.

The only feature I want is the 9MP EVF. The smaller the pixels in the VF the better, although that is going to chew through batteries.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 27, 2020)

MiJax said:


> I wouldn't be surprised to find a fan or extended heat-sinks on it. Its their video/low noise specific camera and weather resistance isn't high on the feature list for their intended audience.
> 
> The only feature I want is the 9MP EVF. The smaller the pixels in the VF the better, although that is going to chew through batteries.


Well you'll have to wait a few generations, it is 9.44 million dots not pixels, so 2048 × 1536 (QXGA), or 3.14 MP.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 27, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Sorry. I was thinking in Australian dollars. 256Gb card is 500-600 AUD.


MSY have a Sandisk 128GB UHS-II for AUD279 which is the cheapest I can find. The CFe cards are really expensive in comparison. If you find something cheap(ish) then let me know. I do know that CFe card readers are mostly out of stock especially the dual prograde CFe/UHS-II around the world.
On top of this, we still don't know what CFe cards are approved by Canon for the R5. The Sandisk USH-II is the fastest available and would be fine. The Sandisk CFe 128GB is not approved for the 1DXiii
https://msy.com.au/sandisk-extreme-pro-sdsdxpk-128g-gn4in-sdxc-sdxpk-128gb-u3-c10-uhs-ii-300mbs-r


----------



## richperson (Jul 27, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> The Sandisk CFe 128GB is not approved for the 1DXiii
> https://msy.com.au/sandisk-extreme-pro-sdsdxpk-128g-gn4in-sdxc-sdxpk-128gb-u3-c10-uhs-ii-300mbs-r



Well, my 1DXiii has been shooting on that card since I received it and I have had zero issues. So far. The CFe card that is. I couldn't tell in your post when you were referring to the CFExpress or the SD UHS-II.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 27, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Yes, but my point is that I doubt the 16 bit will allow you to exposure more to the right.



Dynamic range is difference between the brightest and darkest tones, it's not affected by how far you can expose to the right, as long as you don't overexpose.
Digital sensors generate noise most visible in the shadows and the noise hides the darkest shadows which reduces the dynamic range. So the DR battle is all in the shadows.


----------



## ericjon23 (Jul 27, 2020)

sony cameras are trash


----------



## snappy604 (Jul 27, 2020)

ericjon23 said:


> sony cameras are trash



While I'm not a Sony shooter, know quite a few that are very happy with theirs. 

This doesn't appeal to me, but wouldn't call it trash.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 27, 2020)

ericjon23 said:


> sony cameras are trash




Kinda harsh way to judge other people’s choices eh?


----------



## SteveC (Jul 28, 2020)

scyrene said:


> At the risk of reopening an old debate, in photography we capture images. Unless you're cropping to a single pixel, I don't really see the relevance of measuring anything on that basis.



Hey, but if there is only one pixel, rolling shutter _will not be an issue._


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

scyrene said:


> At the risk of reopening an old debate, in photography we capture images. Unless you're cropping to a single pixel, I don't really see the relevance of measuring anything on that basis.



In all popular measurements (photonstophotos, dxo) the pixel-level noise is actually the starting point. You're dealing with the pixel-level noise when you use the whole of your image before downscaling, not when you crop it to a single pixel.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> In all popular measurements (photonstophotos, dxo) the pixel-level noise is actually the starting point. You're dealing with the pixel-level noise when you use the whole of your image before downscaling, not when you crop it to a single pixel.


And what practical knowledge is the measurement from a single pixel?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> The Sandisk USH-II is the fastest available and would be fine. The Sandisk CFe 128GB is not approved for the 1DXiii
> https://msy.com.au/sandisk-extreme-pro-sdsdxpk-128g-gn4in-sdxc-sdxpk-128gb-u3-c10-uhs-ii-300mbs-r



It might happen to be not fine btw, of you intend to shoot video on it, as it doesn't have a V rating.
This guy in turn has a V90 rating








Sony 128GB 300MB/s SF-G Tough Series UHS-II SDXC Memory Card - SF-G128T : Toby Deals AU


Sony 128GB 300MB/s SF-G Tough Series UHS-II SDXC Memory Card - SF-G128T. Photography:Photography Accessories:Memory Cards




www.tobydealsau.com





Without a V rating, as far as I understand, it's not guaranteed to have consistent write speed.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> And what practical knowledge is the measurement from a single pixel?



It shows you the noise when the image is viewed 1:1.


----------



## Aaron D (Jul 28, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> What do you all think about the 15 stops of DR?


Sounds great! If I were making post cards. (12MP?!)


----------



## cornieleous (Jul 28, 2020)

snappy604 said:


> While I'm not a Sony shooter, know quite a few that are very happy with theirs.
> 
> This doesn't appeal to me, but wouldn't call it trash.




Yea the brand bashing no matter who it is pointed at frustrates and boggles the mind. Anyone objective can see all these brands are making amazing tools that enable us to do incredible things that would have been impossible or very, very expensive just a couple years ago. The competition and innovation is good. The compromises each product makes are good and necessary, and keep the technology evolving. Nearly every camera I have seen has lots of pros and cons. I have seen no perfect cameras and no absolutely bad cameras for years.

If anything is trash, it is people's attitudes about everything.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 28, 2020)

richperson said:


> Well, my 1DXiii has been shooting on that card since I received it and I have had zero issues. So far. The CFe card that is. I couldn't tell in your post when you were referring to the CFExpress or the SD UHS-II.


The CFe card. See the following link under "Possible Maximum Burst Rate...." is the table. The Sandisk 512B card is support but not 128GB even though it has 1200MB/s max write speed. I'm assuming that 5.5k60 raw in 1DXiii is similar bit rate as 8k30 raw in the R5
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...and-mirrorless-cameras/dslr/eos-1d-x-mark-iii


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It might happen to be not fine btw, of you intend to shoot video on it, as it doesn't have a V rating.
> This guy in turn has a V90 rating
> 
> 
> ...


Well that is surprising for Sandisk! Which UHS-II cards are then supported? The CFe speeds are not clear to me but I thought the UHS-II supported 4k/30 continuous video at least. UHS-I cards have been used for 4K recording in the past haven't they? If I do higher video then I will use the CFe card.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Jul 28, 2020)

If you go with the Sony tough cards look out for old new stock. 



https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/memory-cards-sd-cards/sf-g128t/articles/00246463



Had to send in a couple of mine for replacements, was painless process but got a $31 bill for call to arrange the shipping and return label. Sony Canada my ass with the Long Distance call to Florida...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It shows you the noise when the image is viewed 1:1.


And again, what value does that have from a photographers perspective?


----------



## SteveC (Jul 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> And again, what value does that have from a photographers perspective?



Why, so that you can see what individual pixels are doing.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Well that is surprising for Sandisk! Which UHS-II cards are then supported?



There was a compatibility sheet from Canon, but sadly I lost the link and cannot find it now. I think the link was somewhere on this forum. Basically V90 should do even for non-raw 8K. The Sandisk SD above has a decent speed but it looks like without the V rating it's not guaranteed to be consistent, so there may (or may not) be issues with video recording.
I ordered this beast from Amazon and will live with it for a while, new covid restrictions have been imposed here in Victoria after I preordered the R5 so I won't be able to do a lot of photography anyway. Later on I'll figure what CFexpress card to get. Probably a SanDisk as above, and it should be at least 256Gb.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> And again, what value does that have from a photographers perspective?



It sets limits on cropping, printing large and on postprocessing in general. The cleaner the image is, the more room you have for postprocessing. Full-sized image IS your photograph and starting point for any manipulations. Not a downscaled to instagram size thumbnail.


----------



## NorskHest (Jul 28, 2020)

German Sony A7sIII press text leaked: Price is 4200 Euro! - sonyalpharumors


Preorders: Sony A7sIII in USA at Adorama ($200 off with lens), BHphoto, Amazon. Sony A7sIII in EU at Fotokoch. Calumet DE. WexUK. Nokishita leaked the full German press text. Here is the google translated text: Almost five years after the Alpha 7S II, Sony launched the successor: The Alpha 7S...




www.sonyalpharumors.com


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It sets limits on cropping, printing large and on postprocessing in general. The cleaner the image is, the more room you have for postprocessing. Full-sized image IS your photograph and starting point for any manipulations. Not a downscaled to instagram size thumbnail.


No it doesn’t. Looking at an individual pixel doesn’t give you that information it is too focused, spend an hour cloning at 1:1 then zoom out to output size, it will look horrific.

But then in the second sentence you hit the nail on the head, _“the cleaner the image is”_ *not the pixel “*_the more room you have for post processing” _an individual pixel is irrelevant in assessing the cleanliness of the image.

I custom set a keyboard shortcut to zoom to the output size in PS, no resizing no downscaling just show me the image on screen the size I am outputting, doesn't matter if it is a 36” print or a 2” thumbnail, I want to see it on screen at life size. Only then will I know what I can do to the file, looking at a single pixel tells me absolutely nothing.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 28, 2020)

NorskHest said:


> German Sony A7sIII press text leaked: Price is 4200 Euro! - sonyalpharumors
> 
> 
> Preorders: Sony A7sIII in USA at Adorama ($200 off with lens), BHphoto, Amazon. Sony A7sIII in EU at Fotokoch. Calumet DE. WexUK. Nokishita leaked the full German press text. Here is the google translated text: Almost five years after the Alpha 7S II, Sony launched the successor: The Alpha 7S...
> ...


Sony alpha rumors might finally get something right....less than 24 hours from the actual announcement....


----------



## eguzowski (Jul 28, 2020)

Low Light crater size 12Mega Pixels and high MBPS and no overheating at 4k with possibly no 30 min limit...It's a winner for event photographers but cinema photographers will choose cinema cameras. It's a win for wedding/party/corporate videographers whom are their target market for DSLR shooters. I shoot Canon but I'll wait for them both tobit the market to see real world reviews before buying either company.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 28, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> Sounds great! If I were making post cards. (12MP?!)



A4 at 300 DPI is 8.3 MP, and that's only needed if you're looking at the image from reading distance, e.g. a photo printed in a magazine.

And we know most photographers have their photos printed at least A3 size in such magazines as national geographics.


----------



## Quackator (Jul 28, 2020)

So Canon delivers great stills cameras with inadequate, unusable video,
and Sony delivers a great video camera with inadequate photo capabilities
in a body far less than ideal for a video camera.

Moot race.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No it doesn’t. Looking at an individual pixel doesn’t give you that information it is too focused, spend an hour cloning at 1:1 then zoom out to output size, it will look horrific.



I always process my images at 1:1 view, obviously not all the time but I spend quite a bit of time in 1:1 view. If you're unable to clone properly it's fine, everyone has their own favorite processing techniques, just don't extrapolate your horrific results to everyone.

I know if I have a clean image at 1:1 it'll look good in any lower resolution. 



privatebydesign said:


> But then in the second sentence you hit the nail on the head, _“the cleaner the image is”_ *not the pixel “*_the more room you have for post processing” _an individual pixel is irrelevant in assessing the cleanliness of the image.



You keep mentioning 'individual pixel' - normally I don't care about individual pixels unless they're dust spots or hot pixels from long exposures. I was saying that pixel-level noise matters when you view your image at its original size, 1:1. When 1 image pixel is mapped to 1 screen pixel.



privatebydesign said:


> I custom set a keyboard shortcut to zoom to the output size in PS, no resizing no downscaling just show me the image on screen the size I am outputting, doesn't matter if it is a 36” print or a 2” thumbnail, I want to see it on screen at life size. Only then will I know what I can do to the file, looking at a single pixel tells me absolutely nothing.



That's good and useful thing to do, but as above, I never mentioned I was looking at single pixels. What would be the point anyway?.. Viewing at 1:1 isn't the same as looking at individual pixels.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I know if I have a clean image at 1:1 it'll look good in any lower resolution.


But if you have a noisy image at 1:1 from a high resolution sensor it may well be a perfectly clean image when you view the full image.

It appears to me that your argument is as follows: I am not willing to pay for a higher resolution sensor if it doesn't allow me to crop proportionally further while maintaining the same noise characteristics at pixel level. But that is asking too much from improvement of sensor technology. Because you'd have to improve resolution and on top of that improve noise performance by the same amount.


----------



## nekogami (Jul 28, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> THe list of features in this article matches word for word pretty much as found at Sony Alpha Rumors.
> 
> ....with the exception of this major one:
> 
> ...


except for this very important one ?


_600mbps bitrate_
Yep well according to the video published to early by B&H, they are half of that. in 4k 120p 4:2:2

EDIT: Nevermind, it looks like ONE codec can do 600mbps (as for the frame rate available, not shown), looks like they did their usual trick to avoid overheating through data transfert (lower the bitrate)


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It shows you the noise when the image is viewed 1:1.


What if you're using a 4K monitor ?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

yeahright said:


> But if you have a noisy image at 1:1 from a high resolution sensor it may well be a perfectly clean image when you view the full image.


By 'full image' you mean when it fits the screen or you can see the whole thing on a print?

The thing is, you may not know the target image size. Maybe it's Instagram size or maybe it's a large print. Depends on your workflow, photography genre and what you usually do with your images.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> What if you're using a 4K monitor ?



I am using a 4K monitor btw, and?..


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

yeahright said:


> It appears to me that your argument is as follows


My point is simply that the noise at the pixel level does matter.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I am using a 4K monitor btw, and?..


I meant to type 5K, but even so at 1:1 you must have the eyes of a hawk


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> I meant to type 5K, but even so at 1:1 you must have the eyes of a hawk


It's a big 32" monitor with relatively large pixels. If it had a higher pixel density, yes be I might need to view not 1:1 but 2:1 sometimes. In fact sometimes I do just that already.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 28, 2020)

It looks like the camera a lot of Canon users were looking for many years. Technically it would have been the R6 but that damn thing overheats even in 4K modes. Whast up with the record limit Canon. They need to stop some of the nonsense.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jul 28, 2020)

marathonman said:


> What is wrong with all these camera companies that they can't give us the tools we need?? It's getting ridiculous. This needs to have 245MP sensor and 47.32k at 2400 FPS or it is DOA. It's 2020 Sony..... time to wake up to what the YouTubers need. Time to go back to the drawing board.


Dont forget the huge Dyson cool fan to make sure it stays nice and chilly.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 28, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> A4 at 300 DPI is 8.3 MP, and that's only needed if you're looking at the image from reading distance, e.g. a photo printed in a magazine.
> 
> And we know most photographers have their photos printed at least A3 size in such magazines as national geographics.


For portraits, and so not "resolution limited" as the subject is close and filling the frame, A3 prints from my original 12.7 mp 5D were / are superb. Easily as good as from my 50 mp 5DS.


----------



## JoTomOz (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> My point is simply that the noise at the pixel level does matter.


Reading this discussion I’m not seeing the logic to your argument. Yes, at the highest ISOs the R5s extra megapixels would be wasted so to speak due to the pixel level noise (in terms of effective resolution or say max printable size) but whether you are printing big or posting to Instagram, if the pixel level noise is effectively the same between both cameras when downsized or viewed at viewing size, why would you care about pixel level noise of a raw file? People are not viewing your raw images surely

I shoot a lot of night photography (not Astro) so am genuinely interested


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

JoTomOz said:


> Reading this discussion I’m not seeing the logic to your argument. Yes, at the highest ISOs the R5s extra megapixels would be wasted so to speak due to the pixel level noise (in terms of effective resolution or say max printable size) but whether you are printing big or posting to Instagram, if the pixel level noise is effectively the same between both cameras when downsized or viewed at viewing size, why would you care about pixel level noise of a raw file? People are not viewing your raw images surely
> 
> I shoot a lot of night photography (not Astro) so am genuinely interested



It's not only about high-ISO noise, it's about the noise in general at any given ISO. If I buy a high-MP camera, I'm interested in the pixel-level noise to be as little as possible because it determines the usability of native size images. I don't need a 45Mp camera to always downscale the images to 20Mp. Why would I need 45Mp if I only post to Instagram?

Also the pixel-level noise is important when I crop the images. When I crop but keep the print size the same (or target digital image size the same), I effectively magnify the noise, so again I'm interested in it to be as little as possible.

And also the room for some postprocessing techniques depends on the noise - you can't do certain things with very noise images.


----------



## Aaron D (Jul 28, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> A4 at 300 DPI is 8.3 MP, and that's only needed if you're looking at the image from reading distance, e.g. a photo printed in a magazine.
> 
> And we know most photographers have their photos printed at least A3 size in such magazines as national geographics.


True enough. In my own work doing architectural photography though, I can see the limits of 30MP in a 5Div and R. I should always qualify my snarks.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> My point is simply that the noise at the pixel level does matter.


Well that is a complete turn around and not what you have been saying for days. My point was that noise at the pixel level is irrelevant when comparing different density sensors, yours was you need to inspect both at the pixel level.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's not only about high-ISO noise, it's about the noise in general at any given ISO. If I buy a high-MP camera, I'm interested in the pixel-level noise to be as little as possible because it determines the usability of native size images. I don't need a 45Mp camera to always downscale the images to 20Mp. Why would I need 45Mp if I only post to Instagram?
> 
> Also the pixel-level noise is important when I crop the images. When I crop but keep the print size the same (or target digital image size the same), I effectively magnify the noise, so again I'm interested in it to be as little as possible.



Honestly I'm not sure what we're even discussing here. You were talking about 'pixel level measurements', and I said we deal in images, not pixels. Nothing you've said changes that. I mean, you do you, but I do think you've demonstrated in the past a... shall we say, particular approach to noise and sensor measurement (in terms of choosing between cameras). I don't understand your position enough to know if I think you're incorrect, or if it's just differences of opinion. Of course most of us want the cleanest images we can get. But noise and DR can only meaningfully impact our work on an image level.

In answer to your question, why buy a 45MP camera only to downscale - well, not everyone wants to run multiple cameras at once. If I buy a high resolution body for extreme cropping of certain subjects, I wouldn't necessarily also have the budget (or space in my bag) for a lower resolution one for other purposes. And anyway, almost every use will involve downscaling images because nobody has anything approaching a 45MP viewing device, and very few people are regularly printing large enough and viewing from appropriate distances to fully utilise that resolution. Downscaling 45MP>20MP or whatever is going to create cleaner, sharper images than a native 20MP image, all other things being equal, because a) you can do NR on the full resolution image before downscaling, and b) the higher resolution sensor is capturing more detail. Though in practice how much difference this makes depends on a lot of factors beyond sensor resolution.


----------



## Aregal (Jul 28, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Can I shoot on the ARRI XT/SXT/Mini or Amira?
> 
> 
> Question:Can I shoot on the ARRI Alexa XT/SXT/Mini or Amira? Answer:The ARRI Alexa XT/SXT/Mini and Amira are fantastic cameras, and we stream plenty of content that was captured with these cameras....
> ...


Hahaha. I’ve work with the ARRI Alexa before for a Netflix movie. I was being sarcastic.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 28, 2020)

Reposting from SAR because of an inability to get more information about Canon? When, where, is the adapter release coming? Status of the Tilta device. We're waiting for that.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> My point was that noise at the pixel level is irrelevant when comparing different density sensors, yours was you need to inspect both at the pixel level.



Pixel-level noise matters when you consider one or another sensor for your purposes. 
It's also easy to compare sensors of similar megapixel count, e.g. R5, A7RIII, 5DsR, Z7.

When you compare sensors with different Mp count, such as R5 and R6, you take only one metric (e.g. dynamic range or noise) and deliberately downsample the R5's images thus losing 55% of information. 55%! As a result you're not comparing the sensors, you're comparing only the noise in normalised images. This comparison ignores the resolution and is only valid for cases where you downsample 45Mp to 20Mp. If you want to use all 45Mp from the R5, or downsample it to 30Mp, this comparison becomes totally useless.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 28, 2020)

Quackator said:


> with inadequate, unusable video



For who?

For the type of video the average stills photographer takes it's no problem at all.


----------



## ethanz (Jul 28, 2020)

Just got an email from BH about this camera. They say $3,500 USD.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Honestly I'm not sure what we're even discussing here. You were talking about 'pixel level measurements', and I said we deal in images, not pixels.


Analysing pixel-level noise means viewing images without downsampling, like this. It wasn't about analysing separate pixels! 
Why it matters for dealing with images - I tried to explain in the previous messages. I actually mostly agree with what you've described as your approach.


----------



## iamjhil (Jul 28, 2020)

Ughh I preordered the R5... Now i may cancel it. As much as i was looking forward to a new camera. the Overheating has me worried. unreliable wedding video camera


----------



## Mark3794 (Jul 28, 2020)




----------



## joestopper (Jul 28, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I find these two features remarkable:
- 15 stops DR
- 9.44 EV which is almost a 1 to 1 of the 12mp sensor
I would also assume that ISO performance (SNR) is exceptional. Sony is probably still ahead in sensor technology.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Pixel-level noise matters when you consider one or another sensor for your purposes.
> It's also easy to compare sensors of similar megapixel count, e.g. R5, A7RIII, 5DsR, Z7.
> 
> When you compare sensors with different Mp count, such as R5 and R6, you take only one metric (e.g. dynamic range or noise) and deliberately downsample the R5's images thus losing 55% of information. 55%! As a result you're not comparing the sensors, you're comparing only the noise in normalised images. This comparison ignores the resolution and is only valid for cases where you downsample 45Mp to 20Mp. If you want to use all 45Mp from the R5, or downsample it to 30Mp, this comparison becomes totally useless.


No! You normalize, it doesn’t matter if you normalize up or down, the noise in normalized images is a direct comparison. I don’t understand your disconnect here, you don’t throw anything away and you don’t make stuff up, that isn’t what normalizing is doing, it is putting things on an even footing.

But you don’t need to resample up or down, just look at stuff at the same size not the same ratio (percentage). Full screen, thumbnail, print size it doesn’t matter, if the lower pixel image goes above 100% to view the same output size as the larger it is irrelevant, it is still a normalized comparison.

Online tools have to resample the higher resolution to a lower one so the display works, to make it simple they resample everything, high and low resolution sensors, to a level no camera will realistically go below. The 20mp camera and the 45mp camera are both downsampled to a common 8mp, but in your own home you don’t need to do that, *just look at both on screen so any subject or detail in both files is displayed on your screen the same size*. That is normalizing, no resample, no throwing away anything no making stuff up.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 28, 2020)

joestopper said:


> I find these two features remarkable:
> - 15 stops DR
> - 9.44 *EVF* which is almost a 1 to 1 of the 12mp sensor
> I would also assume that ISO performance (SNR) is exceptional. Sony is probably still ahead in sensor technology.


thats 9.66M dots. or 3.22MP.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2020)

joestopper said:


> I find these two features remarkable:
> - 15 stops DR
> - 9.44 EV which is almost a 1 to 1 of the 12mp sensor
> I would also assume that ISO performance (SNR) is exceptional. Sony is probably still ahead in sensor technology.


Apart from the fact that sample video shows no real world DR advantage over video from the R5 and it is not a 9.44 mp viewfinder it is a 9.44 million dot viewfinder which means it is a 3.2mp viewfinder.

Oh and it appears to overheat!


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 28, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> View attachment 191616


How long did that take to happen? 
19 minutes?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No! You normalize, it doesn’t matter if you normalize up or down, the noise in normalized images is a direct comparison. I don’t understand your disconnect here, you don’t throw anything away and you don’t make stuff up, that isn’t what normalizing is doing, it is putting things on an even footing.



For such comparisons you don't normalise up if you want to get any reliable results. When you scale an image up, you add information that wasn't there through various types of interpolation. Now if you try to measure the noise, you'll measure not only the original noise but also your artificial interpolation data.



privatebydesign said:


> The 20mp camera and the 45mp camera are both downsampled to a common 8mp, but in your own home you don’t need to do that, *just look at both on screen so any subject or detail in both files is displayed on your screen the same size*. That is normalizing, no resample, no throwing away anything no making stuff up.



But what you described is pure resampling - only you don't convert the image files, but resampling happens before the images are displayed on the screen.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jul 28, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> A4 at 300 DPI is 8.3 MP, and that's only needed if you're looking at the image from reading distance, e.g. a photo printed in a magazine.
> 
> And we know most photographers have their photos printed at least A3 size in such magazines as national geographics.


I think its pretty clear from the R6 threads that most photographers have to crop a finch out of a 100m field of view and still have enough pixels to print it wall sized for their local museum/gallery. Minimum usable megapixels are about 10,000,000.  

All in jest folks...all in jest.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> For such comparisons you don't normalise up if you want to get any reliable results. When you scale an image up, you add information that wasn't there through various types of interpolation. Now if you try to measure the noise, you'll measure not only the original noise but also your artificial interpolation data.
> 
> 
> 
> But what you described is pure resampling - only you don't convert the image files, but resampling happens before the images are displayed on the screen.


You are still missing the point by staring at a tree when people want you to describe a forest. As photographers rather than scientists (I know there are some scientists here but give me some leeway here) we are interested in presenting pictures, be that a print on a wall, an instagram post whatever. All I am saying is the ultimate way of comparing two different pixel density sensors is to look at both at your intended output size. That is normalization and that is what will give you all the information you need two make a decision about IQ. 

Knowing the amount of photons an individual pixel can catch is an interesting academic exercise but it tells you less than zero about the IQ differences you are going to see between the R5 and R6 (for example) for any given output.

The point is if I want to make a 24"x36" print should I get an R5 or R6? Everybody is going to say an R5 because you need the extra pixels. Ok but what if I have to shoot at iso 3,200 at f11? Then there is no difference between the two and I can prove that by normalizing both images to that size on screen, that is the only view that has meaning in the context of my personal need as a photographer making pictures. If I only want to print an 8"x10", I just view both on screen at 8"x10", if I want to make an instagram post I view both at max 1080px wide.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 28, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> You are still missing the point by staring at a tree when people want you to describe a forest. As photographers rather than scientists (I know there are some scientists here but give me some leeway here) we are interested in presenting pictures, be that a print on a wall, an instagram post whatever. All I am saying is the ultimate way of comparing two different pixel density sensors is to look at both at your intended output size. That is normalization and that is what will give you all the information you need two make a decision about IQ.



It's one of the ways to compare sensors, that's right. But it has limitation as in my message above. You're losing information from the higher-res sensor in this comparison, effectively providing a handicap. My goal may be print larger than the lower-res sensor can handle. Or have a room for heavy cropping.



privatebydesign said:


> The point is if I want to make a 24"x36" print should I get an R5 or R6?



At what ppi? Make it 200ppi and the R6 won't handle it. 



privatebydesign said:


> Ok but what if I have to shoot at iso 3,200 at f11? Then there is no difference between the two and I can prove that by normalizing both images to that size on screen



Within certain limits you can print from both cameras the same quality prints, but you've chosen bad examples as the R6 just won't be able to handle such target print size at an acceptable resolution (e.g. 200ppi).



privatebydesign said:


> If I only want to print an 8"x10", I just view both on screen at 8"x10", if I want to make an instagram post I view both at max 1080px wide.



That's a valid comparison but you need to understand its limitations. It's like comparing Ferrari with max. speed of 340 kmph and Corolla with max. speed of 180 kmph. You put them both in the school zone and compare performance. Then you conclude there isn't much of a difference apart from different ergonomics...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2020)

I'm bored and don't have the time. I shoot 20mp and print to 24" x 36", I know how to compare it to a 50mp image. I know what to look at and I know the definition of comparison. I output photos not theories.

Have at it my friend you can have the last word even if it is garbage.


----------



## Quackator (Jul 29, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> For who?
> For the type of video the average stills photographer takes it's no problem at all.



Remember "Reverie" by Vincent Laforet? The video that kicked 
off DSLR driven videography with the 5D MkII 12 years ago?

You wouldn't be able to run this production today without multiple
overheating events.

You'd be hard pressed to even fit a regular fashion show into
the overheating time frame.

Looking at the productions I have used 5D and 1D class cameras
in, about 80% of them would have run into crippling overheating issues,
ultimately losing important shots.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 29, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Remember "Reverie" by Vincent Laforet? The video that kicked
> off DSLR driven videography with the 5D MkII 12 years ago?
> 
> You wouldn't be able to run this production today without multiple
> ...



Really? Whatever mode was used 12 years ago, would overheat on the R5 today?


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 29, 2020)

Quackator said:


> Remember "Reverie" by Vincent Laforet? The video that kicked
> off DSLR driven videography with the 5D MkII 12 years ago?
> 
> You wouldn't be able to run this production today without multiple
> ...



I've never heard of Reverie, but in 2008 I don't think you'd have had a problem because the highest resolution back in those days was what? 720P? 1080i? 1080P? Why wouldn't you be able to do it?

Like I said and stand by - for the average stills photographer the video capabilities of the R5 are fine. You're talking videography and making movies etc. The average stills photographer doesn't do that - at least none that I know. We take pictures - we don't make movies.

Don't know what to tell you. With the new Sony overheating videos posted today it looks like the new video king from Sony isn't immune either. Maybe if a professional production is what you're intending a professional video camera may be the only answer.

For me it a couldn't be more of a non-issue.


----------



## Quackator (Jul 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Really? Whatever mode was used 12 years ago, would overheat on the R5 today?


It's not the mode, it is the length of operating time.
Obviously the R5 can overheat even in Full HD modes,
and you don't want that to happen while you are hanging 
out of a helicopter or filming a car scene with the camera 
mounted on the hood.

Here's "Reverie":


----------



## Quackator (Jul 30, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Like I said and stand by - for the average stills photographer the video
> capabilities of the R5 are fine. You're talking videography and making
> movies etc. The average stills photographer doesn't do that - at least
> none that I know.



With the advent of the 5D MkII, people started to ask about video 
parallel to photo, and that increased every year. People want the 
shallow depth of field and cost-effective production that modern
cameras with both stills und video capabilities offer.

I operate two professional rental studios, and for quite some time
we haven't seen a single production that doesn't have at least one 
if not several social media teams along the photo team, and they 
often use the same cameras so they can share lenses and accessories.

On top of the two studios, I have a rental business with more than 
100,000 Ws studio flash and high end LED light from Dedo, Ledgo, 
Nanlite, Aputure, Aladin. It is very likely that I know more professionals
than you do, and i see them working. The majority of my customers 
uses one certain model camera for both stills and video, some have 
a dedicated video camera on top. Their main camera today is always 
one that can do both stills and video, and is used for both.

Now with brother Covid lurking around the corner, many people 
resort to streaming or videomaking to make up for the losses in
live events and still be seen and heard. They use the camera at hand.

A camera that produces hard stops in a production due to 
overheating is simply not state of the art anymore.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 30, 2020)

Quackator said:


> It's not the mode, it is the length of operating time.
> Obviously the R5 can overheat even in Full HD modes,
> and you don't want that to happen while you are hanging
> out of a helicopter or filming a car scene with the camera
> ...



Showing me the video again isn't an argument.

Have we established that the R5 would absolutely overheat shooting in the same mode, and under the same conditions, as the camera that took this video? ("the R5 can overheat even in Full HD modes" doesn't mean it would have shooting this video; Canon is going to cover its ass for people who take the thing to Death Valley in August and don't shade it then complain about how it overheated unexpectedly. They've warned about overheating in past cameras as well. that doesn't mean they'd overheat during a music video, and it doesn't mean this one will either.)

Was the camera that took this video a DSLR, or was it a full cinema camera? Comparing this camera to a full cinema camera is an injustice, even one from ten years ago, since those will have taken far more steps to keep their cool.

Convince me you're actually comparing apples to apples, and you might have a point.


----------



## Quackator (Aug 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Showing me the video again isn't an argument.



You said you were not aware of it, so this was your chance to get into the ballpark.



SteveC said:


> Have we established that the R5 would absolutely overheat shooting in the
> same mode, and under the same conditions, as the camera that took this video?
> ("the R5 can overheat even in Full HD modes" doesn't mean it would have
> shooting this video;



Reverie was shot at 1080p30, that was all the 5D MkII was capable of twelve 
years ago. I don't think it is unrealistic to expect a current camera to shoot
at least 1080p60 without overheating today. More likely 1080p120 or DCI4k60,
for some headroom in speed ramping and of course in 10 bit RAW.

But let's look at the most basic requirement: Do you think it would be unfair to 
ask that a current camera can do at least what the last generation from four 
years ago can do?

So, the 5D MkIV can shoot 1080p60 without overheating, the R5 can't.

Canon aimed for the stars but neglected to cover the basics.

It is only reasonable to expect the R5 to do what the previous generation
could do already four years ago.

This is not asking for insane frame rates or insane resolution.
The R5 already fails at the basics.



SteveC said:


> Was the camera that took this video a DSLR, or was it a full cinema camera?



Is this candid camera? Are you trying to pull off a prank? 

Please re-read what I wrote.

This video was completely shot with the 5D MkII, and it was the key
kick-off for the following hype and trend towards DSLR video



SteveC said:


> Comparing this camera to a full cinema camera is an injustice, (....)



I don't. Please try to at least understand arguments before fighting them.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 1, 2020)

Quackator said:


> You said you were not aware of it, so this was your chance to get into the ballpark.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK, here's your argument: This time I went back to look, which I apologize for not doing the last time (infrequent replies leading to my forgetting context).



> Remember "Reverie" by Vincent Laforet? The video that kicked
> off DSLR driven videography with the 5D MkII 12 years ago?
> 
> You wouldn't be able to run this production today without multiple
> overheating events.



You originally stated this video could not be done with the 5R. You've now conceded it was shot in a mode where, it so happens, the 5R can shoot all damn day without overheating--and can even shoot in after it HAS overheated in other modes, at least according to some tests by users. So YES the R5 could indeed do precisely this.

But now you've moved the goal posts to complaining the R5 won't do something a Mark IV could do four years ago. (This would be a valid complaint, it's too bad you didn't start with it.) And then move on to state the camera would have overheated specifically while shooting the video in _that _mode. Which, honestly, I don't know enough to agree/disagree with as I don't know how many takes were made, and how far apart they were. Even with multiple takes the camera can be shut off after each take and given a chance to cool off. How many takes were there? How much time between takes? Someone with full knowledge of the overheating behavior (which isn't me, and isn't you either) would still need need to know that to have any notion whether this camera could do it--again, in a mode which wasn't the one used twelve years ago. (If it was all done in ONE take, well, that's going to be well under 20 minutes and overheating won't be an issue.)


----------



## Quackator (Aug 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Even with multiple takes the camera can be shut off after each
> take and given a chance to cool off.



The point is that you never had to be anxious about not 
overheating in the middle of a shoot when using standard
modes with Canon cameras before.

And you certainly never had to wait for so long if indeed 
you did run into overheating problems.

I have shot theatre plays of two hours length with multiple
5D class cameras, with only a few frames lost every 29:59min.

Impossible with the R5.

So yes, no matter how much denial amasses on this forum,
the R5/R6 are a big step backwards in regard to their video 
usability - in real world environments, in professional use.

They are great stills cameras, nonetheless.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 2, 2020)

Quackator said:


> The point is that you never had to be anxious about not
> overheating in the middle of a shoot when using standard
> modes with Canon cameras before.
> 
> ...



There were many documented cases where productions using 5D Mark II bodies rotated three or more bodies in practice to avoid heating issues. To say that this is the first time anyone had to worry about a Canon camera overheating during video shooting is disingenuous.


----------

