# There is a Cinema EOS R camera in the pipeline, likely for early 2022 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 9, 2021)

> There have been a few rumors since the launch of the EOS R that a Cinema EOS model would be coming to the mirrorless lineup. I haven’t heard anything about such a camera for more than a year. That has changed this week, as it looks like we will see an “EOS R5c” in early 2022. I’m just calling it the R5C to keep things easy.
> I have been told that the camera will have a slightly different body design than the EOS R5, likely to combat heat and some ergonomic changes.
> The only other information the source knew is that it will definitely have internal ND’s, Canon Log 2 and 3. The source wasn’t sure which image sensor was going to be featured in the camera, so I don’t know whether it’s a 4K or 8K camera.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 9, 2021)

Canon is ...  ... active in development


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Mar 9, 2021)

Will be interesting to see just what different body design this comes with, and whether it gives any clues for further 'non-cinema' R cameras, as Canon balances heat control with weather sealing. 

(Of course, if it is a totally different design, then it probably won't give any clues).


----------



## BroderLund (Mar 9, 2021)

C90?


----------



## Bert63 (Mar 9, 2021)

Canon - a chicken in every pot.


----------



## VivaLasVegas (Mar 9, 2021)

Maybe Canon will have two types of video camera on the RF mount. One has a FF sensor on a ML body, the other has a S35 sensor on a Cinema body, modified not overheat of course with appropriate audio/video sockets and features. So the line up goes something like . . . R4(or R5c)=C90, R3=C70, R2=C50. Both types of bodies are spec’d for video use.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 9, 2021)

VivaLasVegas said:


> Maybe Canon will have two types of video camera on the RF mount. One has a FF sensor on a ML body, the other has a S35 sensor on a Cinema body, modified not overheat of course with appropriate audio/video sockets and features. So the line up goes something like . . . R4(or R5c)=C90, R3=C70, R2=C50. Both types of bodies are spec’d for video use.


This question is purely from ignorance on the subject.

Why would anyone spending this type of money, want a smaller S35 sensor over a true FF sensor (or larger)?


----------



## StylishD (Mar 9, 2021)

Kind of sounds like an FX3 style move


----------



## BakaBokeh (Mar 9, 2021)

If it's still an R, then maybe this isn't the C50 or C90, or not like FX3... in that it is a video oriented hybrid (not pure video). Sounds like a direct competitor to an A7SIII and to some extent, S1H. Or it's the spiritual successor to the 1DC?

If this has no time limit recording and effective thermal management, could be an exciting camera.


----------



## Joules (Mar 9, 2021)

cayenne said:


> This question is purely from ignorance on the subject.
> 
> Why would anyone spending this type of money, want a smaller S35 sensor over a true FF sensor (or larger)?


In the video world, the shallow depth of field of FF is sometimes seen as a major downside. And giving up one stop of light isn't all that meaningfull given the slower shutter speeds compared to stills work. Not to mention that even in FF world, people gladly sacrifice one stop of performance if they gain something else like a lower price or weight.


----------



## Atlasman (Mar 9, 2021)

I would buy Cinema R5 with active cooling and ND filters—chop off the viewfinder like the FX3, but provide an optional viewfinder like the Blackmagic Cinema Pro! In fact, I’d be all over it!


----------



## snappy604 (Mar 9, 2021)

agree, probably has better cooling overall.. but at cost of weather sealing etc.


----------



## Atlasman (Mar 9, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> agree, probably has better cooling overall.. but at cost of weather sealing


From my understanding the FX3 is weather sealed—maybe not to the same degree as a passive-cooled body.


----------



## Nigel95 (Mar 9, 2021)

cayenne said:


> This question is purely from ignorance on the subject.
> 
> Why would anyone spending this type of money, want a smaller S35 sensor over a true FF sensor (or larger)?


I am still satisfied with my current EF-S glass. The current APS-C offers don't cover my needs for video. I wish Canon would come up with a R7 APS-C or S35 high end body (compact design). I will use my current glass with an adapter, while having a nice high end body with specs like the R6/R5. Right now I need to switch to FF just for some high end specs, while I don't need a FF sensor personally. The price of something like a R6 body is not the issue, the issue is I have to replace 3 lenses also which gets very expensive in FF land for a serious hobbyist.


----------



## jam05 (Mar 9, 2021)

Likely to see a fan incorporated now that the teeny weeny mirrorless bodies have pretty much topped out in image processing without active cooling. Active cooling is the way to go with any "Cinema" camera. So let's get on with the active cooling and 5G wifi.


----------



## padam (Mar 9, 2021)

This could rival their cinema cameras without loosing the ability to take stills, better features than a 1DX Mark III, so I guess the 1DC-esque pricing is back, just not quite as outrageous, but way above Panasonic S1H.


----------



## jam05 (Mar 9, 2021)

StylishD said:


> Kind of sounds like an FX3 style move


----------



## Doug7131 (Mar 9, 2021)

cayenne said:


> This question is purely from ignorance on the subject.
> 
> Why would anyone spending this type of money, want a smaller S35 sensor over a true FF sensor (or larger)?


Super35 has been the standard in Hollywood over 40 years and is based on traditional 35mm film that's been standard for over 100 years. Full frame sensors are still a very new concept for cinema. The Arri Alexa (by far the most used camera for big productions) only got a full frame model in 2018.


----------



## peters (Mar 9, 2021)

Give me an R5 without overheat and more/bigger buttons and a usable HDMI port and I am more than happy


----------



## landon (Mar 9, 2021)

C60: Half the size of C70, one mini XLR, takes stills, FF: Canon's 6kPro.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2021)

Doug7131 said:


> Super35 has been the standard in Hollywood over 40 years and is based on traditional 35mm film that's been standard for over 100 years. Full frame sensors are still a very new concept for cinema. The Arri Alexa (by far the most used camera for big productions) only got a full frame model in 2018.


That might well be true, but it is also true that times and technology change, iMax has been a bigger ‘standard’ for decades too but the cost of 70mm film held it back. Now bigger than s35 sensors are cheap and readily available so the underlying benefits of larger sensors/capture area are more apparent to more people at a price they can afford.

The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.


----------



## VivaLasVegas (Mar 9, 2021)

cayenne said:


> S35This question is purely from ignorance on the subject.
> 
> Why would anyone spending this type of money, want a smaller S35 sensor over a true FF sensor (or larger)?


Majority of video makers like Arri, Red, BlackMagic, Panavision, Sony and Canon, has S35(1.3x-1.7x) sensors in their portfolio, MORE SO than FF sensors, that’s just hard cold FACTS(not ignorance). Just look at Canon Cinema line up; C200B(S35), C300II&III(S35), C90-70-50(S35), C500(FF) and C700(FF). Why...because human eyes are more in line to render bokeh closer to S35 than FF sensor.

The latest ARRI product on S35 sensor, not FF.
https://nofilmschool.com/everything-about-new-arri-alexa-super-35-4k-camera

PROOF S35 sensor(1.3x-1.7x) is the standard size in Cinema world, not FF.
https://cinequipt.com/resources/resources-sidebar/cq-sensor-size-comparison-chart-march-2018/

YOU MUST BE A QANON MEMBER, MORE ON CONSPIRACY, LESS ON FACTS!


----------



## telemaque (Mar 9, 2021)

VivaLasVegas said:


> Maybe Canon will have two types of video camera on the RF mount. One has a FF sensor on a ML body, the other has a S35 sensor on a Cinema body, modified not overheat of course with appropriate audio/video sockets and features. So the line up goes something like . . . R4(or R5c)=C90, R3=C70, R2=C50. Both types of bodies are spec’d for video use.


I see the possible future line the same way you do ! This would clarify also the C90 name... with a FF 8K sensor it would make sense. Above C70 in the marketing line. Even if many people might prefer an S35 sensor size for video. Let's see what Canon will issue at the end.

It is good news.

Thanks CR Guy.


----------



## Doug7131 (Mar 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That might well be true, but it is also true that times and technology change, iMax has been a bigger ‘standard’ for decades too but the cost of 70mm film held it back. Now bigger than s35 sensors are cheap and readily available so the underlying benefits of larger sensors/capture area are more apparent to more people at a price they can afford.
> 
> The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.


I don't see full frame having any real technological advantage over super 35. In all the tests I have seen the performance differences have been almost non existent. Certainly not enough to abandon Super35. Also, any technological advancements in sensor design can be applied to both full frame and super 35 sensors.

More importantly, cinematography is an art form and sensor size has large effect on the resultant image. Many cinematographers will prefer Super35 since they are familiar with how it looks and can access a huge range of Super35 cinema lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2021)

Doug7131 said:


> I don't see full frame having any real technological advantage over super 35. In all the tests I have seen the performance differences have been almost non existent. Certainly not enough to abandon Super35. Also, any technological advancements in sensor design can be applied to both full frame and super 35 sensors.
> 
> More importantly, cinematography is an art form and sensor size has large effect on the resultant image. Many cinematographers will prefer Super35 since they are familiar with how it looks and can access a huge range of Super35 cinema lenses.


The biggest differences are in background blur, which is very apparent when direct comparisons are made, and noise. A ff sensor will always give you one stop higher iso performance whatever your personal upper limit of noise is.

Artistically both can be used to great advantage, just look at the lengths people like Kubrick went to to get better low light performance or subject separation.


----------



## Atlasman (Mar 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The biggest differences are in background blur, which is very apparent when direct comparisons are made, and noise. A ff sensor will always give you one stop higher iso performance whatever your personal upper limit of noise is.
> 
> Artistically both can be used to great advantage, just look at the lengths people like Kubrick went to to get better low light performance or subject separation.


Sony seems to think that FF is the solution to all imaging pursuits—their APS-C products are an indication.


----------



## Dearl4 (Mar 10, 2021)

Sounds like a possible C90 to me.
Since the C70's been so popular and Sony released the FX3, it could be possible that Canon will use mirrorless style bodies for the C50 & C90.


----------



## Alam (Mar 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The biggest differences are in background blur, which is very apparent when direct comparisons are made, and noise. A ff sensor will always give you one stop higher iso performance whatever your personal upper limit of noise is.
> 
> Artistically both can be used to great advantage, just look at the lengths people like Kubrick went to to get better low light performance or subject separation.


Background blur is actually an issue, in video, audience only have split second to process what's going on, making your actor float on cloud of bokeh is not a good thing.

Aesthetically it looks good, but practically, nope, remember, you need to make the actor to interact with his/her surroundings

You can close the aperture to combat background blur, but you end up sacrificing light and use higher iso, why do that when you can use smaller format without light sacrifice in the first place.

This is One reason why S16 is still popular format.

Also, using bigger format on smaller sensor is the best combination, physics made corner of the lens not as sharp as center and suffer from vignette, less thing to fix during post processing


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2021)

Alam said:


> Background blur is actually an issue, in video, audience only have split second to process what's going on, making your actor float on cloud of bokeh is not a good thing.
> 
> Aesthetically it looks good, but practically, nope, remember, you need to make the actor to interact with his/her surroundings
> 
> ...


Tell Kubrick that! Good god talk about a generalization...

A smaller sensor is always a compromise. You never get worse than smaller with bigger and normally at least one stop better!


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.


Movie attendance has been dropping steadily for years.

A few decades ago big movies like James Bond and Star Wars came out, tickets were sold out and there would always be a profiteer around. Those profiteers were long gone ten years ago, and I've seen about as many movies in sold out screenings as I've seen seating alone in the movie theater, usually with a ticket to a different hour so the theater wouldn't have to pay the distributor for what was effectively a private screening.


----------



## landon (Mar 10, 2021)

Thanks for the update. It's good to have a clearer picture of what's coming. Initially, I was going for R5(B cam) and C70(A cam). But I'll wait for C90FF?(A cam) and C60/R5c? (B cam).


----------



## Bigglesworth (Mar 10, 2021)

cayenne said:


> This question is purely from ignorance on the subject.
> 
> Why would anyone spending this type of money, want a smaller S35 sensor over a true FF sensor (or larger)?


I mean, FF is not some objective measure of quality or value. For me as a cinematographer, S35 tends to be more flexible in that I have access to a greater number of lenses suited for cinema use (arri ultra and master primes, cooke s4's, angeneuix zooms, etc. etc.) I guess there's nothing inherent to FF that makes it "better" for video use than S35. It has a "look" that you can match by adjusting f stop and focal length, and right now, Canon's FF mirrorless sensors don't match the dynamic range of their dual gain sensor in the C70/C300 Mark III. So until they catch up in that regard, they'll always be C cams on my shoots.



privatebydesign said:


> That might well be true, but it is also true that times and technology change, iMax has been a bigger ‘standard’ for decades too but the cost of 70mm film held it back. Now bigger than s35 sensors are cheap and readily available so the underlying benefits of larger sensors/capture area are more apparent to more people at a price they can afford.
> 
> The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.



But what are the underlying benefits? How do they outweigh Super 35? Wider? Not inherently a benefit - get a wider lens to match FOV. Shallower? Not inherently a benefit, not something you can't compensate for with f stop adjustments (except for the extreme ends, which is a place I rarely venture).

Of the reasons I've heard that I've actually found convincing, none of them are entirely compelling either. Higher resolution with the same pixel pitch? Ok now we're getting somewhere! I don't need higher than 4K yet, so not quite relevant, but I am happy that those options are being developed and are already available. But again, doesn't feel like an inherent benefit. Just a tool that exists that can be useful. Finer noise patterns? Sure. Although Roger Deakins shot 1917 at 1600 ASA to get more noise in the image. So for some people that might not be an inherent benefit. What about getting the same FOV but with less distortion because you're using a longer focal length? Great! If that's what you want. I personally like the distortion I get from a 32mm on S35 though.



> A smaller sensor is always a compromise. You never get worse than smaller with bigger and normally at least one stop better!



It really isn't. Why balk at a generalization with another generalization?


----------



## Alam (Mar 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Tell Kubrick that! Good god talk about a generalization...
> 
> A smaller sensor is always a compromise. You never get worse than smaller with bigger and normally at least one stop better!


Errr, there's no right or wrong in art, its about picking the right tool for the job
Do you know why broadcast still use 1 inch sensor? Right they want to open wide to capture light without want to blurring the surrounding, and make people wonder wheter the reporter is on site or not.


Also, large format mainly used as greensceen shoot, as you blur the background any inconsistencies on the greenscreen dissapear, less thing to fix and faster post processing, you don't need the background anyway


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2021)

Alam said:


> Errr, there's no right or wrong in art, its about picking the right tool for the job
> Do you know why broadcast still use 1 inch sensor? Right they want to open wide to capture light without want to blurring the surrounding, and make people wonder wheter the reporter is on site or not.
> 
> 
> Also, large format mainly used as greensceen shoot, as you blur the background any inconsistencies on the greenscreen dissapear, less thing to fix and faster post processing, you don't need the background anyway


You clearly don’t have a clue on how equivalence works so congratulations, you win, I don’t have the time or inclination to be bothered with your ridiculous assertions.


----------



## jvillain (Mar 10, 2021)

As I do product work narrow depth of field is usually the enemy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2021)

jvillain said:


> As I do product work narrow depth of field is usually the enemy.


Get a grip and learn about equivalence, you can ALWAYS mimic a smaller sensor with a bigger one, you cannot always mimic a bigger sensor with a smaller one.

And when you do the former you will always be at least one stop of iso performance better.

If you want choice bigger is always better, if you want IQ bigger is always better.


----------



## Paul Nordin (Mar 10, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Why would anyone spending this type of money, want a smaller S35 sensor over a true FF sensor (or larger)?



If you watched the Super Bowl, where they experimented with using A7S III cams on gimbals to record endzone celebrations, you would have your answer. They captures and broadcast massively out of focus shots at very inopportune times. That is the #1 reason super-35 is still the standard for broadcast...plus a huge inventory of S35 lenses that would cost several fortunes to upgrade.


----------



## Paul Nordin (Mar 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That might well be true, but it is also true that times and technology change, iMax has been a bigger ‘standard’ for decades too but the cost of 70mm film held it back. Now bigger than s35 sensors are cheap and readily available so the underlying benefits of larger sensors/capture area are more apparent to more people at a price they can afford.
> 
> The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.


You are confusing sensor size with resolution. Every high-end cinema S35 camera captures at least 4k, and most capture 6k or better. There is a lot that goes into the exceptional quality of high-end cinema cameras besides sensors. Its a system. Top end S35 Cinema lenses are generally very large and heavy...a necessity to house enough glass to deliver near zero breathing, CA, distortion, even sharpness and exposure. I'm not against FF Cinema cameras, which are now out and becoming popular. But they are not inherently superior. Just different, with a different aesthetic. Another tool in the bag.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2021)

Paul Nordin said:


> You are confusing sensor size with resolution.


No I am not.


----------



## vladk (Mar 10, 2021)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Will be interesting to see just what different body design this comes with, and whether it gives any clues for further 'non-cinema' R cameras, as Canon balances heat control with weather sealing.
> 
> (Of course, if it is a totally different design, then it probably won't give any clues).


EL-1 has active cooler with weather sealing of 1D series level. So they already know how to achive the balance.
I would expect something similar to C70 feature wise, but with 8K 30/24, 4K up to 120, and may be, with global shutter (if the rumor is true and R1 will have one). My main wish is it does not employ quad Bayer design.


----------



## analoggrotto (Mar 11, 2021)

global shutter and similar processor as the mythical R1?


----------



## sanj (Mar 11, 2021)

VivaLasVegas said:


> Majority of video makers like Arri, Red, BlackMagic, Panavision, Sony and Canon, has S35(1.3x-1.7x) sensors in their portfolio, MORE SO than FF sensors, that’s just hard cold FACTS(not ignorance). Just look at Canon Cinema line up; C200B(S35), C300II&III(S35), C90-70-50(S35), C500(FF) and C700(FF). Why...because human eyes are more in line to render bokeh closer to S35 than FF sensor.
> 
> The latest ARRI product on S35 sensor, not FF.
> https://nofilmschool.com/everything-about-new-arri-alexa-super-35-4k-camera
> ...



You have not replied to the question why full sensor is not better. Just spewed specs what is being used. And then, insult the OP.


----------



## sanj (Mar 11, 2021)

Alam said:


> Background blur is actually an issue, in video, audience only have split second to process what's going on, making your actor float on cloud of bokeh is not a good thing.
> 
> Aesthetically it looks good, but practically, nope, remember, you need to make the actor to interact with his/her surroundings
> 
> ...


NOPE. WRONG. 1. Background blur can be and often used to isolate a subject for storytelling, and if need be the aperture can be adjusted to increase depth of field. S16 is STILL a popular format? Hahahaha. Which era do you live in? S16 died years ago and it was popular only with low budget work.


----------



## sanj (Mar 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The biggest differences are in background blur, which is very apparent when direct comparisons are made, and noise. A ff sensor will always give you one stop higher iso performance whatever your personal upper limit of noise is.
> 
> Artistically both can be used to great advantage, just look at the lengths people like Kubrick went to to get better low light performance or subject separation.


Dear Private. Actually, Kubrick went to great lengths to have great depth of field. You might want to watch the 'making of' of Citizen Cane.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2021)

sanj said:


> Dear Private. Actually, Kubrick went to great lengths to have great depth of field. You might want to watch the 'making of' of Citizen Cane.


Actually Sanj he went to great lengths to push boundaries in every direction, look up Barry Lyndon and the f0.7 Zeiss lenses made for NASA he had adapted. 









Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org













"Barry Lyndon": The Full Story of the Famous f/0.7 Lenses - Neil Oseman


After seeing Barry Lyndon (1975) on the big screen this week, I felt compelled to write a blog post about its cinematography. But what aspect of the cinematography? The painterly look? The many zooms? The use of natural light? What I knew for certain is that I should definitely not write about...




neiloseman.com


----------



## sanj (Mar 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Actually Sanj he went to great lengths to push boundaries in every direction, look up Barry Lyndon and the f0.7 Zeiss lenses made for NASA he had adapted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great Private. So he went to both extremes in different films. He would have just loved the separation we can get today will full frame. Also, like Citizen Kane he would be delighted with the extreme depth because of 800 native ISO in Alexa, Red.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2021)

sanj said:


> Great Private. So he went to both extremes in different films. He would have just loved the separation we can get today will full frame. Also, like Citizen Kane he would be delighted with the extreme depth because of 800 native ISO in Alexa, Red.


The man had a vision and went to extraordinary lengths to render that vision for us to see.

Don’t forget 2001: A Space Odyssey was filmed on 70mm film stock in 1968! So yes, he used ‘full frame’ and much bigger long before online forums were a thing.

Some of the comments by some newer members in this thread are just rediculous.


----------



## jvillain (Mar 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Get a grip and learn about equivalence, you can ALWAYS mimic a smaller sensor with a bigger one, you cannot always mimic a bigger sensor with a smaller one.
> 
> And when you do the former you will always be at least one stop of iso performance better.
> 
> If you want choice bigger is always better, if you want IQ bigger is always better.


That has got to be one of the studeist things I have ever read on here. You obviously didn't stop to think about what I wrote. If I am shooting produt work then I am lighting so I don't give a damn about "one more stop of iso performance. I always shoot at my base ISO because I control the light. But you think I should pay 3 times as much for a FF camrera and then shoot it in crop mode? And no a FF sensor doesn't always give you better IQ. 6D II? People get that foolish idea from the fact that camera manufacturers have usually put their best tech into their FF sensors because they charge more for them. There is more to a camera than just a sensor. There is more to a sensor than the size of it's pixels. But I guess if the only creative idea I could ever come up with was to shoot wide open then I would think like you.


----------



## Bigglesworth (Mar 11, 2021)

Yikes. You guys are so arrogant and rude to each other, LOL. Bummer.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> That might well be true, but it is also true that times and technology change, iMax has been a bigger ‘standard’ for decades too but the cost of 70mm film held it back. Now bigger than s35 sensors are cheap and readily available so the underlying benefits of larger sensors/capture area are more apparent to more people at a price they can afford.
> 
> The ‘standard’ size of a tv has grown from 22” to 50” in the last 25 years yet viewing distances have not grown, meanwhile movie attendance has been decimated in the last year. 4K will become the norm as 5G proliferates and these all push resolution and capture sensor size to new limits.


A super 35 camera can get the same field of view by using a wider lens or being further back.
Part of the allure of IMAX is having the background in focus.
The most important thing is the aspect ratio.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 11, 2021)

Bigglesworth said:


> Yikes. You guys are so arrogant and rude to each other, LOL. Bummer.


Let's not turn this into the DPReview forum


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2021)

Bigglesworth said:


> Yikes. You guys are so arrogant and rude to each other, LOL. Bummer.


No normally we are pretty decent and it is a fairly quiet place, a lot calmer and more respectful than most forums.


----------



## Finn (Mar 12, 2021)

Canon R5, Canon R1, Canon "R5c". Canon is doing their thing. I bought an R5 (moved from MFT to FF) and love it as a hybrid. Overheating is a nagging worry so far but hasn't impacted anything I've done with the camera. I would totally love a R5 with zero overheating and a RAW internal 6K 24/30p video image and FF 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 up to 120p. I've heard the C70 build quality has been less than typical Canon C series cameras which is unfortunate. Build quality is really important when you are dropping $5K+ on a camera these days.

Anyway, R5 has been a wonderful camera for stills and video. I've only really wanted more dynamic range in video so hopefully we get a Clog3 for the R5 that helps with that.

As for the discussion about S35 vs FF for cinema...I say use whatever the hell you want.


----------



## landon (Mar 12, 2021)

Hopefully with BP30 battery, and not lp6.


----------



## TravelerNick (Mar 12, 2021)

Kodak still sells 50 ISO daylight film. OTOH the R5 has base video ISO of what? 400? Trying opening up a fast lens at 1/50th of second in full sun.

Instead of looking at FF stills sensors it would make more sense to make a more video shaped sensor. At least make it a 2:1 aspect ratio o even better 2.40x1.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 12, 2021)

sanj said:


> Dear Private. Actually, Kubrick went to great lengths to have great depth of field. You might want to watch the 'making of' of Citizen Cane.


I'm pretty sure Kubrick didn't make Citizen Kane...?

Or am I misreading what you are trying to say?


----------



## cayenne (Mar 12, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Kodak still sells 50 ISO daylight film. OTOH the R5 has base video ISO of what? 400? Trying opening up a fast lens at 1/50th of second in full sun.
> 
> Instead of looking at FF stills sensors it would make more sense to make a more video shaped sensor. At least make it a 2:1 aspect ratio o even better 2.40x1.


Hell, I'd REALLY like a stills sensor in a more panoramic aspect ratio, if they made one like the Xpan film camera, I'd be all on board to buy that camera!!

LOL, if they even made a modern 35mm film camera like the Xpan new today, hopefully mostly mechanical, I'd be near the front of the line to buy that.

At this point, I just wish someone would start making reasonable anamorphic lenses for FF cameras....why do they all cost an arm and a leg?
I'd love this for video, but I'd also REALLY enjoy it for stills.

cayenne


----------



## sanj (Mar 12, 2021)

cayenne said:


> I'm pretty sure Kubrick didn't make Citizen Kane...?
> 
> Or am I misreading what you are trying to say?


Sorryyyyyyy. Orsen Wells. I confused. I know Orsen Wells went out of his way to have everything in focus in Citizen Kane. THANK YOU for pointing out my mistake.


----------



## TravelerNick (Mar 13, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Hell, I'd REALLY like a stills sensor in a more panoramic aspect ratio, if they made one like the Xpan film camera, I'd be all on board to buy that camera!!
> 
> LOL, if they even made a modern 35mm film camera like the Xpan new today, hopefully mostly mechanical, I'd be near the front of the line to buy that.
> 
> ...



I've got both a 6x12 and a 6x17 rollfilm back in storage so I'm an easy sell. Main reason for wanting higher resolution is to crop to whatever aspect ratio I want.


----------



## MrToes (Mar 15, 2021)

I wonder where the high MP R5 is ?


----------



## TravelerNick (Mar 15, 2021)

MrToes said:


> I wonder where the high MP R5 is ?



With the Z9 sort of announced that puts some pressure on Canon to move on the R1. 

I don't know what pressure they might feel about a high MP R5 so my guess is they're working more on the R1 .


----------



## Alam (Mar 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> NOPE. WRONG. 1. Background blur can be and often used to isolate a subject for storytelling, and if need be the aperture can be adjusted to increase depth of field. S16 is STILL a popular format? Hahahaha. Which era do you live in? S16 died years ago and it was popular only with low budget work.





sanj said:


> NOPE. WRONG. 1. Background blur can be and often used to isolate a subject for storytelling, and if need be the aperture can be adjusted to increase depth of field. S16 is STILL a popular format? Hahahaha. Which era do you live in? S16 died years ago and it was popular only with low budget work.


Err, which era? Pretty sure bmpcc is using 4/3 sensor and lot's of movies shot with it
The argument is simple, if you aren't going to use background blur, why use bigger sensor and and huge lens, just to stop down later and shot with high iso because you sacrficed light to gain dof?


----------



## vladk (Mar 15, 2021)

bmpcc 6k and URSA are S35, bmpcc 4k is 4/3. Micro is s16.

Here is comparison of all popular sensor formats: https://www.sharegrid.com/blog/posts/a-filmmakers-guide-to-sensor-sizes-and-lens-formats


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Mar 15, 2021)

vladk said:


> bmpcc 6k and URSA are S35, bmpcc 4k is 4/3. Micro is s16.
> 
> Here is comparison of all popular sensor formats: https://www.sharegrid.com/blog/posts/a-filmmakers-guide-to-sensor-sizes-and-lens-formats


The post you responded to was referring to the BMPCC which is super 16.


----------

