# Feature update announcements coming to the Canon EOS R and Canon Cinema EOS C200 ahead of NAB



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 29, 2019)

> *UPDATE: *We’re adding to the information about Canon’s NAB announcements coming next week.
> 
> The long-rumoured SUMIRE prime PL mount lens series will be announced. They’ll match the EF versions as far as focal lengths, but the optical formulas will be different.
> Two BCTV lenses are coming, both will be 4K. Specs aren’t known at this time, but one will likely be telephoto and the other with IS for ENG purposes (B4 mount).
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## NorskHest (Mar 29, 2019)

Please be 10 bit 4.2.2 and not 8 on the c200


----------



## buxtehude (Mar 29, 2019)

External RAW on EOS R?
Did canon management change?


----------



## kingrobertii (Mar 29, 2019)

Canon is really ramping their game up. I keep fighting the urge to buy an EOS R, but these video specs are making it tough...


----------



## JonSnow (Mar 29, 2019)

nice, aps-c cropped 4k in raw....  lol


----------



## padam (Mar 29, 2019)

Apart from the rolling shutter, the EOS R's image might top the C100 series and probably not that far off the C200.
This is not very Canon-like to be honest (so I am quite sceptical), but it would enable them to keep selling this camera for video purposes as well (and those pricey EF ND adapters could be in high demand), and of course Atomos probably made some kind of a deal with them, too because now their recorder is certainly more attractive.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 29, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> nice, aps-c cropped 4k in raw....  lol



You mean nearly identical to Super35?


----------



## IggyMo (Mar 29, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> nice, aps-c cropped 4k in raw....  lol



You mean like all RAW capable cameras on the market? Excluding the pocket cinema which is even smaller with its 4/3 sensor... this is amazing news!!! I might get the sigma 18-35 now along the atomos ninja 5. Wow!!


----------



## sdz (Mar 29, 2019)

IggyMo said:


> You mean like all RAW capable cameras on the market? Excluding the pocket cinema which is even smaller with its 4/3 sensor... this is amazing news!!! I might get the sigma 18-35 now along the atomos ninja 5. Wow!!



This is a reason that would get me to buy the EOS R. IBIS would be another, but that will arrive in the R Mark II!


----------



## Besisika (Mar 29, 2019)

buxtehude said:


> External RAW on EOS R?
> Did canon management change?


No, no change. Their wives told them finally what to do. 
The camera is weak. With this, who knows, maybe a Christmas gift? Let's see how the eye focus improvement looks like.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Mar 29, 2019)

padam said:


> Apart from the rolling shutter, the EOS R's image might top the C100 series and probably not that far off the C200.
> This is not very Canon-like to be honest (so I am quite sceptical), but it would enable them to keep selling this camera for video purposes as well (and those pricey EF ND adapters could be in high demand), and of course Atomos probably made some kind of a deal with them, too because now their recorder is certainly more attractive.




I imagine that Atomos made the same deal with Canon that they made with Nikon for the Z6 and Z7 that is supposed to record external pro res raw to the new Ninja recorder, not complete raw. Either way, I'll buy one same day if they do it. Now only if the darn thing would capture DCI 4k instead of UHD...


----------



## djack41 (Mar 29, 2019)

I'm not a video guy but would someone explain why external RAW is a big feature?


----------



## Jerryrigged (Mar 29, 2019)

Just received the Ninja and haven’t even unboxed it yet... then I see this! Just hope it’s true!


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Mar 29, 2019)

They gonna address spelling issue in Swedish language


----------



## transpo1 (Mar 29, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> You mean nearly identical to Super35?



Identical to Super 35 with horrendous rolling shutter  

Now if Canon announced a firmware update to make the EOS-R do FF 4K 60p, that would really be surprising. But they're not going to do that.


----------



## addola (Mar 29, 2019)

It's good to see Canon releasing firmware updates that add features. I personally don't think I'll need external RAW video, but given that Nikon will do it, it makes sense that they'd answer to that.


----------



## padam (Mar 29, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Identical to Super 35 with horrendous rolling shutter
> 
> Now if Canon announced a firmware update to make the EOS-R do FF 4K 60p, that would really be surprising. But they're not going to do that.


Have you seen some footage of what the 1DC is being capable of with that horrendous rolling shutter? (While the 4k sensor area is much bigger, it is still only 8-bit 4:2:2 MJPEG, a far cry from ProRes RAW, no AF, no peaking, etc...)

Main line is: it is still better than anything we've had before from Canon at this price range (if it turns out to be true)


----------



## padam (Mar 29, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I'm not a video guy but would someone explain why external RAW is a big feature?


You get much wider range of adjustments on the files, much closer to what you can achieve with any photo editing software in stills, so better color and better dynamic range (less compression, although in this case, the internal codec is already pretty strong in that regard)
If you look up 5D Mark III raw video, you can see how much better it can be, although that camera had soft video even after hacking (but you still see the color and the dynamic range being different), while in this case the 4k will be very sharp and free of artifacts. This is generally what you see in recent Netflix or other shows, where they also record in raw with professional video cameras and grade it later on.


----------



## buxtehude (Mar 29, 2019)

5D3 guy here with MLV RAW
and I was looking at BMPCC4k + EF Speedbooster (or wait for A7SIII)
If this external RAW is true, surely I'll be getting EOS R instead.


----------



## padam (Mar 29, 2019)

If some company came out with a fully functional EF-RF focal reducer, they could make an absolute fortune.


----------



## IggyMo (Mar 29, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I'm not a video guy but would someone explain why external RAW is a big feature?


Inernal or external, doesn't really matter. For internal though you would need extremely expensive memory cards as the file sizes and bit rates are huge. With external it's cheaper, because you can write it directly to a ssd, which come in way bigger capacity and much lower prices. 
On top of that, if you're shooting video in raw, you're going pro anyway and in that case you'll ALWAYS use an external monitor, like the mentioned ninja V, which is also an external recorder using ssd drives.
I guess you know what RAW is. It's the same as RAW in photography. It allows you to shoot "iso-less". You can change your exposure (ISO) and also the color temperature AFTER you shot your video, in the post. 
As I said, the difference between normal video and raw is the same as in photography. It's like shooting photos in jpeg (normal video or flat profiles, like log) and then you got RAW which gives you all of the flexibility to regain your shadows or your highlights without losing any detail. Same for the temperature. You basically use your camera's sensor capabilities to its fullest extent.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Mar 29, 2019)

RAW output is an interesting idea for the EOS R. If the R doesn't have to process, compress and write the video stream that could reduce strain on the cameras internals and may improve the readout/rolling shutter issues. I'd say it might enable higher frame rates but 60p RAW sounds like a lot of data to push through HDMI.


----------



## Mark3794 (Mar 29, 2019)

buxtehude said:


> External RAW on EOS R?
> Did canon management change?


So now we can finally go to sony forums and say: "the A7III is a crippled camera without external raw" ?


----------



## padam (Mar 29, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> RAW output is an interesting idea for the EOS R. If the R doesn't have to process, compress and write the video stream that could reduce strain on the cameras internals and may improve the readout/rolling shutter issues. I'd say it might enable higher frame rates but 60p RAW sounds like a lot of data to push through HDMI.


It makes absolutely no difference to rolling shutter or readout speed(there is no camera where external/internal makes any difference at all in that regard), it is just a different codec and of course 4k60p would be possible on a 1DXII if it had more modern processors and HDMI interface, but not on the EOS R with that sensor.


----------



## peters (Mar 29, 2019)

WOW
This is HUGE! Realy! 
The c200 main problem was the missing "in between" codec - it got only medium "meh" quality and "high and who the hell can heandle 8989gb/s?"-quality. This could be a BIG upgrade for the c200 (at least for me, as someone with a need for a good 4k camera for LONG recordings per day).


The second thing: RAW via HDMI out on the EOS R? My understanding of RAW tells me, that this is just completely bollocks, from a technical standpoint. RAW is taken BEFORE the bayer matrix is even analyzed... how can this be taken out via HDMI, which is a already converted video signal? I may be wrogn though. This simply sounds too good to be true.



However, so far about the "there is no major upgrade for canon this year". If this is true, this could be a HUGE gamechanger for my plans on upgrading (currently on a 1dx II, in search of a decent 4k camera with the ability to record in a reasonable file size for hours)


----------



## peters (Mar 29, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> nice, aps-c cropped 4k in raw....  lol


ALL high end video cinema cameras are 35mm (pretty much the same as aps-c). So I dont know why exactly this is taken as a disadvantage...


----------



## peters (Mar 29, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I'm not a video guy but would someone explain why external RAW is a big feature?


RAW is the light that is received by the sensor. The sensor than changes this information to a "RGB" value per pixel. The image processor uses a lot of information to do so and it includes stuff like white balance and it also throws away a lot of data. Than it its stored as a RGB image and than it its compressed.

If you have the "RAW image" than you cant "realy" change the white balance, the colors, or restore the data that was thrown out, in case you want to heavily grade the image. If you have the RAW, you have FULL control over how the image is processed. You should google it. RAW vs JPG is the REAL gamechanger. There is A LOT of talk about how 12 bit, 10 bit, 8 bit , 4:2:2, 4:2:0 etc. is changing the quality. But this is pretty much completeley unimportant, neglectable stuff that is happening AFTER the RAW-converter. A RAW-Image is the real deal that makes alle this other discussons ridiculous :-D


----------



## Go Wild (Mar 29, 2019)

If Canon do that with the EOS R would be awesome and I gain hope again in canon!!!  (For hybrid cameras) What we don´t know... If this is true... that external raw recording in 4k? Or only 1080p? I know it´s a kinda silly question because everybody believes that less than 4k would be ridiculous...I am asking this because we have this problem in Canon cameras, my 1dxmkII does not record 4k externaly, only records 1080p to an external recorder via hdmi. And also it would be a little awkward to believe that we can have a camera that records 4k raw at 30fps... and only makes 720p 120fps....Well, but this are good news and shows Canon commitment to recover a somehow lost path in this last 2 years...(I refer again, in this market, the hybrid cameras!)


----------



## IggyMo (Mar 29, 2019)

peters said:


> WOW
> This is HUGE! Realy!
> The c200 main problem was the missing "in between" codec - it got only medium "meh" quality and "high and who the hell can heandle 8989gb/s?"-quality. This could be a BIG upgrade for the c200 (at least for me, as someone with a need for a good 4k camera for LONG recordings per day).
> 
> ...



RAW via hdmi is possible because nowadays hdmi cables aren't only for pure video signals, they're ethernet cables at the same time, so you can send any type of information over them. 

By the way, Nikon's Z6 is ALREADY using this same technique for external RAW recording in conjunction with the Atomos external monitor. And it works just fine.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 29, 2019)

YES!! External RAW to the NINJA is one of the exact things I was counting on as Nikon had already announced this for the Z and the NINJA. That really makes the EOS R an ever more attractive video piece for those who want to marry a smaller body to the Cinema line counterparts. If they also unlock the 4K60 (at least in HDMI output external recording) this will become a monster for video. I'm far less faithful that will happen, but I can wish for now.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 29, 2019)

Go Wild said:


> If Canon do that with the EOS R would be awesome and I gain hope again in canon!!!  (For hybrid cameras) What we don´t know... If this is true... that external raw recording in 4k? Or only 1080p? I know it´s a kinda silly question because everybody believes that less than 4k would be ridiculous...I am asking this because we have this problem in Canon cameras, my 1dxmkII does not record 4k externaly, only records 1080p to an external recorder via hdmi. And also it would be a little awkward to believe that we can have a camera that records 4k raw at 30fps... and only makes 720p 120fps....Well, but this are good news and shows Canon commitment to recover a somehow lost path in this last 2 years...(I refer again, in this market, the hybrid cameras!)



RAW would be external only to a compatible recorder, which as of now is the Atomos Ninja V, which Nikon announced the same feature with their Z line months ago at release. I'm glad Canon responded accordingly.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 29, 2019)

padam said:


> You get much wider range of adjustments on the files, much closer to what you can achieve with any photo editing software in stills, so better color and better dynamic range (less compression, although in this case, the internal codec is already pretty strong in that regard)
> If you look up 5D Mark III raw video, you can see how much better it can be, although that camera had soft video even after hacking (but you still see the color and the dynamic range being different), while in this case the 4k will be very sharp and free of artifacts. This is generally what you see in recent Netflix or other shows, where they also record in raw with professional video cameras and grade it later on.



More latitude in color grading and typically greater retention in DR. Same as shooting JPG vs RAW in stills. Granted this isn't the full blown "Big" RAW you'd get in a C500 or such, but it is a step up from the Motion JPG codec.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 30, 2019)

Mark3794 said:


> So now we can finally go to sony forums and say: "the A7III is a crippled camera without external raw" ?


What you do at the Sony forums is your business.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Mar 30, 2019)

Canon deleted the tweet that said raw recording and replaced it with one that just says external recording. Perhaps they tipped their hand early?


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 30, 2019)

buxtehude said:


> 5D3 guy here with MLV RAW
> and I was looking at BMPCC4k + EF Speedbooster (or wait for A7SIII)
> If this external RAW is true, surely I'll be getting EOS R instead.


 You just made an excellent observation. There’s a lot of video folks who have played with ML on the 5D3 including myself in order to grab RAW capture in 1080. Having it available in an EOS R may finally get a lot of those folks to jump over. Canon isnt a big fan of ML obviously. And this puts them on even footing with the Z6 Raw to Ninja.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 30, 2019)

CanonGrunt said:


> Canon deleted the tweet that said raw recording and replaced it with one that just says external recording. Perhaps they tipped their hand early?



"External" Makes no sense. EOS R already records everything externally. What else could be added except for ProRes RAW lol. If they didn't wanna tip their hat, they should not have even done such a poll.


----------



## archiea (Mar 30, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> nice, aps-c cropped 4k in raw....  lol


Well the cinema line does similar with super 35


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 30, 2019)

archiea said:


> Well the cinema line does similar with super 35



Yeah I get people are annoyed by the crop and won't do a full read out like the Sonys... But The EOR 4K looks better than the Sony a73. Tradeoffs. They only way this will improve is if Canon makes a 12MP sensor for a dedicated video machine like the a7S. I suspect the a7S3 will resolve on par with EOS R but will of course get you a full frame crop. 

Given that Canon is adding a major upper level video component to the EOS R (ProResRAW) it seems UNlikely we will see a dedicated R line video machine anytime soon. But I'm not complaining about the EOS R. I'm real close to getting one now especially because my DX2 (while making beautiful cinematic video) is a beast to hand hold or even gimbal for video shooting...


----------



## joejohnbear (Mar 30, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> "External" Makes no sense. EOS R already records everything externally. What else could be added except for ProRes RAW lol. If they didn't wanna tip their hat, they should not have even done such a poll.



Canon C200 already records Canon Raw Lite internally as a feature since day one, so the poll would unfortunately make sense with the correction.


----------



## joejohnbear (Mar 30, 2019)

CanonGrunt said:


> I imagine that Atomos made the same deal with Canon that they made with Nikon for the Z6 and Z7 that is supposed to record external pro res raw to the new Ninja recorder, not complete raw. Either way, I'll buy one same day if they do it. Now only if the darn thing would capture DCI 4k instead of UHD...


Irritated that the 4:2:0 8 bit .mp4 on Canon C200 is UHD not DCI 4K. 

If they really do release 4:2:2 10 bit, I do hope they add support for external 4:2:2 10 bit Pro Res HQ or Raw through HDMI to Ninja V, because the SDI limit to 1920*1080 and HDMI out to UHD is pretty annoying. It would be pretty nice not having to convert the footage for FCP X.


----------



## joejohnbear (Mar 30, 2019)

IggyMo said:


> ALWAYS use an external monitor, like the mentioned ninja V, which is also an external recorder using ssd drives.
> I guess you know what RAW is. It's the same as RAW in photography. It allows you to shoot "iso-less". You can change your exposure (ISO) and also the color temperature AFTER you shot your video, in the post.


Pretty sure that raw video (.crm / .ari, let alone Prores Raw ) is not ISO invariant.


----------



## transpo1 (Mar 30, 2019)

padam said:


> Have you seen some footage of what the 1DC is being capable of with that horrendous rolling shutter? (While the 4k sensor area is much bigger, it is still only 8-bit 4:2:2 MJPEG, a far cry from ProRes RAW, no AF, no peaking, etc...)
> 
> Main line is: it is still better than anything we've had before from Canon at this price range (if it turns out to be true)



That’s nice, but I’m not talking about the 1DC, which is APS-H and a 1.3 crop factor— I’m talking about the EOS-R, which has a crop of about 1.8 in 4K. Usually, the more severe the crop, the more it accentuates the rolling shutter so my guess is you’ll find a slight difference in this regard between the two cameras. 

Maybe Canon will be able to include an update to 1.4x crop in the firmware, which will make it equal to true Super 35mm. That would be nice of them. 

In any case, if true, kudos to Canon for enabling RAW, but their time would be better spent enabling less crop on the camera and higher frame rates.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 30, 2019)

joejohnbear said:


> Pretty sure that raw video (.crm / .ari, let alone Prores Raw ) is not ISO invariant.



You can NOT alter the sensitivity of the sensor in RAW file. Stills or Video. ISO is a PHYSICAL sensitivity setting you instruct the sensor to set itself to at the time of exposure. You can't change it after that shutter fires.


----------



## joejohnbear (Mar 30, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> You can NOT alter the sensitivity of the sensor in RAW file. Stills or Video. ISO is a PHYSICAL sensitivity setting you instruct the sensor to set itself to at the time of exposure. You can't change it after that shutter fires.


PureClassA, maybe read the original post I was addressing. Thanks.


----------



## max_sr (Mar 30, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> "External" Makes no sense. EOS R already records everything externally. What else could be added except for ProRes RAW lol. If they didn't wanna tip their hat, they should not have even done such a poll.



They didn't mention any of that was a new feature. So yes you can already record externally on the R and you can already shoot Raw Lite on the C200. They are just asking what they should inform their marketing people about. So there is still a chance, that this was just a misunderstanding by one of the people operating the twitter account and no form of raw recording is coming to the EOS R.


----------



## padam (Mar 30, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> That’s nice, but I’m not talking about the 1DC, which is APS-H and a 1.3 crop factor— I’m talking about the EOS-R, which has a crop of about 1.8 in 4K. Usually, the more severe the crop, the more it accentuates the rolling shutter so my guess is you’ll find a slight difference in this regard between the two cameras.
> 
> Maybe Canon will be able to include an update to 1.4x crop in the firmware, which will make it equal to true Super 35mm. That would be nice of them.
> 
> In any case, if true, kudos to Canon for enabling RAW, but their time would be better spent enabling less crop on the camera and higher frame rates.


Now you are just talking nonsense in terms of relation to the crop factor (it would actually _increase further_ by decreasing the crop factor on the same sensor, not the opposite), it just simply depends on how good/bad the sensor is (for instance the 1DC vs 1DXII similar crop but twice as good rolling shutter) and the performance of the EOS R sensor cropped 4k recording is roughly similar to the 1DC. Not great, but can you use it to produce great-looking video _within its limitations_? YES. Have we had anything like this from Canon in this price range? Absolutely NOT.

So this is all this sensor is capable of in terms of crop and frame rates, it will be used as B-cam in many setups, and the rest can just moan all day in front of the keyboard (yes it is free, although the value of time is underestimated for many people, and of they have time to continue the drivel as well)


----------



## IggyMo (Mar 30, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> You can NOT alter the sensitivity of the sensor in RAW file. Stills or Video. ISO is a PHYSICAL sensitivity setting you instruct the sensor to set itself to at the time of exposure. You can't change it after that shutter fires.


This is where you are wrong. You have probably heard of base ISO on a camera. Thats is the actual physical sensitivity of the sensor or say the optimal and ONLY working ISO. Say your camera's native ISO is 400. Whenever you press your shutter button the sensor captures the same information at its native ISO 400, disregarding your ISO setting on the camera. The change to your choosen ISO on your camera is applied by the processor, which will then digitally lower exposure values for ever pixel if you shoot at the setting ISO 100 (400->100 = 2 stops of lower exposure) or it will digitally increase the exposure value if you choose to shoot at say ISO 1600.
You can basically disregard your iso setting on your camera these days. Of course I oversimplified things here. Because the internal processor uses optimized algorithms developped by the manufacturer of that sensor, which of course will always give you better results in the noise handling areas when shooting at higher exposure settings compared to when you yourself adjust the exposure levels in post, say in lightroom. Programmes like these, wether for pics or video can do a really good job, but they are not optimized for any particular camera model or their sensors. But if you're not pixelpeeping you won't see any difference.
Then of course there is the matter of the newer cameras having dual ISO. Which basically means that you have 2 native (or base) ISO levels with your sensor. Often it is around 400ISO and the second is often around 1200, but those vary wildly from model to model. This of course gives you way more flexibilty. You got 2 real exposure settings and therefore digital exposure intervention is reduced greatly.
All that being said, I put iso-less in " ", because very few cameras are actually and really iso-less. Most of them come somewhat close others less, but still... you are not ever changing your physical ISO of the camera unless it is a dual iso capable camera, it's always digital adjustments inside or outside of the camera. This is why you see so many people with technical backgrounds arguing that the ISO setting on your camera is a misleading name nowadays and should rather be called "gain", as in digital signal gain. Of course, we're talking about RAW for pictures and video. If you shoot pics in jpeg or video in normal stand profile picture or a log profile all of this iso-less talk doesn't matter as the selected digital exposure and color temperature is backed in to the file.


----------



## transpo1 (Mar 30, 2019)

padam said:


> Now you are just talking nonsense in terms of relation to the crop factor (it would actually _increase further_ by decreasing the crop factor on the same sensor, not the opposite), it just simply depends on how good/bad the sensor is (for instance the 1DC vs 1DXII similar crop but twice as good rolling shutter) and the performance of the EOS R sensor cropped 4k recording is roughly similar to the 1DC. Not great, but can you use it to produce great-looking video _within its limitations_? YES. Have we had anything like this from Canon in this price range? Absolutely NOT.
> 
> So this is all this sensor is capable of in terms of crop and frame rates, it will be used as B-cam in many setups, and the rest can just moan all day in front of the keyboard (yes it is free, although the value of time is underestimated for many people, and of they have time to continue the drivel as well)



Drivel indeed. 

Time = money and the amount of time one will have to spend to rig an external recorder and process raw data for a rather paltry 1.8x crop doesn’t seem enough to justify that time. 

I prefer not to work within these limitations and I suspect many video folks will feel the same.


----------



## degos (Mar 30, 2019)

IggyMo said:


> Of course I oversimplified things here.



Yes, you did. And in the end contradicted yourself and your original claim. You can't simply 'ignore' ISO on modern cameras.

All digital cameras will have better noise handling up to their invariant level than trying to do the same push in post-processing. That's all there is to it.

How about this: imagine saying that Camera-X has its lowest shutter-vibration at 1/100th, therefore you should set it there at its 'base speed' and 'ignore' shutter otherwise. "Just push the exposures in post! Don't worry about motion blur, that's only a concern to pixel-peepers!" People would look at you like a fool. Likewise, ISO or gain or whatever is trading SNR for the opportunity to get a shot that wouldn't be technically possible otherwise.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 30, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Time = money and the amount of time one will have to spend to rig an external recorder and process raw data for a rather paltry 1.8x crop doesn’t seem enough to justify that time.
> 
> I prefer not to work within these limitations and I suspect many video folks will feel the same.



I'll admit I was disappointed when the R was released with a heavy crop for 4k video. But in the time that it has been out a lot of professional cinematographers have given it praise. The 4k footage is solid and grades very well. The A7 III may be FF 4k but its bitrate is...dare I say it..._crippled_ by comparison to the R. And now the R is adding external RAW? Cinematographers are going to love it. And yes, they will rig an external recorder (which they normally do any way) and deal with a 1.8x crop (which is a small crop from S35) to get RAW footage.

Honestly, having watched a number of reviews and sample short films, I think the X-T3 is the real competition. Very sharp 4k straight ooc. 400 Mbps. And if you don't want to grade footage, the Eterna profile. I've seen good R footage and poor R footage (with that crop lens sharpness is very important to getting the most out of it). I've seen good A73 footage and poor A73 footage (it can literally fall apart with a heavy grade). But the X-T3? I haven't seen anything but excellent 4k footage off that camera. And 4k60p slowed down to 24p has a really nice effect.

It's funny because when the R dropped I thought "no FF 4k? Looks like I'll buy an A73 soon." But I've waited and I'm glad I waited because at this point the A73 is dead last on my wish list. If I get a cinema camera it's going to be the X-T3 or the R.


----------



## padam (Mar 30, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Drivel indeed.
> 
> Time = money and the amount of time one will have to spend to rig an external recorder and process raw data for a rather paltry 1.8x crop doesn’t seem enough to justify that time.
> 
> I prefer not to work within these limitations and I suspect many video folks will feel the same.


Well at least I didn't write any fake assumptions... and of course the internal recording is pretty solid, nothing wrong with that, it is not like anybody is forced to buy a big recorder (if one is planning to use a monitor anyway, might as well).

If this is actually true (might still just be a simple typo) it will take a few months for the firmware update to come out anyway (it may even cost a bit of money, based on their 5D IV Canon Log)

Main line is that some people will just moan behind the keyboard, because it is much, much easier than working. Meanwhile the EOS R cropped footage looks pleasing to me, in the past one couldn't get anywhere close to this quality from Canon at this price range, and now, it has become possible. Or get a C100 for its ergonomics, a Sony, Nikon or a Panasonic to shoot FF 4k with internal stabilisation or a Blackmagic to shoot internal raw, a plethora of options are all out there, and yet some people are still sitting at the complaining level, or just trying to justify their choices against others who are just hating on anything that is not what they have chosen.


----------



## IggyMo (Mar 30, 2019)

degos said:


> Yes, you did. And in the end contradicted yourself and your original claim. You can't simply 'ignore' ISO on modern cameras.
> 
> All digital cameras will have better noise handling up to their invariant level than trying to do the same push in post-processing. That's all there is to it.
> 
> How about this: imagine saying that Camera-X has its lowest shutter-vibration at 1/100th, therefore you should set it there at its 'base speed' and 'ignore' shutter otherwise. "Just push the exposures in post! Don't worry about motion blur, that's only a concern to pixel-peepers!" People would look at you like a fool. Likewise, ISO or gain or whatever is trading SNR for the opportunity to get a shot that wouldn't be technically possible otherwise.



Wow, now you're pushing it. Comparing ISO to shutter speed. The shutter is an actual physical factor in the exposure, ISO is not. Of course I wouldn't EVER suggest to ignore the shutter speed as I wouldn't EVER suggest to ignore the aperture. Both are real physical factors. ISO on MOST modern cameras with raw ability is invariant or very close to it. Canon's processors are the most heavy handed in processing RAW photos in giving an "optimized" look for the user defined ISO setting, so Canon's RAW files are the furthest away from isoless, but most other brands are pretty close to isoless with their raws.
There is literally thousands of videos on this subject, if you need proof and on all levels of expertise. From simple Joes running the test to actual huge producing companies. Here, an exemple which is quick to the point and as a bonus shows an exemple of a non-iso-invariant camera :


----------



## Alex Dak (Mar 30, 2019)

Canon seems to be more aggressive with its update program and that's great news !! Before I hesitate now I’m sure, next week i will buy the Eos R !


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Mar 30, 2019)

padam said:


> It makes absolutely no difference to rolling shutter or readout speed(there is no camera where external/internal makes any difference at all in that regard), it is just a different codec and of course 4k60p would be possible on a 1DXII if it had more modern processors and HDMI interface, but not on the EOS R with that sensor.


The EOS R appears to be processor limited so we don't know if the camera is reading the sensor at it's highest possible speed or if the processor just can't compress and write the stream at the sensor's maximum rate. If the camera has to reduce read speed to accommodate processing the stream than rolling shutter will increase.

Compressing and writing the video stream requires significant internal camera resources. The Codec is a critical part of that equation. Delivering a RAW stream over HDMI could require fewer internal resources. Properly coded internal firmware could take advantage of those additional resources to improve the rate which the camera can read out the sensor if the sensor can handle a higher speed. Only Canon knows the answer to that.

Most camera's that stream 4K60p RAW levels of data use SLI rather than HDMI. That may be a preference for the more secure connections of SLI or issues with pushing that much data through HDMI. I'd have to look into that a bit more to have an opinion one way or the other.

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the sensor in the 5D4/R has inherently slower read times than the sensor in the 1DX2. The 1DX2 has significantly more processing capability and a faster I/O which result in less rolling shutter and higher frame rates. Both cameras are reading 4K at 1:1 so sensor megapixel shouldn't be relevant.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 30, 2019)

IggyMo said:


> This is where you are wrong. You have probably heard of base ISO on a camera. Thats is the actual physical sensitivity of the sensor or say the optimal and ONLY working ISO. Say your camera's native ISO is 400. Whenever you press your shutter button the sensor captures the same information at its native ISO 400, disregarding your ISO setting on the camera. The change to your choosen ISO on your camera is applied by the processor, which will then digitally lower exposure values for ever pixel if you shoot at the setting ISO 100 (400->100 = 2 stops of lower exposure) or it will digitally increase the exposure value if you choose to shoot at say ISO 1600.
> You can basically disregard your iso setting on your camera these days. Of course I oversimplified things here. Because the internal processor uses optimized algorithms developped by the manufacturer of that sensor, which of course will always give you better results in the noise handling areas when shooting at higher exposure settings compared to when you yourself adjust the exposure levels in post, say in lightroom. Programmes like these, wether for pics or video can do a really good job, but they are not optimized for any particular camera model or their sensors. But if you're not pixelpeeping you won't see any difference.
> Then of course there is the matter of the newer cameras having dual ISO. Which basically means that you have 2 native (or base) ISO levels with your sensor. Often it is around 400ISO and the second is often around 1200, but those vary wildly from model to model. This of course gives you way more flexibilty. You got 2 real exposure settings and therefore digital exposure intervention is reduced greatly.
> All that being said, I put iso-less in " ", because very few cameras are actually and really iso-less. Most of them come somewhat close others less, but still... you are not ever changing your physical ISO of the camera unless it is a dual iso capable camera, it's always digital adjustments inside or outside of the camera. This is why you see so many people with technical backgrounds arguing that the ISO setting on your camera is a misleading name nowadays and should rather be called "gain", as in digital signal gain. Of course, we're talking about RAW for pictures and video. If you shoot pics in jpeg or video in normal stand profile picture or a log profile all of this iso-less talk doesn't matter as the selected digital exposure and color temperature is backed in to the file.



ISO is an analog amplification process applied to the sensor at capture. Some higher ISOs may also have a post process digital amplification applied, but that's the primary source. If you know how to alter the captured ISO in DPP or LR, do tell. You can raise and lower exposures, but you can NOT adjust the actual ISO in Post. That is about the only thing is baked into the image in RAW because ISO amplification is set (generally right at the Photodiode, to my knowledge) before the ADC process takes place and the RAW file is written.


----------



## IggyMo (Mar 30, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> ISO is an analog amplification process applied to the sensor at capture. Some higher ISOs may also have a post process digital amplification applied, but that's the primary source. If you know how to alter the captured ISO in DPP or LR, do tell. You can raise and lower exposures, but you can NOT adjust the actual ISO in Post. That is about the only thing is baked into the image in RAW because ISO amplification is set (generally right at the Photodiode, to my knowledge) before the ADC process takes place and the RAW file is written.


ISO is both analog AND digital amplification. The analog amplification does not change in normal ISO range in dslr's or mirrorless bodies (ISO 50 - 12800 usually). In simple terms: the analog amplifier = base ISO (does not change). Digital ISO = user sets ISO (digital gain). When you have a dual ISO you basically have a second analog amplifier that amplifies way stronger, sends the clean but more amplified analog signal to the digital converter and then it goes through the digital ISO amplifier if needed (according to users ISO setting). This is how on dual ISO cameras you get way cleaner images at say 1600 iso than at 1000 iso. because at iso 1000 you're using the first analog amplifier which operates at say base 100iso, but crank it up to 1000iso digitally. Say your 2nd analog amplifier kicks in at 1200 iso, you'll be getting a very clean image like you did at iso100 through the first analog amplifier.
Once again, ISO is misleading. It should be called gain. Different software call it different names, but in lighroom it is the exposure slider which works in stops of light. Other applications call it gain. Still other apps still call it directly ISO. In Davinci Resolve for example, if you use raw footage they call it ISO, and yes you do change your ISO in post on davinci. You have the same ISO changing options in Adobe Premiere Pro if you work with raw footage.
Once again, here is a technical explanation from a guy that works in hollywood:


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 30, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> What you do at the Sony forums is your business.


Sony?
Since when are they making cameras ?


----------



## jvillain (Mar 30, 2019)

I have been hammering Canon pretty hard for their mirrorless bodies. I never thought that the R was a bad camera, but up here in Canada it is just horrible value at $3000 for just the body compared to what else you could buy. But if the new EAF firmware works at least reasonably, and they do add external RAW and it doesn't require a license and isn't limited to 720 then that changes the equation enough where I will step up and they will keep me in the fold. 

I was very skeptical of Canons comments that they were going to try harder to offer improvements through firmware like every one else as Canon has never been that kind of company and they have promised stuff in future firware in the past and then failed to deliver. But external RAW would be a ligit feature add that wasn't promised at launch and that change of attitude is a game changer for me. That tells me that the body side of the business still cares and still wants to compete. That is some thing that I have really been questioning lately. If this pans out props to Canon.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Mar 30, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> The EOS R appears to be processor limited so we don't know if the camera is reading the sensor at it's highest possible speed or if the processor just can't compress and write the stream at the sensor's maximum rate. If the camera has to reduce read speed to accommodate processing the stream than rolling shutter will increase.
> 
> Compressing and writing the video stream requires significant internal camera resources. The Codec is a critical part of that equation. Delivering a RAW stream over HDMI could require fewer internal resources. Properly coded internal firmware could take advantage of those additional resources to improve the rate which the camera can read out the sensor if the sensor can handle a higher speed. Only Canon knows the answer to that.
> 
> ...



SDI is used for multiple reasons. For one, it's purposefully designed for RAW data streams, no other activities or concerns about DRM. The biggest (and this is a massive one) advantage is that it's also a locking connector. HDMI is delicate, SDI is designed to move around and even handle a interning grip tripping on the cable while carrying a 60,000 dollar lens. 

HDMI is used in DSLRs because it's a consumer product designed to be able to connect to a TV. SDI makes more sense, except it's 100 percent worthless to any photographer or consumers.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Mar 31, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> SDI is used for multiple reasons. For one, it's purposefully designed for RAW data streams, no other activities or concerns about DRM. The biggest (and this is a massive one) advantage is that it's also a locking connector. HDMI is delicate, SDI is designed to move around and even handle a interning grip tripping on the cable while carrying a 60,000 dollar lens.
> 
> HDMI is used in DSLRs because it's a consumer product designed to be able to connect to a TV. SDI makes more sense, except it's 100 percent worthless to any photographer or consumers.



Yet they unfortunately put an SDI connector on the C200 that is not capable of handling a RAW stream, or even 4k. It has a nice 422 10 bit 2k though.


----------



## LesC (Mar 31, 2019)

I'd rather they added the focus stacking from the RP, bought my EOS R as a stills camera, not bothered about video.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Mar 31, 2019)

CanonGrunt said:


> Yet they unfortunately put an SDI connector on the C200 that is not capable of handling a RAW stream, or even 4k. It has a nice 422 10 bit 2k though.



Wow! They used a 20 year old 3G SDI and didn't think to put 4 ports to support 4k(or a modern 12g SDI port).


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 1, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I'll admit I was disappointed when the R was released with a heavy crop for 4k video. But in the time that it has been out a lot of professional cinematographers have given it praise. The 4k footage is solid and grades very well. The A7 III may be FF 4k but its bitrate is...dare I say it..._crippled_ by comparison to the R. And now the R is adding external RAW? Cinematographers are going to love it. And yes, they will rig an external recorder (which they normally do any way) and deal with a 1.8x crop (which is a small crop from S35) to get RAW footage.
> 
> Honestly, having watched a number of reviews and sample short films, I think the X-T3 is the real competition. Very sharp 4k straight ooc. 400 Mbps. And if you don't want to grade footage, the Eterna profile. I've seen good R footage and poor R footage (with that crop lens sharpness is very important to getting the most out of it). I've seen good A73 footage and poor A73 footage (it can literally fall apart with a heavy grade). But the X-T3? I haven't seen anything but excellent 4k footage off that camera. And 4k60p slowed down to 24p has a really nice effect.
> 
> It's funny because when the R dropped I thought "no FF 4k? Looks like I'll buy an A73 soon." But I've waited and I'm glad I waited because at this point the A73 is dead last on my wish list. If I get a cinema camera it's going to be the X-T3 or the R.



I agree that the EOS R footage has a nice, soft, filmic look to it. And I suspect many DPs will be tempted into trying it simply because you can have that Canon color. 

Once they come out with an EOS-R model with FF or APS-H and higher frame rates, I may be tempted once again into buying a Canon body. Until then, you’re right— the X-T3 is solid competition. 

I should note, however, that almost all video folks I see at the one man band DP level are using Sony A7 series cameras. 

We’ll see if Canon can excite the film world with an RF lens mode Cinema EOS models, which should be interesting.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 1, 2019)

I would like to see more customisation options added to touchbar, current options are too few.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 1, 2019)

kingrobertii said:


> Canon is really ramping their game up. I keep fighting the urge to buy an EOS R, but these video specs are making it tough...


That's quite funny as the EOS R has pretty bad 4K or should I say more like 2.5K at best. It's trounced by APS-C cameras.


----------



## tmc784 (Apr 1, 2019)

No firmware update for 5DIV ?


----------



## ozturert (Apr 1, 2019)

JonSnow said:


> nice, aps-c cropped 4k in raw....  lol


You mean, Super 35?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 1, 2019)

tmc784 said:


> No firmware update for 5DIV ?


What is broken? Canon is adding some features to the new model mirrorless that were likely planned for inclusion or requested by big budget organizations that spend $$$$$$ on cameras. Canon is working on the 5D MK IV replacement and will not add features at this point. They have already publically announced pulling people from R&D to be able to ramp up mirrorless products.


----------



## bsbeamer (Apr 1, 2019)

The one "feature" that should be added to 5D4 and R is better intervalometer "output" settings for timelapse movie. 4K video (even with crop) is not available on 5D4, let alone an option for full sensor timelapse (unless using an external trigger that basically fully engages shutter and LCD with every shot). My understanding is the R is almost exactly the same, but does offer 4K with crop. It's 2019 and basically still "better" to take a bunch of stills and assemble them in post. 

(Doubtful this will be addressed in any future firmware updates.)


----------



## shutterlag (Apr 1, 2019)

kingrobertii said:


> Canon is really ramping their game up. I keep fighting the urge to buy an EOS R, but these video specs are making it tough...



Frankly I don't see that at all. I suppose they're ramping up their game compared to themselves. Compared to the competition? They're horrifically bad. Just take the most recent examples - the RP vs. X-T3, both costing $1300. Even though the hardware can do it, Canon disabled dp-af in 4k. They also remove 24p, even in regular HD. It is a $1300 body that is basically unusable for video. Contrast that with the X-T3, where every possible setting and mode, every nuanced control is available, and log is included. Lookng at Photons to Photos, the DR is only ~0.5EV different, even though the Fuji is a crop, and that's because Canon put a 3 year old sensor in the RP.

I miss using Canon gear, and I obviously follow their news. I wish they would stop this horrific self competition. Gimping your product line in the hopes that it will force customers to buy your more expensive gear is a self-defeating business model. If they hadn't broken 4K on the RP, I would have ordered one already. Instead? Fuji gets my business because Canon products are now _blatantly and inexcusably inferior tools._ The sad part is, they're not inferior because of hardware or design - they're inferior because of their idiotic business practices. Sigh.


----------



## HarryFilm (Apr 1, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I'm not a video guy but would someone explain why external RAW is a big feature?




--

The specific reason for RAW IMAGERY is colour grading (i.e. colour correction) and luminance recovery (turn dark shots brighter!). With raw imagery at a specific bit-width be it 24-bit RGB/YCbCr (8 bits per colour channel), 30-bit colour (10 bits per colour channel) or even 48-bit colour (16-bits per channel) allows you more headroom to change the mix of the individual colour Red, Green and Blue colour channels OR the YCbCr mix of Luminance (Y or Overall Image Brightness), Chroma Blue (Blue-to-Cyan range) and Chroma Red (Red-to-Magenta) range of colours.

RAW simply means that no major digital signal processing or compression has been applied to the footage. It means it's TRULY the Camera Original video stream coming from the chip unchanged. That allows you LOTS of headroom to make huge changes in colour and brightness specifically to Shadows, midtones and Highlights without affect OTHER parts of an image. This allows to change your footage to whatever Hollywood Cinema-look you so desire without introducing extra noise, compression artifacts, banding, etc.

The Colour Timer (i.e. the person actually DOING the colour grading/colour correction) will be discussing with the Director in a collaborative effort to determine and finalize HOW the edited master images should look colour-wise and brightness wise. This changing of the "Look" of your imagery has affects on the "Overall Mood" of a film.

Why do you think SOOOO MANY Hollywood films have that Orange and Teal (cyan) look to them! Orange is a warm, sunny, bright "mood" while Teal is part of cold, hard, mean, or action moods. So the BEST WAY to ensure your video looks great, is to SHOOT RAW preferably at the highest bit rate per colour channel that your camera supports. For Canon, that would be 12 bits or 14-bits per channel so you can get TRULY HDR (High Dynamic Range) images for final broadcast. AND when you use the larger bit-depths, it also means that when broadcast at 8-bits per channel on 1080p Netflix, your images won't be so "Badly Damaged" by the video colour compression and MPEG4/H264/H265 video stream conversion process.

You Shoot, Edit, Master and Render at the HIGHEST QUALITY IMAGE FORMAT POSSIBLE (i.e. RAW) so you can preserve the "Nutritional Value" of the final imagery as it goes through the "Cooking Process" of modern video compression and video streaming systems. So RAW on a Canon R series is a VERY BIG DEAL for videographers and filmmakers!

.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 1, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> That's quite funny as the EOS R has pretty bad 4K or should I say more like 2.5K at best. It's trounced by APS-C cameras.



No, it has some pretty bad reviewers who are trashing it. Potato Jet did a YouTube review with Armando and the R held its own rather well against the A73. They did blow up comparisons of individual frames and while the A73 was sharper/more detailed, it was by such a small amount that it would be easy to miss under normal viewing conditions. It should be noted that Armando added an R to his arsenal after their collaboration.

Given the heavy crop lens sharpness plays a much larger role in the R's 4k footage, and I suspect the people getting soft or bad footage simply aren't using glass that's up to the challenge.

Potato Jet's Review: https://youtu.be/bwZ9tCcGNFw
Armando's Review: https://youtu.be/jL7YojU2LFE


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 1, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> No, it has some pretty bad reviewers who are trashing it. Potato Jet did a YouTube review with Armando and the R held its own rather well against the A73. They did blow up comparisons of individual frames and while the A73 was sharper/more detailed, it was by such a small amount that it would be easy to miss under normal viewing conditions. It should be noted that Armando added an R to his arsenal after their collaboration.
> 
> Given the heavy crop lens sharpness plays a much larger role in the R's 4k footage, and I suspect the people getting soft or bad footage simply aren't using glass that's up to the challenge.
> 
> ...



Exactly the review I was going to cite, which I thought was very fair. To say the 4k on the EOS is "horrible" is just nonsense. Even if it a hair less sharp when pixel peeping, who cares because it looks so much more attractive than Sony's offerings which you have to have a heavier hand in post production to manipulate and grade. Plus the battery life and overall durability, the Canon glass library etc...


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Apr 1, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> No, it has some pretty bad reviewers who are trashing it. Potato Jet did a YouTube review with Armando and the R held its own rather well against the A73. They did blow up comparisons of individual frames and while the A73 was sharper/more detailed, it was by such a small amount that it would be easy to miss under normal viewing conditions. It should be noted that Armando added an R to his arsenal after their collaboration.
> 
> Given the heavy crop lens sharpness plays a much larger role in the R's 4k footage, and I suspect the people getting soft or bad footage simply aren't using glass that's up to the challenge.
> 
> ...



Never heard of potato jet, but the resolution is just not anywhere near 4K. Heavy crop, strong AA filter, video was soundly beaten by A7III, Z6 and GH5 and the resolution looks like 1440p not 2160p. Until they can offer a sensor with good read speed, they'll be stuck with this massive crop. I could live with the crop if the video was captured as 6K and then resampled to 4K delivering a superior super 35 option.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 2, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Never heard of potato jet, but the resolution is just not anywhere near 4K.



A provably false statement. Go watch their videos. In their side-by-side scene comparisons I paused and studied nearly every frame. With one pair it looks like they made a mistake when processing the R side. With another the Sony was visibly sharper with more detail at normal view size on a 4k monitor, though the gap was small. With all the rest the sharpness/detail was comparable.

With the scene they chose to magnify the A73 was better under magnification, but by such a small amount it was one of the scenes that looked comparable to me at normal size.

If they can get good footage out of the R then the R is not a bad camera nor is its resolution "...like 1440p."


----------



## tmc784 (Apr 2, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> What is broken? Canon is adding some features to the new model mirrorless that were likely planned for inclusion or requested by big budget organizations that spend $$$$$$ on cameras. Canon is working on the 5D MK IV replacement and will not add features at this point. They have already publically announced pulling people from R&D to be able to ramp up mirrorless products.


Yeah , it could be $5,000.00 up for body only. Can't afford.


----------



## shutterlag (Apr 2, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> No, it has some pretty bad reviewers who are trashing it. Potato Jet did a YouTube review with Armando and the R held its own rather well against the A73. They did blow up comparisons of individual frames and while the A73 was sharper/more detailed, it was by such a small amount that it would be easy to miss under normal viewing conditions. It should be noted that Armando added an R to his arsenal after their collaboration.
> 
> Given the heavy crop lens sharpness plays a much larger role in the R's 4k footage, and I suspect the people getting soft or bad footage simply aren't using glass that's up to the challenge.
> 
> ...



The footage from the X-T3 is better than the R when you use f-log - I rented them both. It's not even a fair comparison though. Really the $1300 RP vs. the X-T3 is fair, and the RP doesn't even have 4k video. You also appear to minimize the crop factor - that's a big deal - a _REALLY BIG DEAL_, at least to most people. I mean, when you spend that much $$$$ on a body to have a FF sensor, and it's so weak it can't even use it? /facepalm


----------



## Del Paso (Apr 2, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> What is broken? Canon is adding some features to the new model mirrorless that were likely planned for inclusion or requested by big budget organizations that spend $$$$$$ on cameras. Canon is working on the 5D MK IV replacement and will not add features at this point. They have already publically announced pulling people from R&D to be able to ramp up mirrorless products.


What MUST be added, , when set on "manual", is a much longer exposure measuring time (currently about 6 sec.).
Also a possibility, when using a TSE lens, to permanently display the electronic level in the OVF.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 2, 2019)

shutterlag said:


> You also appear to minimize the crop factor - that's a big deal - a _REALLY BIG DEAL_, at least to most people.



Most people who debate spec sheets but have never shot a video in their lives? Or most cinematographers? Because the professional cinematographers don't seem to care much.

A wedding photographer who wants to mix in video using the same camera would likely be the most disappointed in the crop factor due to the focal length change.


----------



## PerKr (Apr 2, 2019)

shutterlag said:


> The footage from the X-T3 is better than the R when you use f-log - I rented them both. It's not even a fair comparison though. Really the $1300 RP vs. the X-T3 is fair, and the RP doesn't even have 4k video. You also appear to minimize the crop factor - that's a big deal - a _REALLY BIG DEAL_, at least to most people. I mean, when you spend that much $$$$ on a body to have a FF sensor, and it's so weak it can't even use it? /facepalm



Because everyone buys a camera with a FF sensor solely to create videos. Realistically, videography seems to be an even smaller niche than photography. But why go on here whining about it? If you really need great video, go find the best equipment you can afford for your video rig. Seriously doubt the equipment is what's holding you back though.


----------



## shutterlag (Apr 2, 2019)

PerKr said:


> Because everyone buys a camera with a FF sensor solely to create videos. Realistically, videography seems to be an even smaller niche than photography. But why go on here whining about it? If you really need great video, go find the best equipment you can afford for your video rig. Seriously doubt the equipment is what's holding you back though.



Video is a tiny niche? That doesn't pass the sniff test. Canon is announcing more small video cameras this year (5) than ILC camera bodies. Canon certainly doesn't agree with you based on their statements and quarterly reports. The other vendors are not in agreement with _you_ either. 

It's pretty obvious you're tired of defending their ill-conceived business practices. Honestly I don't know why you'd bother. Insulting me for pointing out the obvious isn't going to help. 

I shoot about 50/50 stills/video. Back when I had more time, before I had kids, I'd grade video, had a full rig, all that stuff. I used Magic Lantern for a few years. Happily I don't depend on this stuff for income and I have the spending money to purchase what I want to use. I mention that because Canon is losing sales here - from people like me. 

Before I left the Canon, I had two bodies and four red rings. I've spent the last ~4 years with kit from another vendor. In my current refresh cycle, they were ruled out out-of-hand because of video. The market is contracting, and I would submit Canon needs to be competitive on all fronts. You can call that whining if you want, but you just come off as sore and fanboi'ish.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 3, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Most people who debate spec sheets but have never shot a video in their lives? Or most cinematographers? Because the professional cinematographers don't seem to care much.
> 
> A wedding photographer who wants to mix in video using the same camera would likely be the most disappointed in the crop factor due to the focal length change.



“Crop factor” does not change the focal length of a lens. It changes the field of view of the lens. I understand some people’s confusion over it, but they are different things.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 3, 2019)

RunAndGun said:


> “Crop factor” does not change the focal length of a lens. It changes the field of view of the lens. I understand some people’s confusion over it, but they are different things.


I don't think there is any confusion (or at least the confusion is not as big as the one about absolute/relative aperture). And no, "crop factor" does not change the field of view of the lens. It's not the lens that is getting cropped.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 4, 2019)

Re: focal length and crop - everyone knows what I meant.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 4, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Re: focal length and crop - everyone knows what I meant.


 
Well, the problem is, no, not everyone does know what you mean. One only has to be on the various forums for a little while to see that there are way too many people, especially those just starting out, that think that it’s actually changing the focal length of the lens and other variations of the theme. I see this constantly on the motion/video side of photography all of the time.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Apr 4, 2019)

Are we still expecting to see feature updates to the EOS R and C200? 

NAB hasn't officially started yet so I guess Canon could still roll out the upgrades but it seems like they've already made their show announcements.


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 5, 2019)

I'm twitching waiting for official news here....


----------

