# Opinion: Canon EOS R with the Atomos Ninja V = Baby Canon C200!



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 21, 2019)

> One of the more positive YouTubers out there Armando Ferreira has posted a video about his impressions of the Canon EOS R with the Atomos Ninja V as a second camera to the Canon Cinema EOS C200.
> He touches on one of the biggest issues a lot of the internet world seems to have with the camera, and that’s the nearly 1.7x crop when shooting 4K. However, when compared to the Super35 sensor of the Cinema EOS C200, the crop isn’t all that different.
> Using a 24mm lens, the FOV of the two cameras are pretty close to one another.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## miketcool (Mar 21, 2019)

This is my setup and I love it!


----------



## Roy Hunte (Mar 21, 2019)

Exactly what I explained about the crop factor about 2 or 3 weeks ago.


----------



## woodman411 (Mar 21, 2019)

I wonder if Armando's positive video experience is related to the bitrate, mentioned in Alik Griffin's review: https://alikgriffin.com/canon-eos-r-just-about-everyone-got-it-wrong


----------



## akiskev (Mar 21, 2019)

C200 with fake 4k video? I'm not talking about the crop factor but for the actual detail.


----------



## Eos-Millz (Mar 21, 2019)

I am going to reiterate what i said on Cinema5D. I have this exact setup alongside a mark IV. For some strange reason Canon removed the hdmi frame rate option on the R. So the R locks into 60p output to the atomos. You can no longer choose 59.94i allowing you to pulldown 29.97p and 23.94p, -respectively. So in 1080P you can only output in 60p or 24p if you enable the option in the menu. 

If you want 29.97P you have to shoot in 4k! (Introducing the crop) . Also they removed the af scene modes to adjust the speed of focus changes in movie servo af (face tracking mode). I have gotten nothing but twitchy rapid focus changes when trying to rely on autofocus during face tracking. Comparing to the mark IV when it misses it smoothly tracks in and out until it locks on again.


----------



## addola (Mar 21, 2019)

woodman411 said:


> I wonder if Armando's positive video experience is related to the bitrate, mentioned in Alik Griffin's review: https://alikgriffin.com/canon-eos-r-just-about-everyone-got-it-wrong



Armando & PotatoJet showed that the 4K on the Canon EOS R is similar to Sony A7III, with the 1080p being far better than Sony.


----------



## bgoyette (Mar 22, 2019)

All good, but it if he's saying the EOS R is an instant C200 when you attach a recorder, he might have wanted to discuss rolling shutter. His carefully composed "still" video shots might look a little different from the c200 if he was hand-holding and shooting a moving subject. To me this is the biggest difference between Canon's purpose built video cameras and it's still hybrids (along with aliasing, sound, and almost everything else). Not trying to be a negative Ned, but I really tire of "review" videos with a Pollyanna-ish attitude about this stuff. Its not any more helpful than the skewed reviews of every Canon camera on certain camera websites.


----------



## Trey T (Mar 22, 2019)

In many cases audio quality is more important than IQ. To call it a baby c200 might be a bit naive; it should be called a handicapped c200


----------



## preppyak (Mar 22, 2019)

Trey T said:


> In many cases audio quality is more important than IQ. To call it a baby c200 might be a bit naive; it should be called a handicapped c200


Especially since Canon doesnt make a native audio connection like Sony and Panasonic do for their latest cameras. An EOS-R with something like Panasonic's DMW-XLR1 would get a lot closer (though then it still lacks the ND, etc).

Also, Cinema RAW is another BIG difference


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 22, 2019)

preppyak said:


> Especially since Canon doesnt make a native audio connection like Sony and Panasonic do for their latest cameras. An EOS-R with something like Panasonic's DMW-XLR1 would get a lot closer (though then it still lacks the ND, etc).
> 
> Also, Cinema RAW is another BIG difference


Does the ND adapter for EF count?

Jack


----------



## padam (Mar 22, 2019)

addola said:


> Armando & PotatoJet showed that the 4K on the Canon EOS R is similar to Sony A7III, with the 1080p being far better than Sony.


I think that is a very biased comparison(does not even mention rolling shutter which is the biggest problem and not reduced by IBIS), in this one, it doesn't seem like that it is more detailed, but the colors and highlights are rendered better:


----------



## zonoskar (Mar 22, 2019)

Trey T said:


> In many cases audio quality is more important than IQ. To call it a baby c200 might be a bit naive; it should be called a handicapped c200


As a second camera, sound should be no issue I guess.


----------



## bgoyette (Mar 22, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Does the ND adapter for EF count?
> 
> Jack


Of course it does, and the ND Adapter with EF lenses is a great solution...but...what happens when you try to switch to an RF lens in the middle of a shoot...ooops.. (that said, the C200 doesn't accept RF lenses so, it's the same boat, but someone entering the EosR system at this point is probably doing it for the lenses and thus canon's ND strategy is only a half measure, compared to a proper video camera.)

In the larger view, this transition to RF lenses is going to be a challenge in general for the cinema side of the business. It's unlikely that canon will be pushing out R series versions of its cinema camera's soon, which makes these new lenses moot for that side of the business, which is too bad. When they do, there may be issues fitting the current ND filter mechanism into the new shortened flange distance. It seems prescient on Canon to bring the RF mount to CinemaEos as soon as possible, as it could hamper the sales of the new system. However, we know that canon has always taken the long view, and their patience, while frustrating, has served them well.


----------



## bgoyette (Mar 22, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> As a second camera, sound should be no issue I guess.


A B camera isn't always a second camera, and may be used in situations where the A camera isn't appropriate, or is in use somewhere else.


----------



## padam (Mar 22, 2019)

bgoyette said:


> In the larger view, this transition to RF lenses is going to be a challenge in general for the cinema side of the business. It's unlikely that canon will be pushing out R series versions of its cinema camera's soon, which makes these new lenses moot for that side of the business, which is too bad. When they do, there may be issues fitting the current ND filter mechanism into the new shortened flange distance. It seems prescient on Canon to bring the RF mount to CinemaEos as soon as possible, as it could hamper the sales of the new system. However, we know that canon has always taken the long view, and their patience, while frustrating, has served them well.


Not sure how I feel about RF lenses focused manually for video anyway, I think no matter how they tweak it, fly-by-wire manual focus is just not as good as mechanical linkage. And I don't think we will see cinema lenses in RF-mount any time soon. Apart from pushing 8K (which I honestly don't see much point in) RF lenses don't seem to be that necessary for video usage right now, what they would do is open up possibilities to adapt a much wider range of vintage stills glass to their cameras for video, therefore killing some of their own lens sales. Does not seem that logical to me to be honest.

The E-mount camcorders with an even shorter flange have ND built-in, so it should be even less of an issue to make an RF-mount camera with built-in ND as well.


----------



## f5.6at4000 (Mar 24, 2019)

woodman411 said:


> I wonder if Armando's positive video experience is related to the bitrate, mentioned in Alik Griffin's review: https://alikgriffin.com/canon-eos-r-just-about-everyone-got-it-wrong


Remember the first ever Mirrorless camera Sony made??


----------



## bgoyette (Mar 25, 2019)

padam said:


> Not sure how I feel about RF lenses focused manually for video anyway, I think no matter how they tweak it, fly-by-wire manual focus is just not as good as mechanical linkage. And I don't think we will see cinema lenses in RF-mount any time soon. Apart from pushing 8K (which I honestly don't see much point in) RF lenses don't seem to be that necessary for video usage right now, what they would do is open up possibilities to adapt a much wider range of vintage stills glass to their cameras for video, therefore killing some of their own lens sales. Does not seem that logical to me to be honest.
> 
> The E-mount camcorders with an even shorter flange have ND built-in, so it should be even less of an issue to make an RF-mount camera with built-in ND as well.



As autofocus continues to make it's way into professional cinematography (pulling focus by touch screen, while not exactly the same as having a 1st AC on set, is nonetheless an art that is coming of age, and I have no doubt that as video crews continue to shrink, AF on large sensor video cameras will continue to win converts.) Certainly a lot of discussion over at CML about it. All current cinema EOS cameras offer DPAF, so suggesting that RF is at some disadvantage here is probably not relevant. EF cinema lenses can easily mount on an RF mount camera, so the need for a set of cinema lenses in RF mount is probably low on the roadmap. However, having canon's best new glass sidelined by lack of an RF mount cinema camera, ( or the inability to port those designs over to expensive cinema zooms -- MF or AF) is a big deal for Canon. They make their money in glass, always have, and their strategy going forward will continue that course.

As for ND fitting in the RF mount. My suggestion was that the current cinema EOS mechanism might not fit, and that it might be an obstacle in terms of development time, not that they couldn't do it.


----------

