# There is another RF mount camera coming in 2020 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 21, 2020)

> I have been told by a pretty reliable source that Canon will announce another RF mount camera in 2020. What exactly the camera is, I was not privy to at this time.
> I do not believe it’s an EOS R system camera, but an RF mount video camera. I also don’t know if this is a totally new product, or if it’s an adapted Cinema EOS camera that is currently available.
> I believe we may see an announcement for this camera during the last week of August, or the first week of September ahead of when IBC 2020 is scheduled to happen.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## padam (Jul 21, 2020)

I think it is a new product, the 12-pin communication interface is different compared to the EF-mount.
Maybe the XC-series camera that was a rumoured a few times...?

With a crop sensor, it would be able to take Metabones Speed Booster or the V-ND adapter as well.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 21, 2020)

Half of this forum, just as they read the post title...






...and then immediately after seeing this is not about a next-gen 7D RF mount crop body:





- A


----------



## davidhfe (Jul 21, 2020)

Fingers crossed for:
- XC-10/15 style body
- R5 internals
- RF mount instead of an attached lens

~$4500 and then YouTube can. shut. up. about. video.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 21, 2020)

R5C - R5 with a fan like that one cinema focused 1DX.


----------



## Kjsheldo (Jul 21, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> Fingers crossed for:
> - XC-10/15 style body
> - R5 internals
> - RF mount instead of an attached lens
> ...



YES. Exactly. XC-15 with R5 internals (or R6 with All-I, only 4K needed), XLR adapter, Internal ND, TIMECODE, Super35 sensor (can’t imagine it would be full frame and crush C300/C500), IBIS.

a small C100 RF cinema camera. Done.


----------



## miketcool (Jul 21, 2020)

I would imagine that both the updated sensor with a faster readout would go with a new C-series body. This won't just be a mount change, as it would not make sense to utilize this new technology.


----------



## bergstrom (Jul 21, 2020)

The all new R5ii with the fan the R5 never had.


----------



## aanogueira (Jul 21, 2020)

Or would it be the flagship crop camera to be announced?


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 21, 2020)

R6C with a fan, magnesium body, 4K120FPS, no recording limit, CLOG3, backup video recording, waveforms, full size HDMI port, power over USB-C, Video recording over USB-C, no video recording limits, video/photo toggle switch, 1/400s flash sync speed, built in remote flash radio trigger, MSRP $2999.00. Ok, I'm done dreaming now.


----------



## NorskHest (Jul 21, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> R6C with a fan, magnesium body, 4K120FPS, no recording limit, CLOG3, backup video recording, waveforms, full size HDMI port, power over USB-C, Video recording over USB-C, no video recording limits, video/photo toggle switch, 1/400s flash sync speed, built in remote flash radio trigger, MSRP $2999.00. Ok, I'm done dreaming now.


I would buy the above list. This would be a damn near perfect camera


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Jul 21, 2020)

R5S with 82MPix Sensor? Just to top Sony also on this front


----------



## davidhfe (Jul 21, 2020)

Kjsheldo said:


> YES. Exactly. XC-15 with R5 internals (or R6 with All-I, only 4K needed), XLR adapter, Internal ND, TIMECODE, Super35 sensor (can’t imagine it would be full frame and crush C300/C500), IBIS.
> 
> a small C100 RF cinema camera. Done.



Would actually love for it to not be a crop. If a "consumer" 45mp sensor can outperform a C500FF then somebody is gonna do it; might as well disrupt yourself before somebody else does. I'm under the impression that the C3/500 have a huge set of features that simply require those sorts of large bodies and astronomical prices. I don't think that anyone short of ARRI is going to be able to command these $25-50K prices for much longer.

If anything I think you're more likely to see some wild sensor formats, but without things like ND, timecode and SDI—specifically to differentiate the true cinema line. But I mean a little baby C200 with a 4K S35 sensor would be nice for sure.


----------



## MaximPhotoStudio (Jul 21, 2020)

Please let it be a 135 f/1.2; 1.4; 1.8; 2.0. or 70-150 f/2.0


----------



## Dantana (Jul 21, 2020)

EOS RC200 with existing specs and access to more adaptable lenses.


----------



## Mark3794 (Jul 21, 2020)

Please be the C100 mark III we never had


----------



## Floydian (Jul 21, 2020)

R3 with 90 mpx and no video...please?


----------



## addola (Jul 21, 2020)

Could it be an RF mount Cine camera? Hmmm, Canon has a line of EF-mount Cine lenses to go with their EF-mount Cine cameras. making an RF-mount Cine camera before they have RF Cine lenses seems weird, unless they expect users to adapt EF glass.

I think it’s safe to expect an 8K Cine camera soon. When Apple showcased the Mac Pro, they used an 8K footage from an unreleased Canon Cine camera.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 21, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Half of this forum, just as they read the post title...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So true!


----------



## crevdog (Jul 21, 2020)

addola said:


> Could it be an RF mount Cine camera? Hmmm, Canon has a line of EF-mount Cine lenses to go with their EF-mount Cine cameras. making an RF-mount Cine camera before they have RF Cine lenses seems weird, unless they expect users to adapt EF glass.
> 
> I think it’s safe to expect an 8K Cine camera soon. When Apple showcased the Mac Pro, they used an 8K footage from an unreleased Canon Cine camera.



There is no difference at all in performance with or without an adapter for autofocus canon lenses (in some cases with an adapter on RF is actually faster than native EF) - so there definitely wont be a difference with manual focus cine lenses. I see no reason why adapting would be a problem for anyone and I am sure Canon will one day implement native RF lenses. So, I see no reason why this cant happen today.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 21, 2020)

MaximPhotoStudio said:


> Please let it be a 135 f/1.2; 1.4; 1.8; 2.0. or 70-150 f/2.0



I'm waiting for one of the optics guys to reply and tell us that a 135/1.2 would weigh 20 lbs and cost $10K


----------



## filmmakerken (Jul 21, 2020)

addola said:


> Could it be an RF mount Cine camera? Hmmm, Canon has a line of EF-mount Cine lenses to go with their EF-mount Cine cameras. making an RF-mount Cine camera before they have RF Cine lenses seems weird, unless they expect users to adapt EF glass.
> 
> I think it’s safe to expect an 8K Cine camera soon. When Apple showcased the Mac Pro, they used an 8K footage from an unreleased Canon Cine camera.


Exactly what I was thinking. There's no point in putting an RF mount on a video camera that has a Super 35 sensor. Getting the 8K abilities of the R5 into a video camera seems the only reason for this move. Still, so far the video performance of the RF lenses is not up to snuff -- I have the 28-70mm F2 and, while the images are gorgeous, it breathes on focus pulls and lengthens when zooming (neither is good for video). Canon seems to think there's no optical downside of adapting EF lenses to the RF cameras but I'm hoping the introduction of an RF mount video camera signals some very nice RF Cine lenses are coming.


----------



## addola (Jul 21, 2020)

crevdog said:


> There is no difference at all in performance with or without an adapter for autofocus canon lenses (in some cases with an adapter on RF is actually faster than native EF) - so there definitely wont be a difference with manual focus cine lenses. I see no reason why adapting would be a problem for anyone and I am sure Canon will one day implement native RF lenses. So, I see no reason why this cant happen today.


Not to mention that most (or all?) of those Canon CN-E lenses are manual focus.


----------



## Arod820 (Jul 21, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> Fingers crossed for:
> - XC-10/15 style body
> - R5 internals
> - RF mount instead of an attached lens
> ...


I would shut up for the rest of my life.


----------



## secant (Jul 21, 2020)

R5a like the Ra?


----------



## dolina (Jul 21, 2020)

MaximPhotoStudio said:


> Please let it be a 135 f/1.2; 1.4; 1.8; 2.0. or 70-150 f/2.0


I miss the days that I would get so excited for fast long glass.


----------



## koketso (Jul 21, 2020)

aanogueira said:


> Or would it be the flagship crop camera to be announced?


This is not happening.
The RF mount is designed for full frame sensors. At this point, Canon would rather make a high-end M camera to replace the 7D Mark 2.


----------



## DaveGrice (Jul 21, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Half of this forum, just as they read the post title...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1000% me...


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 21, 2020)

Better be the C100 III (or rather R100?).

Take the C100 body, shrink it down slightly (or leave as is honestly), RF mount, IBIS, touch LCD, full sensor DPAF II, dual UHS-II slots - change nothing else.

12mp S35 sensor with R5 video specs minus the 8k/raw. If you really wanted to show us love you could throw in an SDI port.

Then take my money.

And please:

Keep the integrated C100 flippy screen that can be closed. I can shoot an 8 hour wedding on 2 batteries because I can disable it easily. Meanwhile my C200 eats through batteries because there's no way to disable the screen (despite requesting this feature in firmware ad nauseam). The boot time of Cinema cams is much too long to turn them off in a spontaneous documentary environment.
Keep the ND filters manually geared. It's actually quicker to change on the go than the C200/C300/C500's electronically changed NDs
Keep audio/XLR inputs the same and in the handle. Would be great if my C100 I & II handles could work on this new body, and vice versa.


----------



## riker (Jul 22, 2020)

Floydian said:


> R3 with 90 mpx and no video...please?



Yeah coz 65-70MP would be lame, right?


----------



## slclick (Jul 22, 2020)

RF mount security camera with 7 million iso


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 22, 2020)

A full frame 16K RF Cinema to squash the Blackmagic's puny little 12K super35?


----------



## IcyBergs (Jul 22, 2020)

Floydian said:


> R3 with 90 mpx and no video...please?


DLA - f/1.4


----------



## SteveC (Jul 22, 2020)

Floydian said:


> R3 with 90 mpx and no video...please?



Leaving the video out won't save a dime.


----------



## amorse (Jul 22, 2020)

Well, I thought the news of the R5, R6, and death of the 5D series meant I'd consumed all the Canon news of interest for a while, and I wouldn't be refreshing this site every 15 minutes anymore. I've been wrong before and I was wrong again. See you in 15.


----------



## bellorusso (Jul 22, 2020)

It's a remake. A true R5 without overheating 8k crap. $3300.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 22, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I'm waiting for one of the optics guys to reply and tell us that a 135/1.2 would weigh 20 lbs and cost $10K




Only 6.6 lbs and $3k for 135mm f/1.4:









Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm f/1.4: $2,999 Gets You the World's Fastest 135mm


The Chinese company ZY Optics just opened up pre-orders for quite an unusual lens. It's a Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm f/1.4 that boasts one of the largest




petapixel.com





- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 22, 2020)

bellorusso said:


> It's a remake. A true R5 without overheating 8k crap. $3300.




It's just an R5 they perforated with holes and have an external 4" fan blowing onto it from the outside.

$9,000.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 22, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Half of this forum, just as they read the post title...
> 
> ...and then immediately after seeing this is not about an next-gen 7D RF mount crop body:
> 
> - A




Oh, thank you all. I was really laughing just to myself with that post, but after a jillion likes: I feel seen. 

You made my day.

- A


----------



## NJFanta (Jul 22, 2020)

Didn't we already see this wiz bang thing already on this site, say 6 months ago? It was a cube looking device that was being shown? I'll do some digging and find it.









New Canon designs - possible updates to the ME200S-SH or ME20F-SH


Canon filed two new designs, that details a camera that looks similar to the existing ME20F-SH or the ME200S-SH block camera systems. However there are distinct physical differences in the actual chassis, and back of the camera from the existing cameras. The first one, the back of the camera...



www.canonnews.com













Canon Patent Application: Cooling a modular Canon CINI Camera


As both the bitrate and the resolution of video cameras increase, cooling will remain one of the most important design considerations. So much engineering that Canon does for video is the technology that couldn't be implemented in a traditional stills camera that it's a little wonder Canon...



www.canonnews.com













Patent: Canon RF mount modular CINE camera appears in drawings


An RF mount cinema camera of some kind is likely an inevitable evolution in Canon's ecosystem when such a camera will appear is unknown at this time. I imagine



www.canonrumors.com





It sure sounds like it might be one of these designs. Imagine 8k on an actual video camera unit, that is made for shooting video! No overheating!


----------



## mppix (Jul 22, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> R6C with a fan, magnesium body, 4K120FPS, no recording limit, CLOG3, backup video recording, waveforms, full size HDMI port, power over USB-C, Video recording over USB-C, no video recording limits, video/photo toggle switch, 1/400s flash sync speed, built in remote flash radio trigger, MSRP $2999.00. Ok, I'm done dreaming now.


using a ~180MP sensor, [email protected] video, clean 8K out with HDMI 2.1


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 22, 2020)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Better be the C100 III (or rather R100?).
> 
> Take the C100 body, shrink it down slightly (or leave as is honestly), RF mount, IBIS, touch LCD, full sensor DPAF II, dual UHS-II slots - change nothing else.
> 
> ...



You are a more dedicated videographer than I...no way am I wasting my C200 on a wedding unless their videographer budget is in the 5 figure range. For me, the GH5 is perfect for weddings, and it has shot a 12hr wedding on two batteries (short clips, MF, turned off whenever possible). Anything better than a cell phone will make most clients happy these days.

While we are on the topic, an XC RF mount form factor would be interesting for gimbal work, my only problem with that is that to truly be useful it needs to be a hybrid like the R6 minus the overheating.




mppix said:


> using a ~180MP sensor, [email protected] video, clean 8K out with HDMI 2.1



That's not a dream that's a nightmare...poor low light performance, way overkill resolution, horrible rolling shutter, video resolution too high to work with, and 8K coming out of an HDMI port with no recorder that can actually record it. IMO the 20MP R6 sensor is perfect.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 22, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Only 6.6 lbs and $3k for 135mm f/1.4:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, that's perfect, then! As we all know, the AF unit and extra 1/3 stop add exactly 13.4 lbs and $7,000


----------



## davo (Jul 22, 2020)

I wish it would be a R5P. No 8K, 30mp, No cfExpress, Top LCD, Magnesium, Fantastic high iso performance (dual native ISO)


----------



## wanderer23 (Jul 22, 2020)

Hoping for zcam/komodo type cinema cam, but that'd really eat into the c300 so maybe unlikely....


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 22, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> Fingers crossed for:
> - XC-10/15 style body
> - R5 internals
> - RF mount instead of an attached lens
> ...


Active cooling fans and fins for an unlimited [email protected]? Yes, please


----------



## CanonOregon (Jul 22, 2020)

16k video recording- have to do better than Blackmagic! (and I'll raise you 4k!)


----------



## nekogami (Jul 22, 2020)

I wonder if it could be just the C500 mkII but sold with an RF mount instead of EF + the mount adapter (the same way they have interchangeable PL mount)


----------



## Osama (Jul 22, 2020)

You know what, a c100 mark III with RF mount would fit the last two rumors (RF video camera + RF APS-C camera).


----------



## addola (Jul 22, 2020)

CanonOregon said:


> 16k video recording- have to do better than Blackmagic! (and I'll raise you 4k!)



There were rumors about a 150 Megapixel sensor from Canon, and 16K resolution (15360 x 8640) is 132 Megapixel in 16:9 aspect ratio, and in 3:2 ratio it's 15360 x 10240 ~ 157.3 Megapixels. Yeah, Canon can do that, lol!


----------



## degos (Jul 22, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Leaving the video out won't save a dime.



- codec licensing fees
- lab and field testing
- software complexity
- heat dissipation design

Maybe just a few dollars per unit when amortised across a production run, but also the intangible benefit of signalling that stills photography is still important to Canon.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 22, 2020)

degos said:


> Maybe just a few dollars per unit when amortised across a production run, but also the intangible benefit of signalling that stills photography is still important to Canon.



Leaving OUT a feature doesn't help in any way. Adding features that are of benefit to photographers should signal that stills photography is still important to Canon.

You know, things like:

20 frames per second
Superb low-light performance
World class eye autofocus and animal tracking
improved EVF and bringing back the joystick that everyone missed from the EOS R.

ie exactly the things that Canon have already added on the R5. But no, photographers seem to be upset that their camera can also shoot video. *YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THE VIDEO BUTTON.*

If you want to buy a camera specifically without video because you feel upset that we live in a world where cameras are now dual-purpose devices then check out Leica, I believe they have a product for you...


----------



## Franklyok (Jul 22, 2020)

MaximPhotoStudio said:


> Please let it be a 135 f/1.2; 1.4; 1.8; 2.0. or 70-150 f/2.0



+1 for the zoom f/2.0 . The shorter 28-70 allready shows good bokeh... 

How about 70 - 150 f/2.0 DS , with extra bokeh ,


----------



## Bukozik (Jul 22, 2020)

It will be R7. Crop нах!


----------



## mppix (Jul 22, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> You are a more dedicated videographer than I...no way am I wasting my C200 on a wedding unless their videographer budget is in the 5 figure range. For me, the GH5 is perfect for weddings, and it has shot a 12hr wedding on two batteries (short clips, MF, turned off whenever possible). Anything better than a cell phone will make most clients happy these days.
> 
> While we are on the topic, an XC RF mount form factor would be interesting for gimbal work, my only problem with that is that to truly be useful it needs to be a hybrid like the R6 minus the overheating.
> 
> ...


FYI, pixels are not the enemy of low light behavior


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 22, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> You know, things like:
> 
> 20 frames per second
> Superb low-light performance
> ...


Indeedy doody.

I've very little interest in the R5's video capabilities (that might change - who knows? - And besides, it might be useful in the Winter when my hands are getting cold...  ) but the _photographic _features it offers are really calling to me in a big way.

I wasn't intending to get one, but I'm finding the temptation hard to resist, especially seeing the glowing reactions the Animal Eye AF is getting:









Canon EOS R5 Review - Animal Eye Autofocus Is "quite literally mind blowing"


Animal eye autofocus is a relatively new technology in the camera industry. Here is a Canon EOS R5 review that is definitely very fond of the




www.canonwatch.com


----------



## amorse (Jul 22, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Leaving OUT a feature doesn't help in any way. Adding features that are of benefit to photographers should signal that stills photography is still important to Canon.
> ...
> World class eye autofocus and animal tracking
> ...


I was a bit skeptical of how this would perform, but some of the videos coming out on it are frankly pretty eye-opening (pardon the pun), to me at least.






youtube.com/watch?v=krpI9-KYVcA&feature=emb_logo


----------



## iheartcanon (Jul 22, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Half of this forum, just as they read the post title...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, I apologise in advance for going off topic here. Nothing personal.

Is there no way to stop these damn GIF's? If you click on it like a normal one (which would stop looping) it just opens a website.

Annoying as Fu^%!

Speaking of annoying, for maybe the 3rd time ever I decided to go over to the sony rumours site to see what they are talking about.
Holy shit is that a deep dark void! The shit people write on there, you would think it was all just preteens.


----------



## bigchicken (Jul 22, 2020)

R1 in time for the delayed Olympics? Probably too early for that announcement tho.


----------



## bandido (Jul 22, 2020)

Hopefully an EOS C100 Mark III.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 22, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Leaving OUT a feature doesn't help in any way. Adding features that are of benefit to photographers should signal that stills photography is still important to Canon.
> 
> You know, things like:
> 
> ...



Thank you! Tired of this ridiculous whine.

If there was EVER a camera that offered everything a person needed and _only_ what that person needed...well that person (not the camera) would be pretty unique _and_ he'd be a pathetic individual, as he seems unwilling/unable to branch out into new things.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 22, 2020)

iheartcanon said:


> Speaking of annoying, for maybe the 3rd time ever I decided to go over to the sony rumours site to see what they are talking about.
> Holy shit is that a deep dark void! The shit people write on there, you would think it was all just preteens.


Have a look at 43rumors.com - it makes SAR look like an oasis of calm and rationality...


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 22, 2020)

degos said:


> - codec licensing fees
> - lab and field testing
> - software complexity
> - heat dissipation design
> ...



You do realize that in this day and age that product would be so niche that to make up for the lack of sales they would have to charge way more for it right? Us hybrid shooters subsidize the costs for purely stills photographers by adding enough volume to camera sales that manufacturers can afford to sell at a lower profit margin per unit. I have no doubt that Canon knows more about sales numbers than anyone on this forum....and based on their internal knowledge they have decided to not only keep producing hybrid cameras but to also more heavily market and improve those video features....so clearly they know what works and what would not work from a corporate standpoint.


----------



## Twinix (Jul 22, 2020)

C100 III with matching video specs to the R6, plus ALL-I on both cameras of course. It should of course have SDI etc like any cinema-style camera.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 22, 2020)

Photorex said:


> R5S with 82MPix Sensor? Just to top Sony also on this front


Seems like the most likely addition at this point. I still think the "high end" APS-c will be an upgraded replacement for the M5, but only time will tell. On the R5S, the question will be whether they just use the pixel geometry of the 90D/M6 II or decide to go for broke and top 100 MP. Given the number of bold choices in the R5, I am guessing the latter. It would make a nice replacement for the 5DSR and would make a platform to show off all the fancy R glass.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 22, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Leaving OUT a feature doesn't help in any way. Adding features that are of benefit to photographers should signal that stills photography is still important to Canon.
> 
> You know, things like:
> 
> ...



As a hybrid shooter, I try to empathize with the photographers... but at this point, the whining as if Canon is doing them a disservice for adding video is annoying. Especially considering the cost of the cameras with inflation and whatever other metric you want to throw in there, are the same as yesteryear when they didn't have video.

What's even most annoying is, after watching countless R5/R6 videos, I'm starting to think these new cameras were polished as stills first cameras. The cameras are looking near flawless as photography cameras. I've seen photo demonstrations of ridiculous AutoFocus performance in near dark, watching AF extend across the full range of the screen... try that on your OVF, super accurate Animal AF that extends beyond cats, dogs and birds, ISO that is above 6400 that looks usable, they've given you HEIF files. Meanwhile, the design decisions to make sure the body is 5D level weather resistant (for photographers) is at the cost of heat management, IBIS is wonky at the corners of ultrawide lenses, pending a firmware update the R5 has left out a high frame rate mode in FHD. And yet they have whine about the fact that is even in there. The cameras are amazing for stills, can't you just be happy about that? SMH...come across as spoiled brats.


----------



## Nelu (Jul 22, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> As a hybrid shooter, I try to empathize with the photographers... but at this point, the whining as if Canon is doing them a disservice for adding video is annoying. Especially considering the cost of the cameras with inflation and whatever other metric you want to throw in there, are the same as yesteryear when they didn't have video.
> 
> What's even most annoying is, after watching countless R5/R6 videos, I'm starting to think these new cameras were polished as stills first cameras. The cameras are looking near flawless as photography cameras. I've seen photo demonstrations of ridiculous AutoFocus performance in near dark, watching AF extend across the full range of the screen... try that on your OVF, super accurate Animal AF that extends beyond cats, dogs and birds, ISO that is above 6400 that looks usable, they've given you HEIF files. Meanwhile, the design decisions to make sure the body is 5D level weather resistant (for photographers) is at the cost of heat management, IBIS is wonky at the corners of ultrawide lenses, pending a firmware update the R5 has left out a high frame rate mode in FHD. And yet they have whine about the fact that is even in there. The cameras are amazing for stills, can't you just be happy about that? SMH...come across as spoiled brats.


I could say the same thing about video shooters. They're whining about overheating of a great stills camera.
Based on the specs and on everything I've seen so far, I agree that the R5 is an awesome camera for stills and yes, I'm happy about it.
"The spoiled brats" complain about the overheating though...


----------



## mariosk1gr (Jul 22, 2020)

If it is the C100 Mark III with Rf mount... then I made a big mistake and bought the R5.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 22, 2020)

Nelu said:


> I could say the same thing about video shooters. They're whining about overheating of a great stills camera.
> Based on the specs and on everything I've seen so far, I agree that the R5 is an awesome camera for stills and yes, I'm happy about it.
> "The spoiled brats" complain about the overheating though...


I call out the video complainers too. Especially the ones who make like they'll need to film unlimited 8K or 4K120p. But some have legitimate gripes because they have real limitations or missing features. The photographers I'm calling out are complaining about having a feature they'll never use. Not about anything missing or any limitations for photography.


----------



## tigers media (Jul 22, 2020)

if it's just rf mount video wouldn't they just make mount adaptor ? as most video cameras have multiple mounts like PL etc or is their something drastically different that wouldn't allow that so they would have to redesign their whole video range ? Or maybe they teamed up and bought Black magics sensors ! and now have 12k to offer, so would warrant a whole new camera as all new tech and new way of doing it.


----------



## Nelu (Jul 22, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> But some have legitimate gripes because they have real limitations or missing features.


Call me crazy but if these cameras wouldn't have "real limitations or missing features" on the video side you'd call them "video cameras" not "hybrid cameras", no?
Do you really think Canon or any other manufacturer will give you every possible video feature when you buy a hybrid camera?
What about their dedicated video cameras segment? Just send them into oblivion?


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 22, 2020)

tigers media said:


> if it's just rf mount video wouldn't they just make mount adaptor ? as most video cameras have multiple mounts like PL etc or is their something drastically different that wouldn't allow that so they would have to redesign their whole video range ? Or maybe they teamed up and bought Black magics sensors ! and now have 12k to offer, so would warrant a whole new camera as all new tech and new way of doing it.


It would seem simple enough, but RF is more than just a different mount. It has additional contacts for more lens/body communication, so the internals of the body need to be upgraded as well. Then the benefits of RF are being trickled up to the cinema line. So improved AF, Control ring and IBIS may be future features of the Cinema line.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 22, 2020)

Nelu said:


> Call me crazy but if these cameras wouldn't have "real limitations or missing features" on the video side you'd call them "video cameras" not "hybrid cameras", no?
> Do you really think Canon or any other manufacturer will give you every possible video feature when you buy a hybrid camera?
> What about their dedicated video cameras segment? Just send them into oblivion?


No. I would call it the perfect hybrid camera.

I am being realistic that there are limitations in being a hybrid camera... which is why I will defend the camera from people who have unrealistic expectations whether they are photo-centric or video-centric users.


----------



## davidhfe (Jul 22, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> No. I would call it the perfect hybrid camera.
> 
> I am being realistic that there are limitations in being a hybrid camera... which is why I will defend the camera from people who have unrealistic expectations whether they are photo-centric or video-centric users.



I maintain that 100% of the kvetching happening right now is because Canon built what is arguably the best stills-focused hybrid camera in existence, but they marketed it as a video-focused hybrid camera. Stills photographers are getting sticker shock along side with being forced into an EVF and want to blame video. Video folks feel like there was a bait and switch.

The reality is all I wanted in life was a Canon A7R. They have seemingly delivered that and so much more. The R5's video features are head and shoulders above what I expected when looking at the A7/A9 lineup and the stills specs are just awesome. I know we're still waiting on reviews, but based off the 1DX3 in live view, I am just really excited.


----------



## wockawocka (Jul 22, 2020)

I'm hoping for an EOS R mkii, a 30mp camera with all the latest improvements. It may clash with the current releases but I'd like to see it as I'm not happy with the noise in the R5 files (admittedly I've only seen the one the Fro posted for download - I expected more tbh, but I'm hard to please).


----------



## degos (Jul 22, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> Especially considering the cost of the cameras with inflation and whatever other metric you want to throw in there, are the same as yesteryear when they didn't have video.



So the corollary of that seems to be that if they hadn't added those features then the price in real terms should have fallen...


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 22, 2020)

degos said:


> So the corollary of that seems to be that if they hadn't added those features then the price in real terms should have fallen...


It's a lot more complicated than that. We can go into the socioeconomic's on how media consumption has evolved, generating a shift in how devices capture media, and how that demand has shifted manufacturers focus to research & develop the corresponding devices to follow the market. We can consider the macroeconomics of it: demand for video and hybrid is increasing, while demand for stills only is decreasing... so camera companies are shifting the supply to meet equilibrium... all while the market in general is shrinking so a need to streamline model segmentation is even more critical. We can talk about how technological advances in video capture have benefited stills technology... a point that so many others make on this forum. If video never happened, is your photography camera benefiting from the technology it has today? It's much more nuanced and so intertwined at this point, that its not so simple to postulate, "well they can just take out the video features and make it cheaper." I know some of the photography only crowd like to make this argument, but it ignores so much of the nuance and today's market realities.


----------



## Buck (Jul 23, 2020)

I would love to know how much in a cameras cost is something that is video only and how much is stills only. Obviously much of the cost is shared.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 23, 2020)

Buck said:


> I would love to know how much in a cameras cost is something that is video only and how much is stills only. Obviously much of the cost is shared.


When overall volume is way down (as it is now), the cheapest camera to build (on a relative basis) will be the one that has the highest volume. Put another way, if Canon made and R5_still and and R5_video model, they would each be more expensive than the R5 because they would each have less sales volume. R&D cost is sunk cost. Manufacturing cost is VERY volume related. And BTW, cost and price are not that closely correlated, so knowing the cost won't help you with the price .


----------



## drama (Jul 23, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> You are a more dedicated videographer than I...no way am I wasting my C200 on a wedding unless their videographer budget is in the 5 figure range. For me, the GH5 is perfect for weddings, and it has shot a 12hr wedding on two batteries (short clips, MF, turned off whenever possible). Anything better than a cell phone will make most clients happy these days.



What a horribly condescending way to talk about people who are paying four figures out of their own pocket for you to cover the biggest event in their life in the best way possible.

Enjoy only wheeling out your C200 for those shoots where you're made to feel a big boy with crew around you, I guess. It's 2020, not 1996 anymore. Imagine having a great tool and refusing to use it on _any_ shoot because you felt it was beneath it's budget. Absolute unbridled arrogance.


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 23, 2020)

R7... come on!!!! And a good 200-600 6.3g DO L please...


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 23, 2020)

drama said:


> What a horribly condescending way to talk about people who are paying four figures out of their own pocket for you to cover the biggest event in their life in the best way possible.
> 
> Enjoy only wheeling out your C200 for those shoots where you're made to feel a big boy with crew around you, I guess. It's 2020, not 1996 anymore. Imagine having a great tool and refusing to use it on _any_ shoot because you felt it was beneath it's budget. Absolute unbridled arrogance.



Since when has using what I consider the right tool for the job arrogance? If you owned an Arri Alexa would you use that for a 4 figure job? Would you use a helicopter to get aerial video of a project just because you had a helicopter? Why would I risk a $20K rig on a 4 figure job, who is going to pay for it when it tips over and hits the floor because a kid ran into the tripod? Your reaction defies logic; the entire business world runs on using the right tool for the job and if my clients are happy with the end result then I produced what they were asking.

Technically they aren't paying me to cover their event in the best way possible, they are paying me to deliver a product that meets their quality expectations; I have yet to have a single customer say my work did not meet their expectations; they couldn't care less what equipment I use. For every project I look at what equipment will most economically meet the customer's quality expectations with the least financial risk to myself; that's how businesses are run.

Would you use a sledge hammer on a finishing nail? People make decisions every single day on what is the right tool for the job, and there is no way I am lugging around a C200 for less than 5 figures. The GH5 produces wonderful footage when properly set up and when used within its limitations, it is much more mobile in a wedding scenario and if anything I get better footage with it because of that mobility, I can lock it off on a tripod one sec then throw it on a 1 handed gimble a second later, I can also hang out in a corner and not intimidate people by using such a small camera so I get more of their candid behavior by going handheld.

If I didn't care about quality I wouldn't even be on here looking at Canon's latest offerings, but will I ever think the C200 is the right camera for a wedding project....like I stated before, not unless their budget reaches 5 figures. Clearly you are looking at this from a strictly emotional standpoint but I have news for you; emotions don't pay the bills. To me a wedding is just like any other project and just like any other project I pick the equipment that makes the most financial sense as well as technical sense.

And you know what...even with the C200 I don't shoot in RAW unless the project calls for it (and is paying for the additional storage, processing, transcoding, etc)....once again, I match the quality required to the project''s budget.


----------



## degos (Jul 23, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Since when has using what I consider the right tool for the job arrogance? If you owned an Arri Alexa would you use that for a 4 figure job?



Err yes because the more projects on which it is used, the quicker the purchase is amortised.

What's the point of leaving it on the shelf and hiring some other equipment for a 'cheap' job? That's just pissing money down the drain.

There's a difference between the optimal tool for a job and the best one.



> Why would I risk a $20K rig on a 4 figure job, who is going to pay for it when it tips over and hits the floor because a kid ran into the tripod?



The insurance will...

If you follow that logic, you'd never drive to a job because the value of your van is more than the revenue. Or even go yourself, since the insured value of a human life is about $10 million. What fool would risk their life in a $9 million shoot?!


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 23, 2020)

degos said:


> Err yes because the more projects on which it is used, the quicker the purchase is amortised.



Just using a bigger more expensive camera on a low paying job doesn't make it pay itself off faster...it simply means you risked a more expensive tool on a job that could have been done by a less expensive tool. Also there is something called equipment time which you clearly seem to know nothing about. Running more expensive equipment results in a higher hourly equipment time rate; if the project isn't paying that rate then you are losing money by using that equipment. It is very easy for "purists" to preach from their keyboards from their limited viewpoints how they would run their business but it does not work that way in the real world.



degos said:


> What's the point of leaving it on the shelf and hiring some other equipment for a 'cheap' job? That's just pissing money down the drain.
> 
> There's a difference between the optimal tool for a job and the best one.



I already own both cameras and the job will pay exactly the same regardless of the camera used, how is that possibly losing money? And I already provided plenty of reasons why for me a GH5 is the optimal tool for the job. By your logic every wedding video should have a Hollywood director, Red Epic cameras and be filmed in a mansion...so why aren't they? Oh yea, that's right...because there is something called a budget and budget limitations.



degos said:


> The insurance will...



That is the most comical statement of all...have you ever dealt with insurance companies, filed a claim, fought with an insurance company, had to hire a lawyer just to get the coverage that you paid for? And in the meantime you have to buy a new rig out of pocket with no idea if insurance will pay a dime for it. Insurance is the last thing you should ever count on to be there when you need it, and even if you succeed you will pay higher rates for years just because you brought your A camera to a B project.

But anyway, this is so off topic and senseless that I'm moving on.....go buy a $20K rig then take it to a $200 shoot and tell me if it was worth it. Entire Hollywood productions have been shot on iPhones and GoPros, it's not the gear, its how you use it, what the customer's budget is, and many more factors than simply taking the biggest camera you have to every shoot just because you can.


----------



## degos (Jul 23, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> By your logic every wedding video should have a Hollywood director, Red Epic cameras and be filmed in a mansion...so why aren't they? Oh yea, that's right...because there is something called a budget and budget limitations.



Of course not. But you ALREADY OWN the equipment so the incremental cost of using it is ZERO. Literally the only hindrance is your obsession about how much the job will earn.

You keep talking about cameras as tools, but treat them like Fabergé eggs. A tool can only make money when being used. 



> That is the most comical statement of all...have you ever dealt with insurance companies, filed a claim...



Yep, they told me to go to Calumet and hire like for like whilst they processed the claim.

Let me guess, you had no problem spending money to buy cameras but you took out the cheapest and stingiest insurance you could find. Because to have insurance which cost more than a job would be unthinkable...


----------



## TominNJ (Jul 23, 2020)

Probably already mentioned but the new R body could be the high end APS-C body mentioned in the other Rumor. The R mount accepts EF-S lenses so it makes some sense to put a smaller sensor in an R body.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jul 23, 2020)

I hope it is an update of the RP with 7 FPS and silent good shooting. Not more updates needed...


----------



## SteveC (Jul 23, 2020)

TominNJ said:


> Probably already mentioned but the new R body could be the high end APS-C body mentioned in the other Rumor.



Yes, it has occurred to me these two rumors could be about the same beast.



> The R mount accepts EF-S lenses so it makes some sense to put a smaller sensor in an R body.



So does the M mount, so this isn't really an argument in favor of R over M (if that was what you were intending).


----------



## GastonShutters (Jul 23, 2020)

This camera will be like an XC15 an in between prosumer and pro camera. That's the first thing I said when canon released the EOS R. I own an XC15 and while it's not a perfect camera (with fixed lens) I see the potential of this body becoming a dedicated Video centric RF camera.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 23, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> You are a more dedicated videographer than I...no way am I wasting my C200 on a wedding unless their videographer budget is in the 5 figure range. For me, the GH5 is perfect for weddings, and it has shot a 12hr wedding on two batteries (short clips, MF, turned off whenever possible). Anything better than a cell phone will make most clients happy these days.



Not more dedicated, just likely paid better . It does only accompany me to weddings close to the price range you mention. Most of the time for the average $5k wedding I'm still shooting on the C100 II. Perfect HD wedding cam IMO. Would love a true upgrade to that guy.


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 23, 2020)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Not more dedicated, just likely paid better . It does only accompany me to weddings close to the price range you mention. Most of the time for the average $5k wedding I'm still shooting on the C100 II. Perfect HD wedding cam IMO. Would love a true upgrade to that guy.



You are right, in my area weddings average between $1K - $5K and there are plenty of budget videographers in the area offering a 4hr wedding for $895 and all day with the DJ included for $1200, so I don't do many weddings; not worth it. Once their budget reaches around $5K I'll rent a second GH5, if it happens to reach 5 figures I'll bring in a crew and start looking at bigger setups.


----------



## drama (Jul 24, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Since when has using what I consider the right tool for the job arrogance? If you owned an Arri Alexa would you use that for a 4 figure job? Would you use a helicopter to get aerial video of a project just because you had a helicopter? Why would I risk a $20K rig on a 4 figure job, who is going to pay for it when it tips over and hits the floor because a kid ran into the tripod? Your reaction defies logic; the entire business world runs on using the right tool for the job and if my clients are happy with the end result then I produced what they were asking.
> 
> Technically they aren't paying me to cover their event in the best way possible, they are paying me to deliver a product that meets their quality expectations; I have yet to have a single customer say my work did not meet their expectations; they couldn't care less what equipment I use. For every project I look at what equipment will most economically meet the customer's quality expectations with the least financial risk to myself; that's how businesses are run.
> 
> ...



You spent four paragraphs telling me about the right tool for the job. Then in the last one say that it's budget that defines what you use. Which is it? Personally if I was an owner operator, I'd use both - it's pretty easy to grade both together, and the Super 35 looks beautiful for certain moments. Plus my clients - the people paying me - would likely be really happy with the output.

But - by all means be defensive. I'd like to think calling out contrived nonsense like this might make you reconsider your approach to the poor clients who approach you. If not, I hope gatekeeping your technology keeps you warm at night. There are thankfully plenty of other videographers who don't have such an unpleasant approach to their clients.


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 24, 2020)

drama said:


> You spent four paragraphs telling me about the right tool for the job. Then in the last one say that it's budget that defines what you use. Which is it? Personally if I was an owner operator, I'd use both - it's pretty easy to grade both together, and the Super 35 looks beautiful for certain moments. Plus my clients - the people paying me - would likely be really happy with the output.
> 
> But - by all means be defensive. I'd like to think calling out contrived nonsense like this might make you reconsider your approach to the poor clients who approach you. If not, I hope gatekeeping your technology keeps you warm at night. There are thankfully plenty of other videographers who don't have such an unpleasant approach to their clients.



Clearly nothing I say will matter to you so the same holds true for me...nothing you say will matter to me; I've been in business over 10yrs and have shot hundreds of projects, a client's budget has always defined what equipment is used for the project in addition to other factors. A client's budget is one of the main parameters that determine what is the right tool for the job but that does not mean it is the only parameter, and the same holds true for any industry anywhere in the world, it is that simple. Like I said.....would you use a helicopter to take aerial video of a project just because it would take better footage than a drone and you had one parked in your back yard? Why can you not get an R5 for the same price as an R6...oh wait...that's right because you have to pay for the additional quality that you get from the R5 which means your budget has to support the additional quality based on what you can afford. By your logic, since Canon has the R5 laying around anyway they should just ship you that one for $2499.00.

You sound just like clueless clients who don't understand that just because services don't provide a physical product does not mean that they don't still cost something to provide. It is also very obvious that you know nothing about a concept called equipment time / equipment hourly operating costs. Until you have done this professionally you really should stop talking about things you know nothing about, or at least do some research or use some common sense before you prove to everyone how little you actually know.

No business in the world uses their equipment for a project just because they have it laying around and if they did they don't last very long. Would you shoot a music video at a mansion with fancy cars and different locations all over the world if the client only had $3K? Why not? Oh wait...that's right, they don't have the budget for it.


----------



## drama (Jul 24, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Clearly nothing I say will matter to you so the same holds true for me...nothing you say will matter to me; I've been in business over 10yrs and have shot hundreds of projects, a client's budget has always defined what equipment is used for the project in addition to other factors. A client's budget is one of the main parameters that determine what is the right tool for the job but that does not mean it is the only parameter, and the same holds true for any industry anywhere in the world, it is that simple. Like I said.....would you use a helicopter to take aerial video of a project just because it would take better footage than a drone and you had one parked in your back yard? Why can you not get an R5 for the same price as an R6...oh wait...that's right because you have to pay for the additional quality that you get from the R5 which means your budget has to support the additional quality based on what you can afford. By your logic, since Canon has the R5 laying around anyway they should just ship you that one for $2499.00.
> 
> You sound just like clueless clients who don't understand that just because services don't provide a physical product does not mean that they don't still cost something to provide. It is also very obvious that you know nothing about a concept called equipment time / equipment hourly operating costs. Until you have done this professionally you really should stop talking about things you know nothing about, or at least do some research or use some common sense before you prove to everyone how little you actually know.
> 
> No business in the world uses their equipment for a project just because they have it laying around and if they did they don't last very long. Would you shoot a music video at a mansion with fancy cars and different locations all over the world if the client only had $3K? Why not? Oh wait...that's right, they don't have the budget for it.



Well, aside from the decade plus as the owner and operator of a production company that I grew from scratch that we then sold to a much larger entity with a broad portfolio of clients that we regularly create fantastic work for, what would I know, I guess?

Your entire position is without merit. As an owner operator, the gear cost is already sunk to you, and any additional work with it therefore payment towards it or straight profit. If you're hiring camera gear, sure. But even then the base cost of a C200 as part of a wedding shoot is between 5-15% of the total budget. Justify your unpleasant elitism however you like. The more you write, the more you come across as petty, unpleasant to work with and most importantly, bad at business. I have come across plenty of people like you in my time, and the good news is you create opportunity for the rest of us, and can never see it. So thanks for that.

We've strayed quite far from the subject, so I'm happy for you to have whatever last words you need to have on this to try and salve your ego so that people can go back to talking about specs and getting hyped about products. Sorry everyone else!


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 24, 2020)

drama said:


> Well, aside from the decade plus as the owner and operator of a production company that I grew from scratch that we then sold to a much larger entity with a broad portfolio of clients that we regularly create fantastic work for, what would I know, I guess?
> 
> Your entire position is without merit. As an owner operator, the gear cost is already sunk to you, and any additional work with it therefore payment towards it or straight profit. If you're hiring camera gear, sure. But even then the base cost of a C200 as part of a wedding shoot is between 5-15% of the total budget. Justify your unpleasant elitism however you like. The more you write, the more you come across as petty, unpleasant to work with and most importantly, bad at business. I have come across plenty of people like you in my time, and the good news is you create opportunity for the rest of us, and can never see it. So thanks for that.
> 
> We've strayed quite far from the subject, so I'm happy for you to have whatever last words you need to have on this to try and salve your ego so that people can go back to talking about specs and getting hyped about products. Sorry everyone else!



Keyboard warriors always have such great stories of success that it is comical....but their actual statements tell the real story. The only thing I agree with is that this topic has nothing to do with potential new gear on the way....which btw was due to you adding your less than 0.02 to a comment that was not even directed at you. So back on topic...how about that new RF mount


----------



## tigers media (Jul 24, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> It would seem simple enough, but RF is more than just a different mount. It has additional contacts for more lens/body communication, so the internals of the body need to be upgraded as well. Then the benefits of RF are being trickled up to the cinema line. So improved AF, Control ring and IBIS may be future features of the Cinema line.


CHEERS FOR THAT INFO UNDERSTAND NOW


----------



## WhatDoesMStandsFor (Jul 25, 2020)

Here's my wishlist for this camera:

- 4K 4:2:2 10 bit and 2K 444 12 bit camera
- Super 35
- Canon Log 2 and 3 gammas
- Size between being smaller than the C200, but bigger than the 5D Mk IV
- BP-A batteries
- Internal ND (even if electronic)
- Full size HDMI and SDI but with mini XLR inputs
- External output for RAW/uncompressed recording if necessary
- Using UHS-II SD cards as media
- Priced at around $ 4,500 ~ $ 5,500

Essentially, put the C300 Mk II internals inside a smaller body with RF mount and the ergonomics of a Canon XC or Blackmagic P6K.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 25, 2020)

I certainly hope this is true because it looks like overheating will make the R5 / R6 unusable for me. This experience is from 82F, and the overheating problem made it impossible to collect his footage even at 4K 24p. Where I'll be shooting, 82F is a cool day. It is 80% humidity and over 85 here almost every day, and frequently over 90F.
I hope this new RF mount is the missing C100 mk III, with good cooling









Cinema5D's real-world experience raises concerns about EOS R6 overheating


Johnnie Behiri of Cinema5D highlights the real-world implications of overheating after spending two days shooting a mini-documentary with Canon's new EOS R6 mirrorless camera.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## jam05 (Jul 26, 2020)

addola said:


> Could it be an RF mount Cine camera? Hmmm, Canon has a line of EF-mount Cine lenses to go with their EF-mount Cine cameras. making an RF-mount Cine camera before they have RF Cine lenses seems weird, unless they expect users to adapt EF glass.
> 
> I think it’s safe to expect an 8K Cine camera soon. When Apple showcased the Mac Pro, they used an 8K footage from an unreleased Canon Cine camera.


Are you talking about this camera? https://ymcinema.com/2019/09/03/can...s-were-used-to-shoot-stand-by-you-short-film/
https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-8k-cinema-camera-first-official-footage/


----------



## Twinix (Jul 26, 2020)

WhatDoesMStandsFor said:


> mini XLR inputs


Why? Not that hard to fit two XLR, and having them mini will just add unnecessary bulk for a lot of people needing to adapt, and its going to be really annoying to mount for example a lav like Sennheiser AVX.. I don’t think it should be as small as a Red Komodo or Z-cam, but rather a practical camera to work with right out of the box, instead of rigging it since it’s probably not going to be a specs monster.


----------



## addola (Jul 26, 2020)

jam05 said:


> Are you talking about this camera? https://ymcinema.com/2019/09/03/can...s-were-used-to-shoot-stand-by-you-short-film/
> https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-8k-cinema-camera-first-official-footage/


It's probably the same one. When they showcased the Mac Pro ability to edit 8K video, they used an unreleased 8K Canon cinema camera. https://www.dpreview.com/news/68806...amera-to-show-off-its-mac-pro-pro-display-xdr


----------



## stevelee (Jul 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Leaving the video out won't save a dime.


Might cost a little extra, since there will be the expenses of dual inventory.


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 28, 2020)

As previously rumored back in April, and mentioned again here, Cinema line or video specific camera with RF mount would be pretty cool. We just saw the Sony a7s3 drop at $4000. And I keep seeing a lot of unfair comparisons to the R5 and R6 which are truly HYBRID cameras unlike the a7s3 which Sony obviously designs expressly with video in mind for a small MILC body. I've never seen anyone say they are buying an a7s to shoot stills, and if they are even using to do any stills, it's few and far between. So Sony can build a video MILC to do all the frame rates without much if any overheating issues internally, because unlike both the R5 and R6, the a7s is NOT over sampling anything. Think about the EOS R or the older 1DX2. The camera crop into 1:1 pixel readouts at 8.8MP for 4K. The a7s has a sensor built to do this natively, which is perfect for video, but lacking hugely by comparison for stills.

I have wanted to see Canon do this for years. But if we get an RF mounted Cinema C100-200 body with IBIS, that would be awesome too! But an R5 type body with a 12MP sensor and Digic X... well there would be most likely no overheating issues even at 4K120. But I'm probably hoping for too much lol


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jul 30, 2020)

iheartcanon said:


> The shit people write on there, you would think it was all just preteens.


Are you so sure it isn't??


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jul 30, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Leaving the video out won't save a dime.


I'd tend to come from the same starting point - video specs in a camera don't need to add that much cost (if anything) to retail price, especially once you take into account the benefits of additional sale volumes. 

But, if there were to be a hypothetical R3, with 90mp, then we might start to conjecture that leaving out or down-grading some video specs may mean there are less overheating issues, which need additional hardware (or design) to combat the problems (real or marketing) that the R5 is now encountering.

I've no doubt that having video, and 8K at that, will be boosting R5 sales and thus lowering unit costs to us consumers, but what's the bets that someone at Canon Product HQ is wondering whether if there is to be a higher res. sensor in the R3, they might just save a lot of extra hassle or work-arounds in down-grading the accompanying video specs??

Just some thoughts...


----------



## WhatDoesMStandsFor (Aug 1, 2020)

Twinix said:


> Why? Not that hard to fit two XLR, and having them mini will just add unnecessary bulk for a lot of people needing to adapt, and its going to be really annoying to mount for example a lav like Sennheiser AVX.. I don’t think it should be as small as a Red Komodo or Z-cam, but rather a practical camera to work with right out of the box, instead of rigging it since it’s probably not going to be a specs monster.


Because I want it to be smaller. Full size XLR are great for compability, but they'll make the camera bigger - maybe the same size, like a tiny smaller than the C100 Mk II. And I don't want to deal with an adapter such as the MA400 which came with the XC15 (that I've owned and after a while I've just gave up on using it).

If Canon decides to put full size XLR on the camera and make it bigger, that's a deal breaker for me. I'm already investing in a C300 Mk III (will be purchasing next week, can't wait) and I'll want a really smaller camera than the C100 Mk II. If this camera is not the one, I'll probably get a Komodo or just stick with my Pocket 6K (although I hate to deal with its ergonomics)


----------



## Twinix (Aug 6, 2020)

WhatDoesMStandsFor said:


> Because I want it to be smaller. Full size XLR are great for compability, but they'll make the camera bigger - maybe the same size, like a tiny smaller than the C100 Mk II. And I don't want to deal with an adapter such as the MA400 which came with the XC15 (that I've owned and after a while I've just gave up on using it).
> 
> If Canon decides to put full size XLR on the camera and make it bigger, that's a deal breaker for me. I'm already investing in a C300 Mk III (will be purchasing next week, can't wait) and I'll want a really smaller camera than the C100 Mk II. If this camera is not the one, I'll probably get a Komodo or just stick with my Pocket 6K (although I hate to deal with its ergonomics)


 But what are you going to plug in to the mini xlr? Røde Stereo videomic x? Only plug in xlr when the camera is on a tripod? Basically, do you want a Canon version of the Z cam or Red Komodo? I get that we want different cameras I’m just wondering how you are going to use it, both as a smaller and bigger camera?


----------



## WhatDoesMStandsFor (Aug 7, 2020)

Twinix said:


> But what are you going to plug in to the mini xlr? Røde Stereo videomic x? Only plug in xlr when the camera is on a tripod? Basically, do you want a Canon version of the Z cam or Red Komodo? I get that we want different cameras I’m just wondering how you are going to use it, both as a smaller and bigger camera?


I'm going to use it as a B cam for the C300 Mk III (which should arrive today, actually. I'm excited!)


----------

