This is not a negative piece on Canon, nor am I complaining about what Canon is or isn't doing. Now that I have that out of the way, let's get realistic about Canon cameras for a moment.
The Canon EOS R5. Seriously, I'm still trying to digest what Canon has announced because it sounds unbelievably good. The specs on this camera are so good, it's the kind of stuff I'd expect to see on the 1st of April on a rumor site. This is such a huge leap in technology, that if the released camera does everything that's been announced, it would be incredible for the industry. Honestly, I am so happy with Canon right now, I'm glad I stuck with them throughout the "cripple hammer" era. Canon is set to do something truly wonderful with the EOS R5 and I really can't wait to see how this pushes the whole industry forward.
It's going to be tough for Canon's competitors to keep up, especially if they weren't expecting something like this. There are features in this camera that many high-end, dedicated cinema cameras don't offer. The EOS R5 is in a whole league of its own, far above anything else that's on the market right now. Despite this, I probably won't be buying it and I'm assuming neither will most of you.
Overkill
Once again, this is brilliant stuff from Canon and I'm genuinely happy with what Canon is doing right now. I will gladly continue as one of its customers because I think they produce the best equipment for me. Nonetheless, the Canon EOS R5 is completely overkill and almost no one needs it.
Every time I hear 8K being mentioned, my brain moonwalks away like Nick Miller from New Girl. I honestly don't care about it and I probably won't be filming professionally in 8K, for at least the next decade. The majority of people still have 1080p displays let alone 8K. We still need to move comfortably onto 4K. The lack of 8K displays in the market mean that it's pretty pointless to publish content in 8K. Unless you have a specific requirement to shoot in 8K, which I doubt the majority of us have, then it's pretty pointless.
The other problem with having this much resolution, is the fact that most computers that creatives have, can't even process or manage the files. We're talking huge, huge files here and not anything the standard graphics card and processor is going to be able to contend with. I doubt the RTX 2080 Ti could manage 8K video files, without significant slow down. This kind of resolution is a practical nightmare and I have no desire to spend money on buying that feature anytime soon.
I appreciate that it can be used to produce better quality 4K video and it gives you the flexibility to crop; however, the downsides are far too many for these minor benefits to mean anything to me.
Storage
The cost of storage has been going down year on year and many people talk about how cards and drives aren't as much as they used to be. This would be beneficial if new cameras continued with old media cards and drives. I understand that this is obviously not feasible and manufacturers quite rightly needed to use better faster storage options.
The point I'm making is that the argument of storage being cheaper now, is only true if you're still using older media devices. If you're still using UHS-I SD cards or even some slower CF cards, then yes, the price of those have become extremely reasonable. This isn't the case for storage options like XQD cards, CFexpress, and many UHS-II SD cards. These options are still relatively new, therefore they are currently, quite expensive in comparison.
The other thing to remember is the fact that you now need much larger storage cards in order to shoot the same amount of content. For example, you wouldn't go out shooting with a 2GB SD card, if you're shooting with any current full frame camera system. In the same way, a 64GB card may not be sufficient if you're shooting 4K at 120p, or worse yet, 8K raw video. I assume that the minimum sized cards required now, would be about 256GB. This obviously means that the amount you're required to spend on storage hasn't gone down, it's probably gone up.
From a practical standpoint, storage costs are as expensive as ever, we're just moving onto different media devices. These costs really add up and genuinely need to be considered. It's great looking at the spec sheet of a new camera and thinking how wonderful it is, but the practical aspects need to be considered too.
The Rumored R6
As mentioned above, most people, including myself do not need 8k in any form right now. What many of us do want or need from Canon, is a full frame camera that offers 4K at 60p using the full width of the sensor and with dual pixel autofocus. This is probably the most valuable feature that most creatives want from Canon. Of course there are options available on the market that offer that feature, but it's just not a Canon. Those options don't have DPAF, or the color profile, or native-ish support for EF lenses or whatever reason that keeps you from moving away from Canon. There are plenty of reasons many of us continue shooting with Canon and they're strong enough reasons to wait for a feasible option.
For this reason, I think that the rumored EOS R6 would be a better option in comparison to the R5, in terms of value. The rumors suggest that this camera will offer 4K at 60p and that's more than enough for most people. It doesn't make sense to spend so much more for the R5 when the R6 could offer everything most of us need. Once again, this is not just the cost of the actual camera but also the running costs of such a system.
I'm interested to see what Canon has in store for us with the R6 because chances are that camera will be a far better fit for most of us.
Final Thoughts
Once again, this is not an article complaining about what Canon has or hasn't done. I'm not at all suggesting that Canon shouldn't have produced the EOS R5. This is instead an article to discuss the reality of owning such a camera and why another option from Canon, may be a better fit.
If anything, I'm celebrating and applauding what Canon is doing by producing the EOS R5. I'm thankful that they've done this because of how it impacts the industry. The EOS R5 will more than likely, become a landmark camera that people will look back at for years to come. The issue, is that the R5 is well ahead of its time and most of us neither require it, nor are prepared for it. I think Canon may produce an option that's better suited for most of us with the EOS R6. This camera is probably going to be the one that sells the most, and the one I'll likely get for myself.
For those of you with deep pockets and brave souls that purchase the EOS R5, please ensure you post all of your content; so that the rest of us can enviously (and hypocritically) proclaim, how no one needs the quality you produce.
yep, than you have possible overheating issues if they wont implement active cooling. It probably will be great camera for video makers but for those could go without those extra video featuresCanon hasnt release anything to repleace 5d mkIV .. better price, focused on photography ..
I think Canon confirmed the R5 is the 5D replacement. The photo specs are still yet to be seen though so you have a point.
I mentioned this before; I can picture the execs at Canon looking at each other and saying, "it's time to show the world what this camera company is capable of." :-) The first hint was the 1DxIII.
Even though the big news is the video features, this is going to be a terrific stills camera. Now, where did I put that lottery ticket?
Well, I would venture to say that "most of us" have way more features in our cameras than we actually need/use. But had the specs been anything less (and some are still complaining that it's not enough), there would have been articles on why Canon is continuing to hold back to protect the C-line cameras, etc. IJS we complain that these cameras don't have enough bells and whistles and these companies should put every feature known to man in them and keep them under $3,000. And then we complain about the menu systems being too complicated (Sony), but when you throw a ton of features in a camera, I would think you'd expect the menu system to not be a "one push of a button" to access everyone of those features. OK, I'm done ranting about others rants.
8k is useful so that you can zoom in and not lose resolution on a 4k video. According to a video friend, for editing, everyone just uses proxies and no one is going to actually edit in 8k.
Storage space is a huge concern though.
Great point, I think if premiere pro is improved that could work really well.
"I think if premiere pro is improved" is wishful thinking. They want you to convert your video files to 720 to be able to work with them. 720! But don't worry, some new shiny selection tool or other bloat is on the way.
Very wishful thinking haha.
Maybe on a 10 year old laptop. I'm able to edit and play 4k ProRes or H.264 footage without any need to create proxies. Could very easily convert 8k to 4k ProRes and have the space to punch in on 4k footage, which people very often do now when shooting in 4k and rendering in 1080p. Why wouldn't you want the same freedom when rendering to 4k?
I'm editing 6k footage in a 4k timeline and it drops frames all the time.
Maybe it's time for a new computer, or some more RAM?
Just move to Davinci Resolve. I just made the switch a week ago and it's amazing. It actually takes advantage of more cores and uses the GPU well.
I like Davinci but the node thing gets weird and it has crashed on me as well. Also I use After Effects so since I'm paying for it I might as well use it.
I'm happy with what Adobe offers, I've not even considered switching. Plus I use After Effects as much as I use Premiere so another reason not to use Resolve. I hear it's better for colour grading, but I find Premiere good enough.
32gb, gtx 1070 not good enough or should Adobe actually add GPU capability from this decade?
Well if you know they don't use the GPU for playback rendering then you must need a better processor!
I shoot Sony and would love 4k120 or 8k for those times when I need to extract a photo from a video clip. I am increasingly shooting more 4k video clips and recently licensed several clips for a very good sum. I don't shoot long clips so storage isn't an issue. I would love to shoot raw video one day so i can have more control on the still image. the 1dx3 5.9 k external raw video looks like an amazing feature.
I’m sure there are exceptions but would think most people who are serious about shooting video on any regular basis are going to be using an external recorder, of which storage is significantly cheaper. Just picked up a 1TB for $110 for my Ninja V. Heck of a lot cheaper than my 128GB Sony Tough Card. 🤦🏼♂️
Good point, does the Ninja V record in 8k as in?
I know it can record in 6k (or 5.9k) as they’re touting 12bit RAW recording with the Panasonic S1H but not sure about 8k. I’m sure even if it’s not feasible with current hardware, it’ll only be a matter of time.
I prefer shooting internal, it's more portable and no cables to fuss with. Is the media pricey? Yeah, but a set of cards is no more expensive than the set for batteries for the C300.
Haha. Valid point. I hate messing with cables.
And didn’t NBC or someone use to do a “Fleecing of America” segment? That’s the current situation for the cost of both the media and the batteries. Ridiculous
You haven't paid $1 per MB in the early days or used microdrives. This camera sounds great.
No I don’t think I have haha. Imagine if that were still the price, oh man.
Back in the day I bought a 256MB thumb drive for $50. Also had some 3 1/4" floppy drives that o funny remember the price, but probably more than a dollar per mb
My first hard drive was the size of a brick, held 20 MEGAbytes, and cost $250. Happy days. I thought I'd never have to buy memory again. Then my next purchase was a modem, and I filled that hard drive within another month.
I paid $250 for a "gigantic" 24MB CF card back in the early days of digital. Before that, $1200 for a "multimedia" 2.1GB SCSI drive. All of these things start out expensive, but drop in price pretty quickly. This will happen faster, finally, now that everyone has agreed on CFexpress for the high end, just as it did when SD won for the mainstream. And this probably won't change. Everyone pretty much skipped SD UHS-III, but they'll probably support SD Express, simply because it's using the same PCIe interfaces as CFexpress.
Canon has great lenses, bad sensors. It reminds me of Apple where for decades they were bringing out new features and all you wanted is for the to FFF (Fix the Effing Finder) which eventually stood for all silly things that could be solved in a minute of programming.
As for the R line - I’ll look forward to when they finally adapt technical lenses to it
Yes the sensors have been called out a few times but I think Canon has been doing a much better job in recent times.
The lenses are amazing though right.
The only way this camera is even possible is that Canon has created a wholly improved sensor technology. The problem was fundamental -- Canon used older chip technology for their sensors. That made them slower, hotter, and noisier than Sony's. Canon may have also had a deficiency in image processing compared to Sony.
But everything they're talking about here only works if they've fixed these problems.
That would be amazing... and if that’s the case that should be the actual news... Canon fixing its sensor could make me switch to Canon from Nikon / Fuji. Sony always felt like a toy. With the caveat that they also need to move their technical lenses to the R system and that Fuji GFX or Nikon doesn’t do it first or better.
I simply don't need such a thing. My current gear is more than enough.
Honestly 6K 60p would be the perfect sweet-spot for me. 4K delivery with the ability to shoot a little slow-mo and crop in would be incredible
I am not a Canon guy, but heck. Already guys complaining about the next to be released Canon new MILC, and it is already not good enough for more or less loud internet guys...
Really, I can join the band and already tell you how maervellous next SONY Alpha release will be, but how much next Nikon Z8 or Z9 will be an expensive shame ?
How bad Nikkor Z lenses are because they do not already have released a 70-800 f/1.4 aperture and it don't weight less than 199g in a smartphone sized barrel ?
As Canon is releasing a 8K video capable photocamera, it is overkill. Not so new storage CFE card are too expensive but faster and more reliable than beloved old and slow SDcard, all that is bad news ? really ?
Really hope you are near end of your life to be so bitter. Worst part is that author is trying to tell us he is not complaining whereas he did only spit a complain about a device that is still not available and surely he already have far better usage of far better features with an older body... Something is really going wrong there !
I don’t think I came across bitter at all. In fact I applaud and thank Canon in the article, multiple times.
* "Nonetheless, the Canon EOS R5 is completely overkill and almost no one needs it. "
* "Every time I hear 8K being mentioned, my brain moonwalks away like Nick Miller from New Girl. I honestly don't care about it"
* "This isn't the case for storage options like XQD cards, CFexpress, and many UHS-II SD cards. These options are still relatively new, therefore they are currently, quite expensive in comparison. "
No, you just say it is all overkill and you, and almost everybody else too, don't need it, like all theses really too expensive storage XQD/CFE cards because they are not SDcards.
But you are pleased other guys will shell money on it on have to showcase why they poured so much money on it as a cheaper (maybe) R6 not even announced will better suit your "needs".
Fine. I am then perfectly too silly to understand your point, but you don't seem to understand your own point of view either.
Really hope the next SONY Alpha7 will not have such a datasheet, as it is seems really too overkill for pro videographers on youtube and internet...
It reminds me the obious comment from Bill Gates about the 640k memory, but here it does more look like an excuse to write a really stranger article about a not even available new camera
Seriously boys, here you write that R5 is too much for you and certainly too much for everbody else.
But strangely, many guys like you are always seeking for the best thing, that better features, ready to shell out tons of money changing their whole system for a silly feature, but now a big feature list from Canon is too much...
Others write that nikon f/1.8 lenses are not good enough because they are not 1.2 or 1.4, others write that thing is not enough that and this other thing is too much blablabla...
Sorry, but all theses are only silly complains. But of course, I am not a writer from this website, so I can only be wrong.
You're not wrong for liking something and of course you're welcome to disagree with me on any of the points I make. That doesn't make me me right and you wrong, in any way. I feel bad that I even have to point that out.
I should mention though that the tone of the article is not one that is complaining. I get that it's not the shortest article but did you get time to read the whole thing please?
i'm already disappointed with the possible specs of the 1dx4. I long for the days of the D1 and wish my batteries still worked on that camera. All I needed back then was a 64mb card.
Man, you took all the wrong points from this article and inserted a few of your own that aren't there.
Noting that CFE cards are expensive is, um, just true. Noting that 8K is overkill for many, especially raw, and will eat up storage like it's nothing is, um, true.
Presumably you read the title of the article before reading. It's an accurate title for everything that follows, which is why the R5 is not for him, and probably not for many.
That whole 8K rant is useless. The author obviously did not get the point that people use 8K for reframing/cropping in post. Besides, he also probably never heard of proxies. The camera is not even out yet, and we're already seeing all these frustrated "reviewers" ranting about what is wrong with it. Go back play with your perfect Sony and stop wasting bandwidth just for the sake of keeping your names above the rest.
I use Canon for my actual work.
I feel like you missed the tone here though.
Give your opinion when the camera is actually out, then maybe I'll get the tone. Now you're just trying to stay on top of the headlines just for the sake of it. Yes I know, that's how the internet works, but it doesn't mean I can't complain about it.
We have a good deal of information already to make intelligent assumptions.
The tone is quite clear in the article. check out the final thoughts section if you don’t have time to read the whole thing.
Read articles on the camera when it is actually out, and you can avoid being so upset by words on a screen :)
Are only photoblog websites not allowed to discuss the specs of an unreleased camera or does it also apply to everyone else? Better start handing out notes to people in the streets, camp at camera stores and post your complaint in every forum on every website in every country.
He can discuss all the specs he wants, of course, that's not my point though. However, writing a negative piece about a camera that's not been released, that's quite problematic now, isn't it? And the fact that HE doesn't need it because of his lack of knowledge of the film industry doesn't mean that it's a bad move from Canon. I'm open for discussions, absolutely, but not when they turned into click-bait titles.
All other products in all other industries are discussed when specs are out in the public. Cars, CPU,s, .... everybody gives their opinion about it, negative and positive. The consequence about the specs, negative and positive. If Mercedes brings out a car that has 2000HP, don't you think somebody, someone, will point out that it is overkill for most people? And that the mileage will be ridiculous? Even when the car is still not on the road or finished? I don't understand why you make such a fuzz about it. The things he said that will impact your workflow and storage are correct and when he said most people won't need 8K, is undoubtedly also correct. And when he said something that was his own opinion of preference, he stated it accordingly.
I'm the first guy to hate on stupid clickbait articles, but this is ridiculous.
I think the author was sensible in putting his worries.
Even working proxies I can't imagine how many gigs per second a 8k RAW video consumes.
All the equipment to work 8k RAW will probably cost in the tens of thousands. A beast computer machine, huge amounts of storage, several $1000 CF Express cards, etc.
Of course there are people who make use of this. But I feel like people willing to invest $20 to 30k in video gear are going to aim for Cinema cameras, not a hybrid cam.
Given what the 1DX III 5.5K RAW consumes in file space, 8K RAW will be... ungodly for most people.
This is why I have no interest in cameras like this, for video anyway. If I'm going to shoot raw video, I'll use a cinema camera with good compressed raw codecs and record to affordable external media and have the form and function of an actual cinema camera. But I pretty much hate using stills cameras for video all around, file size aside.