News Canon EOS R5 public reaction: 'Can we have a stills camera, please?'

Gam3r01

Moderator
Apr 1, 2020
32
6
35
Its always interesting to see how people react to a product not marketed at them. Of course photographers wouldnt be amazed by video, thats not their field.
I understand the desire for a "stills camera" but why bother creating a niche market anyhow.
From the articles; "If you want to shoot video- go buy a video camera ", well since this camera is heavily geared toward video, would that not then make this a video camera that also has great stills capability?
Or how the general consensus is negative when a modern camera has less than stellar video capabilities? EOS RP for example, is generally reviewed poorly for video performance, and agreed it should not be considered an option for primarily video use.

It would be interesting to see the "photographers" take vs the "videographers" take.
 
Apr 24, 2020
3
1
15
It's frustrating to see all these years this pointless argument against video is still going on. I could understand the problem if the stills performance of the camera was compromised for the video function like the Sony A7S series (which I understand is intended for video so that's not a complaint) but that's not the case here and the core of the complaint seems to be people feel they are paying extra for a video function they don't want. Which is unlikely to be the case as I expect Canon and others can add these features for comparatively little given they've developed the technology already and it can be mostly added to a mirror less camera without much additional physical cost.

On the other hand there is a cost to stripping out video features because you're going to reduce the number of possible buyers when up against rivals who have similar stills performance but better video.

If you want video buy a video camera is another very old argument I remember seeing all the time way back when I bought my Panasonic GH1. As primarily a photographer I'd dipped my toe in the world of video cameras a few times and never got on that well but the GH1 to me was superb, it was a familiar design I could use for stills as normal yet also take great video without another device. For similar reasons I now use an A7SII primarily for video as I like the design and handling plus I can share the lenses with the A9 I use primarily for stills. Although the S is low resolution I still find it takes decent stills when I need to and even then I don't see video on the A9 as a negative, it's an absolutely incredible stills camera that the video doesn't affect in any way plus I have the bonus if I do ever need video such as when I don't have the S with me it's still very capable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jdmcdonnell
Apr 24, 2020
1
0
10
This article is not looking forward.

Almost ALL small form factor digital cameras out there have mostly been designed with photographers in mind, while the video codecs are pathetic. What I (and many of my co-workers) have wanted is a serious mixed media camera. That is my job and we need tools to be light. Preconceptions around video cameras have moved on from 50 pound cameras mounted to a 30 pound lens on a Fischer dolly. That isn't where we are anymore.

What has been sorely lacking is something that can shoot RAW photo and RAW video in 12 + bit. I know MANY professionals who will consider buying this camera, if that is really the benchmarks it brings. We need cameras with better color for photo AND video.

There are a zillion other small form factor cameras out there designed specifically for photo. It's been years since I invested in a Canon, but if Canon drops 8K RAW video in this with dual pixel focusing... well, they have my attention. Even if their lenses are still a bit bland.
 

MeS

Apr 24, 2020
1
0
10
But let's address the underlying question. What does the video functionality of a camera like this add to the cost?
 

Gam3r01

Moderator
Apr 1, 2020
32
6
35
But let's address the underlying question. What does the video functionality of a camera like this add to the cost?
Given how integrated these sorts of designs are these days, it would probably cost more to design a platform *without* these functions.
 
Apr 25, 2020
1
0
10
This article and opinion is a bit premature and a bit unnecessary.

The already announced photography features are excellent. 12 fps at 45MP (20FPSsilent) with new eye tracking and a combined 5-7 stops of stabilization and great RF glass are all fantastic. All that is missing is noise and contrast information.

I’m buying one ASAP.
 
Apr 25, 2020
1
0
10
What does video capabilities add to the cost of the camera? Just the cost to license the video codecs. The camera has a fast processor to allow for fast auto focus, eye auto focus, focus in low light,high-speed burst mode, fast buffer writes etc. This also allows for the gee-whiz video. THIS WILL BE A VERY CAPABLE STILLS CAMERA! So what if, at the moment, they're trying to catch the attention of videographers? That takes away exactly nothing (zero, zilch, nada) from the stills capability of this exciting camera. This whole click-baity pearl-clutching nonsense is a tempest in a teapot. Focus on your usage and see if it ticks your checkboxes. I'm a stills photographer with no interest in video at the moment and I'm excited enough by it to get one in my hands as soon as I can.
 
Apr 25, 2020
3
0
10
Given how integrated these sorts of designs are these days, it would probably cost more to design a platform *without* these functions.
Though it may not add too much in terms of production cost, there will always be a additional mark up just because of the specs versus those of competitors - however, one also needs to consider the total cost of ownership - can someone's current computer cpu, gpu, disk drives, RAM, monitors, etc meet the challenges that will be created by 8K, the file sizes etc.
 
Apr 25, 2020
2
0
10
Heretofore, Canon's SLR's have been s&^ty for video. If you're a photographer complaining about the R5, just buy one of those cameras. Totally nonsensical.
 
Apr 25, 2020
2
0
10
however, one also needs to consider the total cost of ownership - can someone's current computer cpu, gpu, disk drives, RAM, monitors, etc meet the challenges that will be created by 8K, the file sizes etc.
I don't understand your point. If you're a photographer you don't need anything more than a 6 year old computer. So for the photographers complaining, the system won't add any additional costs for them.

Most professional video people I know and myself aren't going to use 8K. But we do want a 4K 60P capable camera without crop factor and with a decent codec. This is the ONLY small body Canon camera to do so. For large bodies for less than $30,000 there are only two right now, the C500 Mk II and 1DX Mark III.
 
Apr 25, 2020
3
0
10
I don't understand your point. If you're a photographer you don't need anything more than a 6 year old computer. So for the photographers complaining, the system won't add any additional costs for them.

Most professional video people I know and myself aren't going to use 8K. But we do want a 4K 60P capable camera without crop factor and with a decent codec. This is the ONLY small body Canon camera to do so. For large bodies for less than $30,000 there are only two right now, the C500 Mk II and 1DX Mark III.
If you don't understand the point it's because you don't want to. Large files and high resolutions cannot be handled by most 6 year old hardware - the gpus and cpus wouldn't have the 'grunt'; you most certainly will need a new monitor if yours is 6 years old - tech of that era just can't handle 8K, in fact most could not handle 4k or even 2K - 1080p was considered quite exotic. On top of that, 6 years ago SSDs were a) incredibly expensive, small in storage and slow - so your 6 year old computer setup will need serious upgrades.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY