My concern is not knowing where the R5II fits in for video compared to the R3 and R1. How does the dynamic range drop off at different codecs and recording options at 4K? Just like on the photo side does the R3 out perform the R5II in pure video output? Meaning at 4K 60p and 4K 120p what quality do you get with the R5II compared to the R3 and is the R1 video better than the R5II and R3? I have tried the R5II and R3 but not the R1. I'm not convinced that the R5II outputs better video than the R3. I know the R5II has clog2 and more video options but from my test the R5II didn't perform better than the R3 in video like the R3 did over the R5. I see a big jump between the R3 and R5 when it comes to video and photo quality.
The R5ii has better video quality and professional level film making tools that neither the R1 or the R3 have. That is what is so goofy with these offerings. That’s the only non cinema camera in the canon line up to have waveforms. I like the R5ii video quality better the sensor is tweaked very well in some cases better than the R3. Clog2 is definitely a bonus.
@@camerasutra247 You are kidding right? I'm talking about final image quality. I could care less about waveforms. The R5 does not have better image quality over the R3. I have done hundreds of hours of footage from both cameras. A lot of people said the R3 was very close to the C70 in image quality and test have proven that. You can't just say the R5II produces a better image compared to the R3 without doing test. The R5II dynamic range and clog2 quality is always referenced in 8K RAW. I'm not convinced that R5II 4K footage is better than what the R3 produces. Test have already shown that the R3 outperforms the R1 in photo in a lot of ways for dynamic range and better in low light. Canon put a lot of new features in the R5II but I feel they sacrificed image quality at different codecs / video record options. You have to goto 4K fine to match 4K out of the R3 and no one has done test that show image quality across the board. The eye test shows that the R3 video contains more data and better color depth. People have also said that clog2 on the R5II is hit and miss. The R1 is also said to produce a better image in video compared to the R5II. Again, more processing power equals more data and a better image. Please don't make the R5II into a spec camera with claims that it's a cine camera that produces cine quality image. Everything option outside of 4K fine and 8K RAW at 60p produces a lower than expected image. Test have shown this also.
@@camerasutra247 Can you show test that show the R5II's better video quality over the R3 and R1? On paper it's supposed to be better than the R3 but not the R1. Even Canon's R1 page says that the R1 has better video quality because of the processing power it has under the hood. We don't know about the r3 because reports are that the R3 has the better image quality in photo and video. We can see that the r3 has better photo image quality. When you they gave the R5II fast AF and burst they have to lose something in quality. Every camera maker can only put so much into each camera because the camera is like a min computer and you have to allocate power and speed in all modes which leaves less processing power for video and photo quality. Even the Lumix line up had to sacrifice dynamic range for better AF performance.
From a long-term profitability perspective, keeping the RF mount closed to 3rd party may be more profitable to Canon even if they loose a little market share. Especially if the camera market keeps shifting to cell phones. Perhaps their experience with EF mount has informed them of the financial considerations of keeping a mount open, such that they now recognize greater profitability if they keep it closed.
Make a 6D Mark 3 with the original sensor and software around it with no video, 11-15 AF points, all cross-type, 6 frames per second, ability to spot meter on all AF points, a switch, not a button and wheel, to quickly change metering modes, and a swivel or fulling articulating screen. Also, produce EF lenses designed for character and micro contrast. This would be the perfect camera system IMO.
What you suggested about R3 going APS C would likely be a top seller with perhaps a stacked 32mp sensor. As far as button placement goes l guess they are experimenting with what best for the mirror less bodies but they still don't have it right, until they copy Nikon and Sony with the on/off switch (which will never happen) it will never be right. Not sure why they refuse to copy another brand with on/off switch but happily copy with a retro body. If Canon bought out a good 150/600mm l would not need third party lenses.
Also, I shoot with the R5 and A1 and the R5 is easier and a better shooting experience and has better color over the A1. Sony color I just don't understand.
@@camerasutra247 I know that. I don't like how Sony treats color on the A1 compared to the FX3 and all Canon cameras. In which way is the A1 a different animal? If you could get the A1 for the same price as the R5II which camera would you go with?
Yo Sasriyakal.. Agree .Its time Canon stopped this Hybrid stuff…and make specific cameras for exclusively still shooters like the 5DS etc…like myself…99.9% stills - full frame…and agree with your thoughts. Listen #canon.
@@camerasutra247 That doesn't make sense. Do you think the R5II would be a better camera if it was only a photo camera? That's what the R1 is for. More processing power that can perform photo at a the highest level. That same increase in processing power crosses over to video performance. Canon choses to not provide higher RAW outputs across the board to protect the Canon cine line up. Old school cine shooters will never support the R1 as a cine cameras because it's a hybrid. The same goes for the A1 from Sony. But make the Fx3 with the cine menu and limit photo abilities and the cine world loves it. It's about perception more than anything else. The A1 sensor is in the BURANO. That should count for something.
@@camerasutra247 sadly alot of this is obeying what the algos want are steering content directions so are they really producing what they want or just working for the adverts?
Nope I actually have sources that are not rumors they are employed by the brand and professionals in the field. This is why so many times I have stated the opposite of what rumor sites report and they have been flat out wrong.
My concern is not knowing where the R5II fits in for video compared to the R3 and R1. How does the dynamic range drop off at different codecs and recording options at 4K? Just like on the photo side does the R3 out perform the R5II in pure video output? Meaning at 4K 60p and 4K 120p what quality do you get with the R5II compared to the R3 and is the R1 video better than the R5II and R3? I have tried the R5II and R3 but not the R1. I'm not convinced that the R5II outputs better video than the R3. I know the R5II has clog2 and more video options but from my test the R5II didn't perform better than the R3 in video like the R3 did over the R5. I see a big jump between the R3 and R5 when it comes to video and photo quality.
The R5ii has better video quality and professional level film making tools that neither the R1 or the R3 have. That is what is so goofy with these offerings. That’s the only non cinema camera in the canon line up to have waveforms. I like the R5ii video quality better the sensor is tweaked very well in some cases better than the R3. Clog2 is definitely a bonus.
@@camerasutra247 You are kidding right? I'm talking about final image quality. I could care less about waveforms. The R5 does not have better image quality over the R3. I have done hundreds of hours of footage from both cameras. A lot of people said the R3 was very close to the C70 in image quality and test have proven that.
You can't just say the R5II produces a better image compared to the R3 without doing test. The R5II dynamic range and clog2 quality is always referenced in 8K RAW. I'm not convinced that R5II 4K footage is better than what the R3 produces.
Test have already shown that the R3 outperforms the R1 in photo in a lot of ways for dynamic range and better in low light.
Canon put a lot of new features in the R5II but I feel they sacrificed image quality at different codecs / video record options.
You have to goto 4K fine to match 4K out of the R3 and no one has done test that show image quality across the board.
The eye test shows that the R3 video contains more data and better color depth. People have also said that clog2 on the R5II is hit and miss. The R1 is also said to produce a better image in video compared to the R5II. Again, more processing power equals more data and a better image.
Please don't make the R5II into a spec camera with claims that it's a cine camera that produces cine quality image. Everything option outside of 4K fine and 8K RAW at 60p produces a lower than expected image. Test have shown this also.
@@camerasutra247 Can you show test that show the R5II's better video quality over the R3 and R1? On paper it's supposed to be better than the R3 but not the R1. Even Canon's R1 page says that the R1 has better video quality because of the processing power it has under the hood.
We don't know about the r3 because reports are that the R3 has the better image quality in photo and video. We can see that the r3 has better photo image quality.
When you they gave the R5II fast AF and burst they have to lose something in quality.
Every camera maker can only put so much into each camera because the camera is like a min computer and you have to allocate power and speed in all modes which leaves less processing power for video and photo quality. Even the Lumix line up had to sacrifice dynamic range for better AF performance.
From a long-term profitability perspective, keeping the RF mount closed to 3rd party may be more profitable to Canon even if they loose a little market share. Especially if the camera market keeps shifting to cell phones. Perhaps their experience with EF mount has informed them of the financial considerations of keeping a mount open, such that they now recognize greater profitability if they keep it closed.
@@mikede2464 I understand, but I don’t think people are gonna let them off the hook until they get there so-called third-party lenses.
Firstly 🎉
@@bigboi36 ❤️
Make a 6D Mark 3 with the original sensor and software around it with no video, 11-15 AF points, all cross-type, 6 frames per second, ability to spot meter on all AF points, a switch, not a button and wheel, to quickly change metering modes, and a swivel or fulling articulating screen. Also, produce EF lenses designed for character and micro contrast. This would be the perfect camera system IMO.
@@Dngrov257 You are reading my mind
I am on your side Donald, Skip that rumoured retro model in favour for 1 more EF camera!
What you suggested about R3 going APS C would likely be a top seller with perhaps a stacked 32mp sensor. As far as button placement goes l guess they are experimenting with what best for the mirror less bodies but they still don't have it right, until they copy Nikon and Sony with the on/off switch (which will never happen) it will never be right. Not sure why they refuse to copy another brand with on/off switch but happily copy with a retro body. If Canon bought out a good 150/600mm l would not need third party lenses.
@@isotechimages.9130
The switch already exist on the R1. So there’s no reason why they cannot put it into other cameras and make it consistent.
@@camerasutra247 Nah still prefer their cameras to have the on/off switch a ring around shutter button
Also, I shoot with the R5 and A1 and the R5 is easier and a better shooting experience and has better color over the A1. Sony color I just don't understand.
Sony is a different animal
@@camerasutra247 I know that. I don't like how Sony treats color on the A1 compared to the FX3 and all Canon cameras.
In which way is the A1 a different animal?
If you could get the A1 for the same price as the R5II which camera would you go with?
@ Both Nikon and Sony are though when dealing with human subjects.
@@camerasutra247 For color accuracy?
Yo Sasriyakal.. Agree .Its time Canon stopped this Hybrid stuff…and make specific cameras for exclusively still shooters like the 5DS etc…like myself…99.9% stills - full frame…and agree with your thoughts. Listen #canon.
There is no substitute for a master camera versus one that does it all mediocre.
@@camerasutra247 That doesn't make sense. Do you think the R5II would be a better camera if it was only a photo camera? That's what the R1 is for. More processing power that can perform photo at a the highest level. That same increase in processing power crosses over to video performance. Canon choses to not provide higher RAW outputs across the board to protect the Canon cine line up. Old school cine shooters will never support the R1 as a cine cameras because it's a hybrid. The same goes for the A1 from Sony. But make the Fx3 with the cine menu and limit photo abilities and the cine world loves it. It's about perception more than anything else. The A1 sensor is in the BURANO. That should count for something.
other YT'ers" Guys guys the R5 Mark II is the "real flagship " .... 4 weeks later.. "Everyone leaving Canon" lol
@@arcadecup yup funny how the tune changes every week
@@camerasutra247 sadly alot of this is obeying what the algos want are steering content directions so are they really producing what they want or just working for the adverts?
@ UA-camrs are turning into Spielberg’s. That’s the difference.
@@camerasutra247 spot on! thats it.
@@camerasutra247 What does that mean?
You said rumor sites. Aren't you a rumor site at times?
Nope I actually have sources that are not rumors they are employed by the brand and professionals in the field. This is why so many times I have stated the opposite of what rumor sites report and they have been flat out wrong.
What are you on about?
@@nigelblake1558 🙏
Definitely need a retro style, RE-1, and we need something unique like an xpan digital panoramic
@@gary0078 👍❤️