Jump to content

The New Canon EOS R5 C camera. Anyone Interested?


Max Field
 Share

Recommended Posts

They finally made a camera that fills all of my workflow demands for a tiny camera (swivel screen, internal recording, etc) however I was wondering if anyone had experience with the footage of this camera? I read somewhere it has 14 stops of dynamic range but I was wondering how people felt about the color science of it? Haven't seen too many side-by-side shootouts with this camera and an Arri sensor.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1684244-REG/canon_5077c002_eos_r5_c_full_frame.html

And does anyone know if that fan on the side gets ridiculously loud??? Thanks.

Some last moment Canon EOS R5C cinema camera leaks - Photo Rumors

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The R5c's internal fan is allegedly the same as that found in the C300 MK III.  I own a C300 MK III and I can truthfully say that, with the fan set to auto, I have never heard it running, even in a quiet studio.

That said, I have pre-ordered an R5c to compliment the above C300, so we'll see how that goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ron Wilk said:

The R5c's internal fan is allegedly the same as that found in the C300 MK III.  I own a C300 MK III and I can truthfully say that, with the fan set to auto, I have never heard it running, even in a quiet studio.

That said, I have pre-ordered an R5c to compliment the above C300, so we'll see how that goes.

Please update us with any drawbacks you experience with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I have a R5, we got it for stills mostly, but we're also using it for our new YouTube show. 

I'm very impressed with the camera, it's a very good imager. The codec is so/so, but 480Mbps is not bad for 4k .h264 10 bit 4:2:2. It downsamples the full 8k imager to achieve a 4k image as well, which is super nice. 

I will say for the record, the R5C really only adds one major feature and that's the fan to keep it cool. My R5's fan runs constantly and its dead quiet. It's basically the same camera as the R5 and it's MORE expensive! Man I just threw down $6k to get lenses, body, rig, accessories, extended warranty and ALL of it was used, heavy discount. I can't imagine buying new, insanity! By the time you're done, you'll have spent the cost of a much higher end camera. That's my biggest beef. Everyone sees 8k and screams, but reality is there are so many cameras coming out at NAB this year, it's going to flood the market with similar resolution cameras. Canon is first to the 8k "mini" cinema camera party, but I think like always, they will be trounced by Blackmagic come April. They're working on two new cameras, most likely miniaturizing the 12k UMP and making a true pocket cinema camera again, using the same tech as the 4k. So we should see some new products from them, Sony, Panasonic and even Canon at NAB, which may change your opinion on the R5c. 

My biggest beef with the R5C is the same beef with the R5, to record 8k, you need a CF card, which are grossly expensive. They have no real audio built in, so you're having to run boxes and adaptors. The internal codec, where FAR better than any other canon at this resolution, is still so/so. Recording externally defeats the purpose of a small camera. Battery life is so/so, better than the pockets, but not by much. The Canon menus are better than they have been in the past, but they're still tricky to get around. Cameras like the 6k Pro have built in ND filters, 2 tracks of XLR phantom powered audio, 3hr battery (battery grip) and of course full imager Pro Res capture with raw, plus USB C drive compatibility for capture, no need for CF cards. I have to admit, getting back into digital cinematography right now, is kinda interesting because frankly there are more options than there ever have been. 

Color science wise, the Canon cinema cameras look WAY better. No contest, totally different planet. Matching the R5 to a Canon cinema camera would require a great deal of work and compromise on the cinema camera shots that I'd kinda say it's not worth it. Where I do think Canon cameras in general have good color science, again the pocket wins in this department. Just using the Pocket 6k Pro, you immediately notice it looks more cinematic in the viewfinder. When you start to grade the files, the workflow is identical to the Alexa for instance. Same ol' Pro Res files and such, it's just like working Arri LOG. That will teach you how to be a better grader. You won't get any of that with the R5C, it's going to deliver you files that look like a 4k video camera with a nice lens attached. Totally fine for documentary work which is what we're using it for and of course stills. However, I've noticed the color science in general to be a bit too refined? Like they've taken all the heart and soul out of image and focused on making it perfect looking. Similar to what Sony does with their still cameras that shoot video. Where I don't "hate it", I would never shoot a narrative with one. I'm personally waiting for whatever BMD releases in April and if they do nothing, I'll nab a Pocket Pro 6k and just live with the issues unit the next best thing comes out. I hate the form factor of the 6k pro, it's disgusting, but if that's my only major beef, that's pretty good. 

Stills wise, the thing is insane, literally the best still camera I've ever shot with. It's so good, Canon isn't even releasing another 8k camera like it, all their new cameras are less than 8k, which tells ya something. I've punched in 40x on images in photoshop and just seen grain, no aliasing, no pixels, just beautiful grain. They've struck something with this camera on the stills mode. With the video mode, again it's ok. Auto focus is pretty cool, but not as flawless as the reviewers make it out to be. It's if anything annoying for video because when it gets it wrong, you can't just fix it easily, it's always hunting to find the next focus marker. With stills it's better, but with video I'd say it's 70% accurate and with stills it's 90% accurate. So that's what makes the still side of the camera so damn good. 

So the R5C is again, pretty much the same camera just with a fan and a few little additions to make it more "video" tailored, but at a cost of being $1k more money AND bigger/heavier, which the R5 is already kinda big and heavy. So umm... IDK, is it worth it for video only? I'd say no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Who wants to deal with a single micro-HDMI output in this day and age?
 

Such a significant headache for almost everything. So it strikes me that there are far more appealing options in the mirrorless space at present. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mark Kenfield said:

Who wants to deal with a single micro-HDMI output in this day and age?
 

Such a significant headache for almost everything. So it strikes me that there are far more appealing options in the mirrorless space at present. 

In your opinion what is the best tiny camera with a side-swivel screen and internal 4:2:2+ recording? Been on the hunt for like 5 years for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2022 at 8:58 PM, Max Field said:

Please update us with any drawbacks you experience with it

Definitely will, but despite the fact that I'd pre-ordered the morning that such had become available, given my past experience with pre-orders I don't expect to see the camera anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2022 at 9:00 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

I have a R5, we got it for stills mostly, but we're also using it for our new YouTube show. 

I'm very impressed with the camera, it's a very good imager. The codec is so/so, but 480Mbps is not bad for 4k .h264 10 bit 4:2:2. It downsamples the full 8k imager to achieve a 4k image as well, which is super nice. 

I will say for the record, the R5C really only adds one major feature and that's the fan to keep it cool. My R5's fan runs constantly and its dead quiet. It's basically the same camera as the R5 and it's MORE expensive! Man I just threw down $6k to get lenses, body, rig, accessories, extended warranty and ALL of it was used, heavy discount. I can't imagine buying new, insanity! By the time you're done, you'll have spent the cost of a much higher end camera. That's my biggest beef. Everyone sees 8k and screams, but reality is there are so many cameras coming out at NAB this year, it's going to flood the market with similar resolution cameras. Canon is first to the 8k "mini" cinema camera party, but I think like always, they will be trounced by Blackmagic come April. They're working on two new cameras, most likely miniaturizing the 12k UMP and making a true pocket cinema camera again, using the same tech as the 4k. So we should see some new products from them, Sony, Panasonic and even Canon at NAB, which may change your opinion on the R5c. 

My biggest beef with the R5C is the same beef with the R5, to record 8k, you need a CF card, which are grossly expensive. They have no real audio built in, so you're having to run boxes and adaptors. The internal codec, where FAR better than any other canon at this resolution, is still so/so. Recording externally defeats the purpose of a small camera. Battery life is so/so, better than the pockets, but not by much. The Canon menus are better than they have been in the past, but they're still tricky to get around. Cameras like the 6k Pro have built in ND filters, 2 tracks of XLR phantom powered audio, 3hr battery (battery grip) and of course full imager Pro Res capture with raw, plus USB C drive compatibility for capture, no need for CF cards. I have to admit, getting back into digital cinematography right now, is kinda interesting because frankly there are more options than there ever have been. 

Color science wise, the Canon cinema cameras look WAY better. No contest, totally different planet. Matching the R5 to a Canon cinema camera would require a great deal of work and compromise on the cinema camera shots that I'd kinda say it's not worth it. Where I do think Canon cameras in general have good color science, again the pocket wins in this department. Just using the Pocket 6k Pro, you immediately notice it looks more cinematic in the viewfinder. When you start to grade the files, the workflow is identical to the Alexa for instance. Same ol' Pro Res files and such, it's just like working Arri LOG. That will teach you how to be a better grader. You won't get any of that with the R5C, it's going to deliver you files that look like a 4k video camera with a nice lens attached. Totally fine for documentary work which is what we're using it for and of course stills. However, I've noticed the color science in general to be a bit too refined? Like they've taken all the heart and soul out of image and focused on making it perfect looking. Similar to what Sony does with their still cameras that shoot video. Where I don't "hate it", I would never shoot a narrative with one. I'm personally waiting for whatever BMD releases in April and if they do nothing, I'll nab a Pocket Pro 6k and just live with the issues unit the next best thing comes out. I hate the form factor of the 6k pro, it's disgusting, but if that's my only major beef, that's pretty good. 

Stills wise, the thing is insane, literally the best still camera I've ever shot with. It's so good, Canon isn't even releasing another 8k camera like it, all their new cameras are less than 8k, which tells ya something. I've punched in 40x on images in photoshop and just seen grain, no aliasing, no pixels, just beautiful grain. They've struck something with this camera on the stills mode. With the video mode, again it's ok. Auto focus is pretty cool, but not as flawless as the reviewers make it out to be. It's if anything annoying for video because when it gets it wrong, you can't just fix it easily, it's always hunting to find the next focus marker. With stills it's better, but with video I'd say it's 70% accurate and with stills it's 90% accurate. So that's what makes the still side of the camera so damn good. 

So the R5C is again, pretty much the same camera just with a fan and a few little additions to make it more "video" tailored, but at a cost of being $1k more money AND bigger/heavier, which the R5 is already kinda big and heavy. So umm... IDK, is it worth it for video only? I'd say no. 

I believe that you'd overstated the price differential between the R5 and the R5c ... it's only a $600 difference.  And the fan isn't the only added feature, in fact, it will have many elements of the feature set seen in the larger cine cameras, like the C300 MK III and C500, and that includes the menu system, vector-scope, WFM and much more. However, it's not my intention to denigrate the R5, which is a fine FF stills camera, but I had one on hand that I'd returned due to the overheating issues with high FR 4k video which is real, not imagined.  The only issue I anticipate that might make grading video from the R5c and the C300 together somewhat problematic is the absence of Log2, which the C300 MK III does have and I tend to use, rather than Log3.

As for form factor, I prefer larger cameras, and I suspect that I will have to add the battery grip to achieve a comfortable and stable hold when shooting handheld, the rest of the time the camera will reside on either a monopod or a tripod.

All that said, if you think that the R5 is "already big and heavy" then MF or true cine cameras would be out of the question. I find that very small and light cameras—whether for general photography or video—are not only difficult to hold, but are hard to keep steady.  But those are my personal feelings, and everyone has their own likes and dislikes.

Edited by Ron Wilk
Content
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 1/26/2022 at 10:01 PM, Max Field said:

In your opinion what is the best tiny camera with a side-swivel screen and internal 4:2:2+ recording? Been on the hunt for like 5 years for one.

Sony FX3 or Canon C70 are the two obvious candidates. Both have a single full-sized HDMI output and swivel screen.

The Sony has better AF and the larger sensor, but the Canon has internal NDs. There's a size penalty with the Canon if absolute tininess is the goal, but the internal NDs would be a big help for general usability.

The FX3 has multiple 1/4"-20 mounting holes on it, which means (unlike every other tiny mirrorless camera in existence) you can actually attach a cage to it rigidly. To which you can then actually attach a baseplate or tripod plate RIGIDLY (a hugely underated feature that's basically essential for any real motion picture work). The C70 is a tiny video camera, so it has multiple holes on the bottom by default.

Those are the two I'd be looking at, both hugely impressive with your particular goals in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mark Kenfield said:

Sony FX3 or Canon C70 are the two obvious candidates. Both have a single full-sized HDMI output and swivel screen.

The Sony has better AF and the larger sensor, but the Canon has internal NDs. There's a size penalty with the Canon if absolute tininess is the goal, but the internal NDs would be a big help for general usability.

The FX3 has multiple 1/4"-20 mounting holes on it, which means (unlike every other tiny mirrorless camera in existence) you can actually attach a cage to it rigidly. To which you can then actually attach a baseplate or tripod plate RIGIDLY (a hugely underated feature that's basically essential for any real motion picture work). The C70 is a tiny video camera, so it has multiple holes on the bottom by default.

Those are the two I'd be looking at, both hugely impressive with your particular goals in mind.

Be aware, that neither of the two suggested cameras have an integral EVF, nor is there an OEM option to add one.  Depending upon how and where you intend to use the camera, that omission could present a challenge, particularly when trying to shoot in bright sunlight.  But if "small" is your goal, an A7sIII might be a better choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
19 hours ago, Ron Wilk said:

I believe that you'd overstated the price differential between the R5 and the R5c ... it's only a $600 difference. 

Yes that was my bad, we got ours for $3400, so I was thinking of that number, not retail. 

19 hours ago, Ron Wilk said:

And the fan isn't the only added feature, in fact, it will have many elements of the feature set seen in the larger cine cameras, like the C300 MK III and C500, and that includes the menu system, vector-scope, WFM and much more.

I mean what user shooting with a stills camera, cares about a vectorscope? The R5 has a histogram, it has zebras, it has false color,  and the menu system is totally fine. I'd love to know what else the camera does because I can't find anything outside of software and the big box on the back with a fan. 

19 hours ago, Ron Wilk said:

However, it's not my intention to denigrate the R5, which is a fine FF stills camera, but I had one on hand that I'd returned due to the overheating issues with high FR 4k video which is real, not imagined. 

They released a firmware update that fixes the overheating issue. Now you can shoot 4k 60 all-I 10 bit 4:2:2 for 35 minutes. Nobody in their right mind would shoot for 35 min straight at 60 anyway, no reason. If you start/stop the camera, even for a few seconds, you can extend that time considerably. I'm not gonna defend the camera, it is a toy "video" wise, but everyone complains about the overheating issues doing tasks that aren't ever done. 

19 hours ago, Ron Wilk said:

The only issue I anticipate that might make grading video from the R5c and the C300 together somewhat problematic is the absence of Log2, which the C300 MK III does have and I tend to use, rather than Log3.

The color science isn't even remotely close. I've shot with the C300MKII quite a bit and it looks like a cinema camera, it has this very nice softer feel to the imager, the R5 does not. 

19 hours ago, Ron Wilk said:

As for form factor, I prefer larger cameras, and I suspect that I will have to add the battery grip to achieve a comfortable and stable hold when shooting handheld, the rest of the time the camera will reside on either a monopod or a tripod.

Sure, my complaint about the form factor is that it's a still camera and they're already heavy, so now you're adding more bulk on the "C" version and making it more unwieldy to hand hold, which is kind of the only reason to own a small lightweight camera like this right? If you're gonna always throw it on a tripod, there are better video cameras in my opinion, for much less money. We also never shoot with cheap lightweight glass, maybe people who use the plastic lenses won't feel this? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R5c's "color science" remains an unknown at the present time, but for those of us who shoot log gamma or RAW and grade in post, it isn't really an issue.  I agree that the rear protrusion might be awkward at first, but it is reminiscent of the Fuji GFX50s that I still own, along with all of the the other GFX cameras (50r, GFX100, GFX100s) and I don't anticipate that it will be problematic. Remember, this not being marketed as a stills camera, and I doubt that it will reach the level of a Swiss Army Knife in terms of its utility, it is first and foremost video camera.  And as a video camera it will most likely spend most of its time on a tripod, monopod or other supportive devices.

"If you're gonna always throw it on a tripod, there are better video cameras in my opinion, for much less money."  I would be interested to hear about those video cameras.

I was not aware that the firmware update for the R5 has negated the overheating issue.  I'm not sure, however, how that could have been accomplished, and if I had to guess I would say that they reset the software time-out for overheating.  But overheating is not only a factor of the camera's internal components, it relates as well to atmospheric conditions. And here in S Florida it gets hot, and so does a camera sitting out in the sun.

Anyway, I will reserve my opinion of the R5c until I actually have it in hand and have had a change to put it through its paces.  I have no intention of using it as a stills camera, despite its apparent capability, and would relegate that function to the R5, with IBIS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I've just scrolled through the entire R5c manual, and it appears to be a reprint of the R5 manual, with no reference to its video functions.  Hopefully, this isn't the final manual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Ron Wilk said:

I've just scrolled through the entire R5c manual, and it appears to be a reprint of the R5 manual, with no reference to its video functions.  Hopefully, this isn't the final manual.

That's odd, the R5 manual that comes with the camera has plenty of information about the video settings. From my understanding the R5C only add's a fan, which only really helps for higher frame rates. We can do 8k raw @ 24fps until a card fills up, before it over heats. So unless you're one of those crazy people shooting 60fps all the time, the advantage of the "C" model, doesn't really exist. We may get a "C" just so we can do 2 camera setup's for interviews and such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is odd that the online manual does not make much of the video function, but I'd found it on only one site—Canon Europe—and it may not be the final product.  As for the similarities and or differences between the R5 and the R5c, my understanding is that it offers more of the features that I've been accustomed to with my C300 MK III, and I don't customarily shoot 24fps.  However, we each see through a different lens—no pun intended—and the R5c is, based upon its specs, clearly, a more video-centric camera than the R5.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 hours ago, Ron Wilk said:

However, we each see through a different lens—no pun intended—and the R5c is, based upon its specs, clearly, a more video-centric camera than the R5.

They don't want to compete with the C70, so the camera isn't really anything ground breaking. 

The standard R5 has one major flaw, the thermal issues. So to fix that, they strapped a fan block on the back, had room to add a timecode port and they changed the power switch to go between video and still modes instead of using the mode select wheel. They also changed the ASIC that does the recording and now can do AVC-Intra, which is basically the same codec as the R5, just with a flashy wrapper which Avid likes better, whoop-t-doo. The fan is the only real benefit and it's worth the extra few bux if you're buying new. I think with the fan, the camera is pretty darn good. The only thing I'd add is a full sized HDMI port. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a Canon cine videographer, the fan isn't the only potential benefit of the R5c.  The video menu is basically the same as that found on the C300 Mk III, and where appropriate, with similar options.  The addition of a waveform monitor and vectorscopes is also a crucial addition.  Some may argue that the histogram is all that they require, but I and others would argue that the waveform monitor is much more informative and accurate.  Are these minor additions?  Some might say so, but I would disagree.  The absence of IBIS is, however, regrettable, but I have been using optically stabilized lenses on my C300 MK III with EIS  enabled, and have found the combination to be as effective as is the IBIS alone on my other cameras.

As for C70 competition. I would suggest that the C70 suffers from a major design flaw—it does not have an EVF.  Using an LCD in bright sunlight is an exercise in futility, and even if you manage to visualize your subject matter, good luck with critical focusing.  The most egregious omission is the lack of an accessory EVF, and from the efforts that some have gone through to attach, for example, a Zacuto EVF, the end result tends to negate the value of a small video camera.  The R5c addresses that oversight.  

 

Edited by Ron Wilk
omission
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Ron Wilk said:

For a Canon cine videographer, the fan isn't the only potential benefit of the R5c.  The video menu is basically the same as that found on the C300 Mk III, and where appropriate, with similar options.  The addition of a waveform monitor and vectorscopes is also a crucial addition. 

Sure, but that's software. They could release the same software package for the R5 if they so choose. I'm much more interested by hardware changes and the fan allows them to run a better encoder, so yes... the "fan" is the #1 new feature. Without it, none of the other "minor" updates would be possible. 

I have never once used waveform or vectorscope on a digital cinema camera. Zebra's are all I need honestly. Once you know how to work with zebra's properly, all ya need is a light meter to get the lighting dialed (ratio's and such) and you're done. 

6 hours ago, Ron Wilk said:

As for C70 competition. I would suggest that the C70 suffers from a major design flaw—it does not have an EVF.  Using an LCD in bright sunlight is an exercise in futility, and even if you manage to visualize your subject matter, good luck with critical focusing.  The most egregious omission is the lack of an accessory EVF, and from the efforts that some have gone through to attach, for example, a Zacuto EVF, the end result tends to negate the value of a small video camera.  The R5c addresses that oversight.  

The built-in EVF doesn't articulate. So it's pretty useless. Who shoots directly behind their camera and wants their nose crushed into an LCD panel as they're shooting? Not me. I haven't shot a single thing using the EVF on my R5 in video mode. If it was articulating, it would have value. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, that a fixed EVF is not ideal, but unless you are shooting in a studio or a controlled lighting environment with an external monitor, having an EVF of any type is much more useful than an LCD whose image gets washed out by bright sunlight.  But with the exception of the Fuji GFX100/50—which I own and use, alongside of a GFX100s—there are very few if any non-cine cameras that offer a tilt-able and rotating EVF.

I've been involved in photography for over 60 years, and video for 30 of those years, using proper cine cameras for the bulk of that time.  So, I am quite familiar with Zebras—which I do use—but they do not provide the nuanced information offered by waveform or vector scopes.

BTW, I took another look at the R5C online manual, and it appears that they only published the PHOTO portion, the VIDEO section will be separate, and is not yet available.

Edited by Ron Wilk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Ron Wilk said:

I've been involved in photography for over 60 years, and video for 30 of those years, using proper cine cameras for the bulk of that time.  So, I am quite familiar with Zebras—which I do use—but they do not provide the nuanced information offered by waveform or vector scopes.

Yea with modern raw and log capture, it's not as important. You've got so much more dynamic range to deal with. As long as your lighting is good using a meter, then you should be fine in camera. For me, the only time I ever need/use aid's is when I'm shooting hand held by myself outdoors in sunlight where I need to know where I'm at. I'd rather have a super clean image on the viewfinder to see what I'm shooting, then have waveform taking up a chunk of the viewfinder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With most cine cameras, Canon in particular, the waveform can be turned on and off with the push of a readily accessible button.  As for a handled meter, I agree that they are beneficial, but they are impractical for a solo operator, and work best in a studio environment or with big productions, or when working from a tripod.  But these days, when working alone, I am on a monopod and do not have a free hand for a meter.  But most waveform monitors can be calibrated for one's needs, and once you are accustomed to its readout it can be as accurate as a meter and, believe me, I have a collection of light meters—more than a dozen—Gossens, Sekonics, and so on. But we each have our own style and requirements.  

As for modern cameras and log or RAW capture, I too agree that many exposure mishaps can be repaired in post, but I prefer to get it as close to correct in-camera as possible, and while I do shoot log, I rarely shoot RAW.  While I do enjoy working in my editing suite for personal projects, commercial work that requires a timely turnaround is better suited to getting it right the first time.  I'm reminded of the old carpenter's motto of measure thrice cut once.

Edited by Ron Wilk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Ron Wilk said:

With most cine cameras, Canon in particular, the waveform can be turned on and off with the push of a readily accessible button.  As for a handled meter, I agree that they are beneficial, but they are impractical for a solo operator, and work best in a studio environment or with big productions, or when working from a tripod.  But these days, when working alone, I am on a monopod and do not have a free hand for a meter.  But most waveform monitors can be calibrated for one's needs, and once you are accustomed to its readout it can be as accurate as a meter and, believe me, I have a collection of light meters—more than a dozen—Gossens, Sekonics, and so on. But we each have our own style and requirements.  

I mean reality is, if you are shooting by yourself and you're using handheld outdoors, you want whatever tools you have, to be on all the time. I'm always adjusting aperture and that's why I prefer a tool that's active and doesn't require being turned on and off. Obviously if you're in controlled conditions, it doesn't matter. The meter is really only used for lighting anyway, figure out brackets and make sure you're within range. Once you're in the ballpark, you can adjust final camera exposure with the zebra's and by look. 
 

1 hour ago, Ron Wilk said:

As for modern cameras and log or RAW capture, I too agree that many exposure mishaps can be repaired in post, but I prefer to get it as close to correct in-camera as possible, and while I do shoot log, I rarely shoot RAW.  While I do enjoy working in my editing suite for personal projects, commercial work that requires a timely turnaround is better suited to getting it right the first time.  I'm reminded of the old carpenter's motto of measure thrice cut once.

Yea, I generally get it right in camera too, ya gotta really. 

I generally shoot log as well, which depending on the camera, has a good amount of dynamic range. 

For narrative work, I'll try to shoot film or raw. I just edited my last feature directly off the R3D 8k files. So it's possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R5c is about 4 weeks away from release, so we'll see what it really brings to the table for the videographer.  I tend to eschew reviews, despite the many disclaimers about not being paid for by the manufacturer.

I haven't shot film in over a decade, as it hasn't been cost-effective and it adds an additional variable—processing—to the equation.  While I will admit that film provides a certain 'look' that cannot be easily assimilated by digital, the post processing of digital on a platform such as Resolve Studio, and in the past, Avid,  is so much more rewarding, at least for myself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...