6 thoughts on “Canon R5 “8K at a cost” Price £4200”

1. Philip, with all respect, I think you’re making the mistake of looking at this from a narrow viewpoint. You say “as filmakers” – but is it really intended “for filmakers”?

   I’d argue not. The very form factor screams a camera primarily intended for taking STILL photographs. In many occasions it may be very desirable to have a camera primarily for just that purpose – but with the ability to sometimes record video clips. And that’s what I see here. Why make it more expensive that it needs to be (cooling, headphone socket etc) for a purpose it’s not mainly designed for?

   If you’re a filmaker – buy a video camera. Don’t buy a still camera (with a bit of extra functionality thrown in) and complain it’s not perfect for the job.

   HDW : David I agree so why promote the 8K video mode at all if your market share is for the photographer (PS AS I have stated IT DOES HAVE A HEADPHONE SOCKET).

2. “No one understands why Canon decided to go down this route” – I think most people know why they did. Protection of the Cinema line of cameras of course.

   HDW : Just as well Panasonic don’t think this way.

3. Canon just missed the oportunity to make a perfect 4k 50/100fps-10 bit camera. They are well known for their past failures regarding video performances in other cameras of theirs.

4. 8K video….my take
   This is, IMO, INSANE.
   A ton more work and time to make a microscopic gain in the final result over 6k—which is also a little crazy. The vast number of people don’t even have displays good enough to show 8k or even 6k.
   In the company I worked for our sales people were taught to present our products (I was product designer) in the light of what they called FaB: Features and Benefits.
   The one thing they were told never to do was to ask the customer to weigh the Cost of a given Feature in the light of what the Benefit actually provided.
   I saw people pay lots of money for the added Benefit—but they seldom if even used—-even though they paid a LOT more for the Feature. In some cases they actually removed the Feature after a period of time that provided the costly Benefit, because it got in the way of other things that were lots more useful.
   That’s called Sanity—but coming a bit too late to save you the time and money.
   IM videographically, unschooled, uneducated, but albeit logical and reasoned oriented O, this is a sales gimmick; just one among the tens of thousands of Manufacturer’s FaB scams, and nothing more.
   The moral? Don’t let temporary insanity cause you to plunder your bank account for something that will, metaphorically speaking, sit in the corner and collect dust.
   My 2¢

5. Quote: “@HDW : …..why promote the 8K video mode at all if your market share is for the photographer”
   —————-
   I think it’s more a case of “why not?”, if it can be done for little extra cost! 🙂

   And that should be the case, likely be just adding extra functionality (video codec etc) to the main chip, so probably not requiring much (if any) extra hardware. Don’t forget the whole concept of video from a DSLR came from the “liveview” facility. Eventually someone realised that offering the ability to record such was a low cost marketing advantage, and whilst early implementations were awful for moiré, better processing left it fine for video quality.

   But what distinguishes a video camera (nowadays!) from a still camera is less picture quality than usability, connectivity and ergonomics – and that includes such as a fan! That would cost extra, and to someone buying the camera primarily for stills use would be unwanted bulk, weight and expense. Same with a lot of similar features that are important for a “true” video camera, but a disadvantage for a stills camera – pro timecode, XLR and other connectivity, etc etc. Before even thinking about servo lenses etc.

   And I’m afraid I disagree with David above about “Protection of the Cinema line”. I suspect it’s the old story simply of economies of scale – how many such still cameras get sold for every pro video.

   But to answer “why promote the 8K video mode at all”, then apart from the “big numbers sell” theory, then I can think of a number of uses in such as the scientific and technical field where such a feature could be very useful. It comes back to my original point – don’t look at it from a narrow “filmmaking perspective”, being able to record video is applicable to many other purposes than traditional filmmaking.

6. William Ridenour says “A ton more work and time to make a microscopic gain in the final result over 6k—which is also a little crazy.”
   ———-
   William – it’s primarily engineered in respect of the chip and processor for top quality still photography. The likelihood is that the video mode – be it 8k or whatever – has cost next to nothing to add. The chip has that resolution for stills – so if the processor can manage it, why not allow it for video?

   It would be adding features such as the fan that WOULD cost extra money – whilst being unnecessary for stills work, and (as Canon say) destroying weatherproofing. Personally, I think Canon have got it right – it’s Panasonic who have fallen between stools. The S1H isn’t a “real” video camera – but compromising it’s dust/water resistance makes it less valuable as a rugged stills camera.