reggieb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.35 #5 · EOS-R5....will it live up to the hype? | |
EverLearning wrote:
Perhaps the incremental costs of adding video are small compared to base price of producing the unit. Perhaps not. How much extra R&D went into designing the camera to offer top of class video rather than video like a 7D MII or a 5D IV? Were more expensive materials used within the camera than otherwise necessary to aid in heat dissipation, or tolerating the higher heat? What other considerations might there be that I, not an engineer, wouldn't even think about?
I did mention two considerations; the other being perceived value, which you actually allude to as well. If you think back to the 80s, it didn't cost Sony anything to put 'Sony' on its products but it sure added to the cost. That was due to reputation and therefore perceived value. In this case, making this camera probably the best ML around AND the best non-cinamatic video device around is definitely going to cost the buyer more because you are getting 'more' so there is more perceived value.
You say that video is just another feature. True, but the other features you mention in the same breath are all related to stills, not video. A photographer who only shoots photos is very likely to use an assortment of those features but will not use the video feature.
Another point supporting this perspective is products that have been crippled in lower versions. So a product actually can do 10 things for example, but the manufacturer cripples seven things for the base version (via firmware or software) and cripples four things for the mid version. Obviously, production costs of all three versions of the product is exactly the same yet the three products sell for three very different prices.
So while I will readily agree that the video doesn't 'interfere' with my use of the camera as a tool for actual photography, I still firmly hold the believe that it adversely impacts price; possibly to the extent I will not be able to buy what is certainly looking to be an impressive tool for photography. To me, that would be very sad.
...Show more →
I am cautiously excited about the R5. I would absolutely love 120fps in 4k. Though I think when it comes out, I'll rent one and compare it to what Nvidia can do with a GPU generating slow motion from my Z6's footage.
But you mentioned heat. I didn't read this entire thread so I apologize if I'm bringing up a topic that's been mentioned before, but I actually only saw this morning that there will be an HEVC option. I can't fathom how they will pull this off. My desktop computer, with a full custom water cooling loop, with a 360mm radiator, and a total of 6 120mm and 2 140mm fans in an air conditioned room, with a Ryzen 3950x (that's 16 cores and 32 threads) can, with an overclock, encode 4k at about 9fps, and the CPU touches 90C. I get about 8fps without the overclock, and the CPU hits about 75-80.
If I hand the encode over to the NVENC, I get about 50fps encoding, but that's a full desktop GPU being directly fed cool air, 3 120mm intake fans blow directly in to the thing, and it hits about 70C during an encode. Also, during an encode with that GPU, Davinici Resolve hits around 90GB of RAM usage.
I don't think that Canon has defied the laws of physics, so there is SOMETHING going on here. 8k footage to HEVC, if it can be done at these frame rates for a sustained amount of time, they must have really come up with something special. Though I'll remain skeptical until I see it in action.
Edited on Apr 23, 2020 at 12:47 PM · View previous versions
|
