Canon R5 or R5C?

Was curious anyone who has experience with both cameras, is the r5c worth the extra cost?

OBviously i have video in mind and do youtube videos as a hobby. But i also like taking pictures to hence my choice of either camera.

I played around with both cameras and i know the r5c is geared more towards video which i initialyl though that would be the one. but when i demoed it in store, i was a little overwhelmed by the video menu settings on the r5c. obviously im a mear novice with video but the video part of the r5c was much more complicated compared to the r5.

I plan on shooting 4k, nothing higher. Can i get away with the r5 with its more video friendly video settings or should i start to learn more and i assume get more out of the r5c?

if you're unfamiliar with all the advanced video nonsense, forget about the r5c, the r5 CAN shoot all those fancy modes without overheating while offering a more straight forward interface.

the r5c is right for those who are seriously into video, and mean to shoot entire movies with the thing, but for clips here and there and some youtubeing, the r5 is perfectly capable, in a sleeker package and with a more liveable price tag, save the money for glass, and if you won't intentionally push it you won't even know it can overheat.

Some of the video related things the R5c offers that the R5 does not:

* 8K60 (does require an external power source for lens communication)

* 8K & DCI 8K in non-RAW in far smaller H265 file sizes

* Oversampled 4K60

* 8K RAW, 8K non-RAW, oversampled 4K30, 4K60 with no risk of overheating

* No time limits for video recording regardless of the overheating issue

* 4K60, 4K30 oversampled with no overheating risk

I believe there are other unique R5c video features that I can't recall at this point.

randomrazr wrote:

Was curious anyone who has experience with both cameras, is the r5c worth the extra cost?

OBviously i have video in mind and do youtube videos as a hobby. But i also like taking pictures to hence my choice of either camera.

I played around with both cameras and i know the r5c is geared more towards video which i initialyl though that would be the one. but when i demoed it in store, i was a little overwhelmed by the video menu settings on the r5c. obviously im a mear novice with video but the video part of the r5c was much more complicated compared to the r5.

I plan on shooting 4k, nothing higher. Can i get away with the r5 with its more video friendly video settings or should i start to learn more and i assume get more out of the r5c?

The R5 has superior auto focus compared to the R5 C in video mode. The R5 has IBIS, so you can use any lens without stabilization, under 100mm, with great stabilization. With stabilized lenses you get better stabilization than lens stabilization alone, under 100mm. The R5 C has no IBIS. These are major advantages. The key advantages of the R5 C are if you shoot 4K at higher frame rates or 8K, mainly because of the fan that prevents overheating. If you shoot short clips overheating is not a major issue with the R5 for any resolution/framerate.

cortex95x wrote:

"...advanced video nonsense."

For anyone truly interested in cinematography, the video side of the R5c is not the embodiment of "advanced video nonsense." The menu and functions mirror—for the most part—those of Canon's arguably more capable cinema cameras, i.e., the C70, C300 MK III, C500 Mk II, C700. if the OP is not prepared to invest the limited amount of time it might take to master the basic functions required of video, then the R5c is not for him. For many of those early adopters of the R5c, myself included, the camera acts as a 'B' Cam to one or more of the aforementioned cine cameras, and it is a job that it performs with aplomb.

my sincere apologies for hurting your video-orientated feelings 

I meant "nonsense" as far as the OP seems to be concerned, not essentially "nonsense", I see the r5c as an excellent tool for real video content creators, but from the OP's question I understand that he's not looking to be Steven Spielberg, but rather create some fine content at home and share it with the world, for that purpose the r5 is just fine or even better, cluttered complex menus are only good if you need and know how to make use of them, while sleek design and ibis coupled with straightforward yet powerful menus are welcome by all, and you save some cash on the way, what more could you ask for?

if I didn't get the OP's stand right, you're 100% right.

Regarding the two disadvantages of the R5c relative to the R5, I can comment on the actual real world differences (and provide examples above) since I actually own and have used both cameras.

IBIS- Although the R5c does not have IBIS, the overwhelming level of stabilization with OIS equipped lenses comes from the OIS. Using exactly the same RF24-240 & RF100-400 on both cameras, I have found the difference in the stability to be of no great significance.

But what about non-OIS lenses? My only non-OIS lens is the RF50mm. By switching on even the lower level of the two available electronic IS settings, the stabilization is very good. The only price you pay is a slight degree of crop. In situations like this internal IBIS would be preferable if you wish to avoid any crop, but the results are still very good.

AF- The biggest difference I have found is the absence of animal AF. However in day to day usage I have not found significant differences in the overall AF performance.

The video above was shot all handheld, with the R5c, using the RF100-400. AF was used exclusively. Many shots were close to or at 400mm. This is not only a significant test of the AF with animal subjects, but also of the real world stabilization when using OIS lenses. I would be happy to provide examples of the non-OIS 50mm lens coupled with the electronic stabilization of the R5c. Again, IBIS would be preferable, but the degree of difference is simply not the great with OIS equipped lenses. The electronic IS is there for non-OIS lenses if needed.

Ken Ross wrote:

Regarding the two disadvantages of the R5c relative to the R5, I can comment on the actual real world differences (and provide examples above) since I actually own and have used both cameras.

IBIS- Although the R5c does not have IBIS, the overwhelming level of stabilization with OIS equipped lenses comes from the OIS. Using exactly the same RF24-240 & RF100-400 on both cameras, I have found the difference in the stability to be of no great significance.

But what about non-OIS lenses? My only non-OIS lens is the RF50mm. By switching on even the lower level of the two available electronic IS settings, the stabilization is very good. The only price you pay is a slight degree of crop. In situations like this internal IBIS would be preferable if you wish to avoid any crop, but the results are still very good.

AF- The biggest difference I have found is the absence of animal AF. However in day to day usage I have not found significant differences in the overall AF performance.

The video above was shot all handheld, with the R5c, using the RF100-400. AF was used exclusively. Many shots were close to or at 400mm. This is not only a significant test of the AF with animal subjects, but also of the real world stabilization when using OIS lenses. I would be happy to provide examples of the non-OIS 50mm lens coupled with the electronic stabilization of the R5c. Again, IBIS would be preferable, but the degree of difference is simply not the great with OIS equipped lenses. The electronic IS is there for non-OIS lenses if needed.

To make this very clear: IBIS has no effect on lenses above 100mm. So, your experience with the 100-400mm OIS lens is exactly right - the R5 has no advantage. But, it is mostly irrelevant for video shooting: below 100mm you cannot use non-OIS lenses without IBIS shooting handheld without digital stabilization, which crops and reduces resolution. And digital stabilization I believe is unavailable for RAW video, which is a major feature of the R5 variants (correct if wrong). Most videography is done with lenses below 100mm, and almost all cinema lenses do not have OIS. Of course, most cinema shooting is not handheld without gimbals. And IBIS+an OIS lens, below 100mm, gives you amazing undegraded stabilization, since they work in tandem.

Here is a handheld 8K RAW video shot with the Canon RF 16mm non-OIS lens.  You do not want to crop it with degrading digital stabilization (if it were possible in RAW), and lose the nice wide-angle. This video thus could not be shot with the Canon R5 C. There is no handheld video that cannot be shot with the R5 that the R5C could shoot.

Markr041 wrote:

Ken Ross wrote:

Regarding the two disadvantages of the R5c relative to the R5, I can comment on the actual real world differences (and provide examples above) since I actually own and have used both cameras.

IBIS- Although the R5c does not have IBIS, the overwhelming level of stabilization with OIS equipped lenses comes from the OIS. Using exactly the same RF24-240 & RF100-400 on both cameras, I have found the difference in the stability to be of no great significance.

But what about non-OIS lenses? My only non-OIS lens is the RF50mm. By switching on even the lower level of the two available electronic IS settings, the stabilization is very good. The only price you pay is a slight degree of crop. In situations like this internal IBIS would be preferable if you wish to avoid any crop, but the results are still very good.

AF- The biggest difference I have found is the absence of animal AF. However in day to day usage I have not found significant differences in the overall AF performance.

The video above was shot all handheld, with the R5c, using the RF100-400. AF was used exclusively. Many shots were close to or at 400mm. This is not only a significant test of the AF with animal subjects, but also of the real world stabilization when using OIS lenses. I would be happy to provide examples of the non-OIS 50mm lens coupled with the electronic stabilization of the R5c. Again, IBIS would be preferable, but the degree of difference is simply not the great with OIS equipped lenses. The electronic IS is there for non-OIS lenses if needed.

To make this very clear: IBIS has no effect on lenses above 100mm. So, your experience with the 100-400mm OIS lens is exactly right - the R5 has no advantage. But, it is mostly irrelevant for video shooting: below 100mm you cannot use non-OIS lenses without IBIS shooting handheld without digital stabilization, which crops and reduces resolution. And digital stabilization I believe is unavailable for RAW video, which is a major feature of the R5 variants (correct if wrong). Most videography is done with lenses below 100mm, and almost all cinema lenses do not have OIS. Of course, most cinema shooting is not handheld without gimbals. And IBIS+an OIS lens, below 100mm, gives you amazing undegraded stabilization, since they work in tandem.

Here is a handheld 8K RAW video shot with the Canon RF 16mm non-OIS lens. You do not want to crop it with degrading digital stabilization (if it were possible in RAW), and lose the nice wide-angle. This video thus could not be shot with the Canon R5 C. There is no handheld video that cannot be shot with the R5 that the R5C could shoot.

Yes, it is true that electronic IS is not possible when shooting 8K RAW, but it is available when shooting 8K in the space saving H265. 8K H265 isn’t available in the R5 and might actually be used by more shooters than 8K RAW given the file size distaste that many have for RAW video file sizes. So most people, even those using the R5 & R5c, probably won’t  shoot 8K RAW. We are the exception. For all other use cases you can use IS and, because of oversampling that’s used in virtually all shooting scenarios, unlike the R5, degradation is very minor. Most people would never notice. 
Thus the advantage outweighs the slight cropping disadvantage.

I have no idea what percentage of videos are shot below 100mm, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that most wildlife videography is done with lenses over 100mm. As I said, even when using the 50mm non-OIS lens, results were very good with IS.
For me the advantages of the R5c definitely outweigh the disadvantages. And let’s not forget, although you haven’t experienced overheating in the R5, many many users have. That doesn’t occur with the R5c.

randomrazr wrote:

yerach wrote:

if you're unfamiliar with all the advanced video nonsense, forget about the r5c, the r5 CAN shoot all those fancy modes without overheating while offering a more straight forward interface.

the r5c is right for those who are seriously into video, and mean to shoot entire movies with the thing, but for clips here and there and some youtubeing, the r5 is perfectly capable, in a sleeker package and with a more liveable price tag, save the money for glass, and if you won't intentionally push it you won't even know it can overheat.

yeah it seems the r5c might be overkill. alot of stuff on the cinema menu i have no idea what they are. seems like i would need to go to school to learn proper video knowledge about video recording.

myonly concern is obviously the overheating with the R5. would it overheat quickly on 4k?

Shooting in the HQ mode (high quality 4K30) is where overheating concerns can be an issue, since the quality is so obviously better than the non-HQ mode.

The bottom line is that overheating can occur in all 4K & 8K modes other than non-HQ 4K30. Unfortunately the non-HQ mode quality is not very good.

However if you shoot brief clips, say 30 seconds to 2 minutes and turn off the camera after each clip, you might be OK. Of course the ambient temperatures you shoot in play a key role. If you’re shooting on a typical day in Florida, results might not be as good as in a cooler environment.

If you’re brave, you can use the ‘cheat trick’ I used when the overheating timer got down to 5 minutes. You can Google it up, but it essentially tricks the camera into thinking it’s a different day and you’re just starting out again with the camera on a new shooting session. It winds up recycling the overheating timer back to a full usage session. Can it cause real overheating issues? Nobody knows, but I would be very judicious in using this and it’s why I prefer not to go into details on how to do it.

In my shooting with the R5 and shooting in the manner I described, I personally did not experience overheating. Of course I’d be less than honest if I told you I didn’t have a number of shooting sessions where I experienced some anxiety watching the overheating timer tick down. You do need to be watchful.

randomrazr wrote:

Ken Ross wrote:

randomrazr wrote:

yerach wrote:

if you're unfamiliar with all the advanced video nonsense, forget about the r5c, the r5 CAN shoot all those fancy modes without overheating while offering a more straight forward interface.

the r5c is right for those who are seriously into video, and mean to shoot entire movies with the thing, but for clips here and there and some youtubeing, the r5 is perfectly capable, in a sleeker package and with a more liveable price tag, save the money for glass, and if you won't intentionally push it you won't even know it can overheat.

yeah it seems the r5c might be overkill. alot of stuff on the cinema menu i have no idea what they are. seems like i would need to go to school to learn proper video knowledge about video recording.

myonly concern is obviously the overheating with the R5. would it overheat quickly on 4k?

Shooting in the HQ mode (high quality 4K30) is where overheating concerns can be an issue, since the quality is so obviously better than the non-HQ mode.

The bottom line is that overheating can occur in all 4K & 8K modes other than non-HQ 4K30. Unfortunately the non-HQ mode quality is not very good.

However if you shoot brief clips, say 30 seconds to 2 minutes and turn off the camera after each clip, you might be OK. Of course the ambient temperatures you shoot in play a key role. If you’re shooting on a typical day in Florida, results might not be as good as in a cooler environment.

If you’re brave, you can use the ‘cheat trick’ I used when the overheating timer got down to 5 minutes. You can Google it up, but it essentially tricks the camera into thinking it’s a different day and you’re just starting out again with the camera on a new shooting session. It winds up recycling the overheating timer back to a full usage session. Can it cause real overheating issues? Nobody knows, but I would be very judicious in using this and it’s why I prefer not to go into details on how to do it.

In my shooting with the R5 and shooting in the manner I described, I personally did not experience overheating. Of course I’d be less than honest if I told you I didn’t have a number of shooting sessions where I experienced some anxiety watching the overheating timer tick down. You do need to be watchful.

Thank you Ken for the insightful reply. Its very helpful!

The only other 2 things i noticed with the r5c, is if i wanted to use it as a hybrid camera for a wedding for example, to switch between photo and video mode is 8 seconds, which is a long time given that you could easily miss a good shot / moment. Where as on the r5 you can simply switch or hit the record button.

Ive also read r5c also has noticably poorer battery life. It literally easts batteries from multiple user posts on forums and youtube comments.

If you had to pick between the 2, do you have a preference ken? Wish i could own both!

Thanks randomrazr.

Since I shoot almost exclusively video, my choice is the R5c. One feature that I really like is the ability to shoot H265 8K in 4:2:2 wide DR. The resulting quality is surprisingly close in quality to RAW. There is plenty of latitude to alter color and play with highlights and shadows, while using a fraction of the space that RAW takes. The other benefit is less noise in shadowed areas and low light scenes than you might get with RAW.

Regarding battery life, the biggest difference I noticed is the drain that occurs while in the menu. For some reason Canon has the R5c fan spinning at a higher speed than the almost silent speed during shooting. This drains the battery almost quicker than when actually shooting. It seems to me the drain while shooting is only a bit higher than the R5.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Canon provided a firmware update to minimize the fan speed while in the menu. I can’t see a reason for the fan speed that occurs while simply adjusting menu items.

Finally, regarding the switching time between video and stills, yes, I can see that being an issue if you do that with any degree of frequency. However, remember if you shoot in 8K, you can do a frame grab and have a very nice 8K still.

You can’t go wrong with either camera

orbitalpunk wrote:

I have an R5. I was tempted to switch to a R5C but the fact it doesn't have IBIS is an issue with me because i like shooting with fast primes and fast primes don't have OIS. And I don't want to rig it out with a gimbal. So that was my first deal breaker. Then I later discovered the R5C doesnt have animal detection which I want. And I really really like IS+ which you cant get on the R5C. I use a Ninja if I shoot long form to overcome heating so thats a non issue. What tempted me to the R5C was it having a bit more dynamic range in video but it wasnt enough for me to switch after seeing comparison videos. HQ 4k60 and 8k60 are not worth it for me because you have to add a power supply so you need to rig it out basically which I dont want to do. I had a rigged out BMPCC and just didnt like it. Just heavy and cumbersome. I like portability of the R5 getting great stable footage handeld. So it really depends on your use case and preference. If you dont mind rigging out a R5C and using gimbals or tripods and battery packs, then you can use the full capabilities it has to offer. If not, got with a R5.

With the exception of shooting 8K60 that requires an outboard power supply (USB C), I don't rig out my R5c. You do not need an outboard power supply for 4K60p HQ, only for 8K60. Further, unlike the R5, virtually all shooting scenarios are oversampled from the 8K sensor and thus have better PQ.

Even for the lens I use that doesn't have OIS, the onboard electronic IS works very well. For OIS lenses it's a total non-issue. Thus I am never using a gimbal. So for me there are excellent advantages to the R5c over the R5 (I have both and will be selling my R5).