Jump to content

padam

Members
  • Content Count

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About padam

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

633 profile views
  1. After the firmware update the tracking Eye-AF on the EOS R works very well now, not much to complain about (they've also improved the banding, although I've never noticed it). I can't see this camera beating the R for stills(apart from the IBIS), just does not have the lenses (either new or old) or the AF system (in AF-C) to compete with it, it is much stronger for video (and for tougher conditions or manual focusing). And the price is much higher here, 2000$ seems like a more reasonable deal. After re-selling the kit lens(which is also very good just like the Panasonic), the EOS R cost me only 1450$ grey market, and the EF adapter is cheap, too. Can be considered as a "weak" camera body to start with, but as a system it is still looking strong. I expected more "true native" (not re-modeled) lenses from the L-mount alliance. Canon (or Nikon) as a single company will have more RF (Z) glass as a single company within a year, even with EF-mount not taken into consideration.
  2. Selling the following lens for the EOS R or RP, I've used it two times only, so it is fully like new with no issues. Very good for video with silent AF and minimal amount of focus breathing. Pictures Asking 800 Euros including shipping in the EU. PM me if interested, thanks for looking.
  3. Looks good, 0.71x would mean going back to 1DC levels of 4k crop and the extra stop makes it more similar to the 1DXII in low-light as well (but one stop brighter in daylight, it is fine for the trade-off, really)
  4. No one is happy about the crop or the rolling shutter (I am sure you were very happy about Log in the 1DXII), it is just what one gets from Canon at this price range and it still looks quite decent, simple as that, the RP is just way too limited in every way for not a whole lot less money. Panasonic Sony or Nikon all do FF 4k with internal stabilisation, but somehow I just don't prefer how they look. They also don't have the lens selection and support that Canon has. Looks very solid to me, rolling shuter or not. I think that this external raw thing could be completely bogus anyway, since originally it was offered 10-bit 4:2:2 external recording(4k only, so no 1080p FF to fight the trolling shutter), but maybe it is one of those rare cases, where they do actually react to what's out there (but it could take a fair few months to update the firmware anyway, even ver. 1.2 is a month away). If someone would crack the RF code and release a fully functional RF-EF focal reducer, for the EOS R (just like there is one for the M50), it would probably sell like crazy.
  5. Moaning is always the easiest thing. That rolling shutter is probably measured for FF stills, it is around 30ms for 4k, quite close to the 1DC which is of course quite severe, but if I search around for 1DC footage, I don't see it looking like crap, the opposite. And it uses 8-bit 4:2:2 MJPEG, which is very far from Prores RAW (which is what the 1DXII also uses without Log btw, can't wait to see someone doing a dynamic range comparison on that) This is not destined to be an A-cam, it has its limitations but it's looking like an even better B-cam for the C200 now. Yes, they will release a much better video-stills camera with probably a similar sensor to the 1DXIII (I guess around 24MP and 1.5x 4k60p crop, I would forget about FF but we'll see), but it will be bloody expensive. It well and truly buries 4k ML raw in the 5D III for good, that's really not bad at all for around 1500$ grey market plus the cost of the recorder (after reselling the kit lens, which is also rather decent). Personally, I just use the 1.8x(1.9x with IS) cropped 1080p internal recording on the R (sometimes in FF, but the crop is downsampled, so not really degraded with electronic IS), and for now, it is perfectly fine for my needs, and I don't move the camera around like crazy. I liked how the 6D Mark II looked in comparison to the A7s, but it was very soft, and now I am fine with cropping in (and with more rs, similar to the A7s) for fixing that, but still have pleasant looking 1080p footage (with AF, although I think I still like MF better, after using it for long).
  6. That comes with its own drawbacks, because it is 3rd party SB, it drains the battery even harder, the 4k crop is 1.81x vs 1.6x (same difference for the full sensor mode) , the 4k and ISO doesn't seem to look as good, and you cannot use the same crop lenses for photography without changing the adapter(with SB FF lenses for stills, the quality is really not that great either), so two adapters, more accessories to buy for a depreciating system(the RP includes the adapter so it's not exactly double the cost), a speedbooster can still come to the other as well. And I also mentioned the body differences, the RP looks better in that regard. I am not saying it is that much better, but it is certainly an alternative. Of course there will be the M model with 4k DPAF enabled, but it will be very close in terms of cost or weight (new batteries again, etc...) maybe they will might give that something else to keep the system appealing.
  7. Of course, I just feel that even if it does have it, I might still consider moving up to the next model anyway, because it doesn't heat up as much, the AF is not compromised in Log mode (that is actually less than the specs sheet) the battery becomes stronger, etc., I don't feel like it is so much more future-proof because of that. This also applies to the external recorder as well, needs to be less toasty and less power hungry, with cheaper compact-sized media, etc. or maybe better internal recording can reduce the need for it. Being an early adopter vs. waiting it to mature a little bit. Each has its own advantages.
  8. Let's break it down a bit more then: they are all the same modes effectively(some differences with processing as I mentioned with the 1080p), only more cropped in by the M50 by default, because it is already a crop sensor. I think the 720p 120fps which is the only real difference, is almost completely useless, even softer than the already very soft EOS R in the with the same frame rate. I also don't think it is really necessary to use any kind of EF-S glass on an RP (most of them are not constant aperture zooms, why would you want that for video anyway) EF just works just fine for photo and video (if you are vlogging for instance and want a wider angle 10-18mm f4.5-5.6, it is definitely unusable in 4k - even if there was downscaled cropped 1080p like on the EOS R, it wouldn't matter that much. So much more logical to stick to 1080p and use EF glass anyway, not EF-S) Apart from a really excellent value 11-22mm f4-5.6 wide-angle zoom, and generally being very compact for an APS-C camera, the M system really doesn't offer anything special (yes, the recent 32mm f1.4 is also quite nice, but not cheap and there will be an RF 50mm f1.8 with IS included...)
  9. You can find M50 footage on the same channel, I think the RP 4k image looks crisper, 1.6x crop vs 2.56x total crop is pretty significant to me and the low-light is no contest. Yes, you can add a 3rd party SpeedBooster for more monnies, but why not just go for this one instead, especially when it comes bundled with the 100$ adapter (or you can add the control ring or even ND, cheap EF glass, etc., etc.) So as some suggested, while they are in different price categories, it certainly pushes the M50 back a little bit (keeping the EF-M system slightly separate from the rest doesn't help either) Tried it for a short time, I don't have big hands but it feels too small for me, not the same level of controls. For 1080p it is more complicated, better low-light with different look on FF versus better quality 1080p on the M50 but with more limited lens choices.
  10. I hate to say this, but while it really does not offer much, it does that rather well at its price point (pros and cons in the video description)
  11. My tip is on the M5/M6 II is the flip-screen (hopefully) with the better controls and build quality the DPAF enabled for 4k (surely) same M50 sensor (likely, the two codenames certified for 24MP) not a huge amount of change, but at least not a significant increase on the pricing either. I don't see them pushing further with that same battery. Just because there is going to be a high-end 7D-level camera, its primary target of sports and wildlife will not change, so for me doesn't mean that it will not have a further crop for video (but probably improve on frame rates if that is a factor, maybe like 4k60p, the R has no slow motion whatsoever in crop mode), if Canon really showcases some new advancement for video, it would make sense to debut it in the most expensive model that they make first, like they did with 4k60p. But I see your point perfectly on the R, Canon is just being too clever in what they (precisely) offer with every model that they make, they just give a little more every time in comparison to what they take away, and it is still working for them.
  12. The EOS R looks like a nice enough choice for EF-S lenses, it seems quite obvious to me, that they are not going to give crisper full-sensor downsampled 4k in their much cheaper APS-C cameras, the R would certainly loose its video appeal (even if what it offers seems inadequate in many people's eyes). Even C-Log is questionable in a flagship M-series camera, but the 2.56x crop (although Focal Reducer compatible at least) would keep it isolated from the others. A proper video-based S35mm XC-series camera, sure, why not (at least it is still an additional model that they can sell), but for how much, based on the XC15 pricing with a much smaller sensor.
  13. A few Canon models can do HDR video in 1080p, but if you move the camera the rolling shutter will make the two separate exposures visible. As technology improves, they can probably do it in 4k with less artifacts.
  14. That is exactly my problem, just looking at specs sheets, price tags, claiming this one better than that arguing etc. and really not much else. I guess that's why lurking at forum is useless in general, because there might not be that many succesful people spending time there and providing useful advice rather than enthusiasts being very enthusitastic (or deeply hateful) towards something.
  15. I am aware of that, mentioned it in another thread, I just don't see it as such a useful feature for most of the users (yes the have announced it for their newer DSLRs, is that really useful?), rather than bragging about: oh yes, it does (or rather will) have this 'game-changing' feature and it 'completely owns' the competition. I am also aware that so far, the AF does not seem to work well with N-Log. The sensor capabilities like 4k60p may be more important for the future for some, at least that's surely going to be the things the Sony users will start to brag about. Using an external record costs a lot more money and also defeats the purpose of a small camera (the Z6 can also overheat with an external recorder if 10-bit output is selected, 8-bit is fine, is prores RAW going to be better) Everyone trashes on the Panasonic size and that 10-bit 4:2:2 codec is a paid update (but it does have 10-bit 4:2:0 internal) and yet it was probably more thoughtfully designed for these kinds of uses from the get go. While there is a huge enthusiatic crowd looking at potentially the ultimate photo/video camera ever since the 5DMk2 or earlier, it looks like there is always something that's just not right to the point where I start to think it is almost little bit like a dead end and it is better to have at least one device specifically focused on each purpose, at least anybody who has switched to something like a C200 says how much more liberating it is to use, despite its inherent limitations.
×
×
  • Create New...