ade towell

OK after some misplaced excitement due to early spec leaks - it's pretty clear the EOS-RP is not going to be of much interest to most of us here who want a hybrid camera for decent video as well as stills. It just seems to have got us all snarling at each other For me if they had just added 8 bit c-log at FHD which was sharp enough to cut nicely with C100 then I would be interested. 4k and 10 bit would be lovely but Canon don't like to give you what you want or even what its competitors give you. But I would overlook all that for decent FHD with c-log. Feel like I've been waiting 5 years for Canon to give me a b cam to my c100 at a decent price but still hasn't happened I realise the EOS-R has that but for me it is way too expensive with such a crippled 4k - crop and bad RS. At that price I would also want 10 bit internal. Maybe there is room for a more video oriented budget camera that sits between the EOS-RP and EOS-R. For my needs anyway

Sorry I thought it was obvious I was responding to your certainty that the audience prefer the imagery of Canon. I don't think that matters at all it is the story that makes films successful or not It's probably just me but this winners prefer Canon thing you keep saying comes across like some naff marketing spiel (and I use Canon cameras)

No it's totally about the story. Nobody cares if one image has slightly nicer colour than another if the story isn't compelling. I haven't seen any of them but I bet all those nominated documentaries have good stories. That's what makes them successful

This. Particularly true for documentaries All the other stuff in this thread has gotten silly.

Yay I've got a Canon camera - I'm a winner

He's getting the shot but I bet it wasn't enjoyable, looks very unwieldly - was thinking more like the old Aaton ethos

I wouldn't say the c300 II is perfect for run n gun - like all the cXXX cameras (I have the c100) they only work well handheld if you use it completely barebones, just lens and either use the viewfinder or cradle it. They are horrible cameras ergonomically to set up for shoulder use, they are too high and unwieldly, the c300 II being the worst of the bunch especially with where the audio ports are. The c200 is a little better but still. I wish they would (and this goes for all the other manufacturers too) create a camera with a lower centre of gravity like some of the old 16mm film cameras that would work better for on the shoulder work. It would also eradicate such a reliance on lenses with IS. Actually the c700 is better in that regard but is obviously aimed at a different market

I think Canon will sell loads of these but not to people who care at all about video quality - it is definitely aimed at photographers and frustratingly for us with Canon fit lenses, almost all of their dslr and mirrorless cameras are too. There still isn't a decent spec (on the video side) cheapish Canon hybrid. We are probably a small niche market they don't really care about which is annoying but best to just accept it and move on to a company that does cater for what we want. There are plenty of other companies that have reliable and relevant products with good support. (and have decent AF and colour etc)

This is all pre-production, let's see what it looks like when fully functioning and with proper v-log, AF has looked pretty good on latest firmware and hopefully NR can be turned completely off on production model - there isn't enough footage to make any solid conclusions yet but the lowlight performance, and DR along with IBIS have got me intrigued

the AF looks promising from this

you seemed to be slating it a few pages back but I agree let's wait and see how it unfolds, I think there is potential for a decent camera here especially if they can get the AF up to speed 4k 60p and no crop are a pretty big deal for many folk, and with full v-log coming later, the DR could be very impressive. What makes the EOS-R more interesting, genuine question? The EOS-RP looks the more interesting Canon offering to me (for video anyway) if the specs are as reported although the new R lenses are not exactly aimed at the same budget end

I had a play with a friends EOS-r and the RS is bad in 4k, and I could see it just from normal handheld no need for whip pans as you keep on saying - reminded me of the a6300 I used to have, am sensitive to RS and I'm not alone. No need to defend what is an obvious drawback with the EOS-r. I find that hard to stomach on a £2300 camera - if this new cheaper camera is $1300 with clog and less of a crop then I may be willing to put up with the issue

probably why the IBIS on Sony cameras is not very good

Yes unfortunately I can't see Canon giving us clog and a better 4k crop than the EOS-r for £1000 less, that's not the way they work.

Brilliant, well done Nikon, game on...

The point being that he has gone out there and made a 'good enough' looking film with an older generation hybrid whilst you're wishing and waiting for a camera that has to all intents and purposes (as far as 99.9% of the audience is concerned) been available for quite some time. Whether that film is worth watching will come down to the script, acting, sound etc - it won't be the camera that is holding it back

This fella is filming and directing great stuff on his own with the GH4 http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?362822-Watching-my-GH4-shot-feature-film-on-the-big-screen!

Yes I'm in no doubt the EOS-R is a much better camera than the m50, but for my uses (occasional b cam) I can't justify the £1900 price difference mainly for c-log. (Could buy a c100 mk2 for that) I know I would also then want the nd adaptor (a great innovation) which is another £400...

No my issue is the price Canon want you to pay for a highly cropped image with terrible RS. I would hope that technology would have progressed enough in the last 2.5 years that they would have got it sorted by now rather than being compared to old much cheaper cameras. I have owned and then sold on the Sony a6300, and the RS was a problem for me handheld, if the camera didn't move the image in 4k was lovely. Same with the EOS-r it seems, but I'm not willing to spend that kind of money on a camera with what is for me such a big issue that severely limits its uses. I'm a Canon shooter so no need to get defensive - was looking for a hybrid b cam to the c100, and (somewhat ironically) have opted for the Canon m50 and learnt to embrace the even worse crop and RS in 4k. But it only cost me £400 and it's the hd where I use it most and it's good enough for that. I use 4k for occasional static shots. I'm not willing to pay £2300 for those limitations but £400 is ok (for me).

yes well done Canon, I can now spend £2300 on a camera that has slightly better RS than the £500, 2.5 year old gold standard for crap RS. All be it with a bigger, closer to m43 crop At least the A7s2 is full frame in 4k... There's a few things Canon got right in this camera, but RS isn't one of them

In denial? Intentionally misleading? Bit of both probably

If you're happy to buy used I would get Canon m50 with kit lens and then get cheap 3rd party ef-m adapter and the ef-s 50mm 1.8 stm lens for low light, interviews etc. Makes matching cameras easy, has the great AF, is tiny, and is actually a bit sharper in hd than what you've already got.

Sorry to harp on about this but the OP has 100-150 Euro budget and asks if he can improve the quality of the audio in his interviews. He already has a decent audio recorder and was asking if a good lav would help. My answer is yes buy a quality lav with that money and they will then have all the tools they need for recording great audio for their scenario - static interviews where a wired lav makes a lot of sense (to me). You tell them instead that wired lavs really suck (which is ridiculous misinformation), that they haven't got enough money for a decent wired lav so buy something cheap to tide them over (buy cheap buy twice...) and then save up for a couple of Sony wireless systems which will cost way over £1000. You've just upped the budget 1000% Wireless definitely has its uses but that's on a different budgetry level to what we're talking about here with the OP. A wired lav that they can afford will actually provide better quality audio than your suggestion which they haven't got the budget for anyway. I've worked with audio guys where there have been issues with Lectrosonics (gasp) as well as Sennheiser wireless. Haven't seen any using the Sony to be honest. Mainly the issues have been in large office spaces or events rooms and once in a class room - though I have no idea what the exact technical issues were (I was on camera). The sound person has always said that's the chance you take with wireless and all have extolled the virtues of using wired if they can. I am often a OMB and having had issues with Sennheiser G2 many years ago, lost trust in it and sold it on, and have used wired lavs ever since with no issues. For stationary interviews it is pretty simple to deal with a cable going from the lav to camera or audio recorder. No fluffing around, no making sure I've got wireless transmitters and receivers fully charged and turned on and at the right frequency with no drop outs or interference

decent budget lavs in that price range include the standard Rode Lav (not the smartlav+), Oscar SoundTech or maybe even Countryman B3 or EMW at that price if you shop around

the OP was after cheap solutions 100-150 euros, you can get a decent lav for that but not a wireless system that's worth using