ade towell

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 

27 minutes ago, Michi said:

I think this is to decent for a low end Canon release. 

If there actually is a new 24mp sensor in this Camera (with better DR than the one from the 6D II), Canon Log and 4K in a S35 crop (with DPAF working in 4K video) this would be an almost perfect B-camera for my needs and my new go to stills camera. But I don't think these are the real specs of that camera, at least not at that price point. I expect a mirrorless 6D II with 4k video but without DPAF in 4K.  

Come on Canon, just bring out an M5 II with full-sensor 4K, DPAF in 4K and Canon Log.

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...

2 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

I applaud his work with the GH4, but it is nowhere near something I would pay money for to watch it. If I did I would want it back. I wish somebody would come along with a digital camera with a soft film grain image but high DR with smooth highlight rolloff and amazing colors, 1080p is all I need + 60fps. 

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

5 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

There is no crop on the EOS-R when shooting video. It's full frame. When using the digital IS there is a slight crop, but very minimal. So not wasting any glass at all.

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. 

15 hours ago, IronFilm said:

If you have time to fluff around with wired cables and it won't be a nuisance for your clients, then sure, do it!

However, I'd want to ask:
Did you re-scan when you arrived?
What location was this?
Which "quality" wireless was this? (if it was G3 or lower, then it wasn't quality)
 

Exactly. 

People too often forget about the practical benefits of real life shooting on actual productions. 

Heck, 95% of the TV and films you watch on the big screen probably even had their *boom mic* be wireless! Let alone the lavs as well. Because that is the real world we live in now. 

And that was why I recommended at the start something dirt cheap like the Aputure A.Lav, and save the rest of the money for later on buying a Sony UWP-D11 in the future. (and anybody else reading this thread should go straight to that or better if they can afford it)

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 

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

There are times when wired lavs make sense (for instance I run an Aputure A.Lav straight into my G6 for my vlogs, because a) it is just for with me b) I'm lazy c) it is compact/cheap), but for most people/situations wireless makes more sense unless utterly broke. 

Doesn't make any sense to me for the reasons I listed, have been burnt more than once from drop outs and interference with 'quality' wireless systems.If it's a sit down talking heads then wired is better quality and less risk and cheaper. What's not to like

Every single audio person I've ever worked with has used a wired lav over wireless if possible. Higher quality recording, less chance of interference  and also a lot cheaper

Thanks - yes tried the 750d and it looks like horrible mush compared to c100, m50 is still fairly soft in hd but better, in 4k it is close enough. Unfortunately Canon haven't offered decent hd video in any of their reasonably priced dslrs and probably never will - have been using Panasonic GH2 up til now with  c100 and works better than 750d as the sharpness difference isn't so jarring. The m50 is a step closer - it is tiny though and feels a bit unbalanced in the hand with Canon 17-55mm 2.8 and adapter, the little kit lens it came with suits it better. AF works fine with Viltrox adapter, but the other issue with Canon is that for all their great AF abilities they don't have any decent fast lenses with STM and IS. Almost all my lenses are USM and so make a lot of noise when using AF and don't seem quite as responsive as the little 15-45mm kit lens

Picked one of these up as a b cam to my C100 after deciding I couldn't justify the expensive EOS-R (considering it has too many shortcomings for me). 

The m50 is definitely a bit sharper in hd than what the typical Canon dslr can muster, but still looks soft compared to the c100. The 4k on this little thing though looks lovely, still not quite as sharp as c100 but reasonable detail without any sharpening artifacts produces a nice image - so long as you don't move the camera - RS is bad, the crop is extreme,  and of course no DPAF. As a 2nd camera for interviews, other tripod based work I think it will work quite nicely. I don't use/like gimbals but imagine this would be a great camera for that, the AF is impressive in hd. Shame they can't squeeze the wdr profile on this camera - I realise clog is saved for their premium cameras - been playing around witrh neutral profile and sharpness and contrast down, and with a little tweaking can get it to match C100.

A fun little camera with a few drawbacks, as is the Canon way

30 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

Purely image quality wise, the C200 or C300ii just looks way better though. The skin tones are close to Arri. It depends what you shoot I suppose.

That's just a matter of taste though, I'm a Canon shooter but happen to prefer the Eva and Varicam colour science. They all make beautiful images though so just depends whether you want to shoot predominantly RAW internal or you need more flexible edit ready codecs

1 hour ago, austinchimp said:

Canon, on the other hand, have been proven to deliberately hold back technology, and sit very conservatively in old tech with outdated specs, when we know they're sitting on things that could do better. Given how many people were invested in their systems, it's rubbed people up the wrong way.

As a person heavily invested in Canon lenses, this is the crux of it and my main irritation with them. I'm a Canon user and feel it is Canon that is holding back - for my uses anyway which are predominantly video orientated

Thanks for that, am presuming the DR in clog is a similar 12 stops as C100?

Is the full frame hd quality pretty sharp as well then, and much better RS than crop mode?

Good to hear that the hd cuts well with c100 - is this in full frame or crop mode? Do you have an example of it cut with c100, just a few seconds worth? My worry based on what I've seen so far was that the full frame hd is same old soft Canon mush they've been giving us for years in their dslr's and that you had to put it in crop mode to get better quality hd - but this mode has bad RS

Also what flavour clog is in the EOS-R - is it original clog of c100 or does it have clog2, 3?

I hear you, they've all got their quirks - I just feel I've been waiting far too long for Canon to give me a reasonably priced hybrid camera with decent hd to work alongside my C100. Not so fussed with 4k or 50p, just decent hd with clog - they should have been able to offer that years ago, tech has moved on

I don't wave the camera around either but RS is a real irritant for me that I feel shouldn't be so easy to provoke on a camera costing well over £2k in this day and age. 

but the terrible rolling shutter makes handheld a real issue. From what I've seen the sharper looking hd on the EOS-R uses the crop mode which has bad RS