EduPortas

After all the drama about the R5 I've surmised some things: The "R" line is more of a toy for video than anything else. Time and time again we've seen the company push users to dedicated (and expensive) video solutions. Beggining with Canon's 5DM2 we lived through different models with some kind of video crippling: lower resolution, noisy mic inputs, and a hard recording limit. Despite all this, people bought a Canon DSLR for reliabilty and lens selection. Lens selection was adressed quickly for RF users with good and expensive glass. However, they are losing their "trustworthyness". The R5 wil NEVER replace the tank-like 5D. Never, not 5 or 10 years from now. The damage is done. Was it Canon's true intention to replace the 5D with the R5 by way of an "umbrella effect"? I'm having doubts. No manager worth his salt would have released this fiasco product. Especially not a Japanese one working at Canon. Not one that damn well knows the brand represents (boring) reliabilty. Maybe the "R" line is more of a "moonshot product". Aim high. Fail fast. Ride the mirroless wave, but always differenciate between the photo and cinema lines.

I'm afraid Canon also addresed the "fix" for virtually unlimited recording time you guys found by removing the battery and placing the little screw on the card door. Or was it by removing the little clock battery in the R5? I get confused. The new firmware states: The phenomenon in which the movie recording time available is not correctly displayed when the Date/Time/Zone is not set has been corrected. An invisible crackdown on moders? Note this is the last weasel-bulletpoint in the firmware description.

As ludicrous as it sound to the West, that's the way things are run in Japan since the XIX century, at least. The collective beats the individual. Not so in the West, where it's exactly the opposite.

This is true. Not only cameras. The thought extends to automobiles or department stores, for example. Even sumo wrestling, according to the author of "Freakonomics". Remember that one? There's a "gentlemens pact" that dominates huge companies established centuries ago. These huge interlocking companies have everthing from steel to shipyards to camera groups under one massive umbrella. They call it "keiretsu". That's one of the reasons Nikon will never "fail". Their parent comnpany is Mitsubishi. It's a national pride thing, as you mentioned.

So this is a classic case of newer is not always better. It's incredible how reviewers keep spinning the idea that the R5 is not for professionals. Of course it is! The price and specs define that by itself. Also the high price of Canon RF lenses. Professionals bought Canon because they were dependable cameras, even if they were underspec'd. To this very day you will find thousands of payed professionals using the venerable 7DM2, 5DM3/M4, and obviously the 1D in its various incarnations. They are workhorses that will ever rarely fail, unless you seriously deface them like some jackass demonstrated in a Digital Rev video way back. These new mirrorless FFs? I don't think so.

It has some sort of "gradation filter" or electronic ND filter. There was a big discussion about this almost 10 years ago. Kicks in at F4.

For the life of me I can't find his comments on YT. However, if you watch the film on MUBI, you'll get to see an interview with Herzog and Roc Martin, the producer of the film, AFTER the movie ends. It's about 10 minutes long and I suspect is only available on that streaming platform. That's where he mentions he used a "tiny 4K camera with many profesional audio inputs". Being a nerd I immediately scoured the internet in search of some additional data on the subject, since Herzog generally talks a lot about cameras and lenses. I could only find a production photo of the movie. You can clearly see it's a very small Canon 4K cam, most probably an XA50 or XF400 in the second photo starting from the top: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/werner-herzog-family-romance-llc-working-baby-yoda-1301774

For the love of God anything but Mini DV again!!!! 😆 On a more serious note, the "old" camera the OP mentions is 100% digital. It's only only old by short term technology standards, not by any artist's standards (except maybe if your last name is Nolan or Abrams). It's YOUR vision. YOU decide if you film it with S16 or a stupid iPhone. If you're a creator that decision should be liberating, not gut-wrenching. If it's the latter, you're more of a technician. Nothing wrong with that, just different from the first group. I recently watched Herzog's latest film/documentary called "Family Romance, LLC". It's good. Not Grizzly Man good, but on point. The man shot the entire thing in the middle of Tokyo as a one-man-band with a "crappy" Canon XA50/XF400. He was fascinated by the lowly camcorder because it gave him what he wanted: good AF, XLR inputs, 4K and portability. Check his comments on YouTube. He does not name the brand, but you can see it's a Canon in the production photos. A Canon consumer camcorder in 2020!

As an actual Spanish speaker that video is doubly hilarious.

Hey, Andrew. Long time no see. As other posters have said, YouTube has become a massive marketing tool. It started as a place to spread knowledge. But now its 99% marketing. More specifically "Content Marketing". For charismatic youtubers, this is a godsend, even when their analytic perspective is....cuestionable. As you've astutely noted, it would be impossible for the average person to buy the gear big video-centric channels feature each month. That's where content marketing comes in. Canon, Apple, Sony, etc. provide the gear and the YouTuber provides some semblance of "journalism". But, as with all marketing efforts, it's a controlled voice: said YouTuber will seldom ever criticize the gear they have received. They weasel out by saying "it's good, but this other model by Canon/Sony/Fuji" is even better" because they have already "reviewed" and placed the corresponding Amazon link to that other gear. So basically, they never lose. They will never destroy the camera with a scathing review. Never. That would mean no more camera review trips to Hawaii and being thrown "out of the loop" by electronic companies.It's always "it's very good but maybe spend a little bit more and get X gear and X lens". Most of the time, they already have newer and better gear under embargo. Weasel tactics. The marketing wheel must be pushed forward to newer, better, more expensive gear.

Can you use punch-in focus during recording? Now that I mention it, is there any DSLR that allows you to do this?

I respect your position, JP. I really do. You obviously prefer newer technologies to solve your video-related problems. There's just a small concern with that: these new hybrid MILC/DLSRs are not a mature technology. There will be problems with video AF because that's not their primary function. Yet, it's remarkable just how much they have advanced in the last five years. For that, I commend savvy engineers at Canon, Sony, Pana, etc. For ME, for my personal work-related needs, they are not usable. Yet. I still prefer a trusty video camera that does not hunt around in AF mode and is easier to operate. They are a much more mature technology. Hope that was clear and we can agree to disagree. Cheers.

Go ahead, enjoy your MILC/DSLR. I can't see how's that arrogant, I'm just a pragmatist. As I said before, my own personal experience with one of the best and most advanced cameras in the business in terms of video AF (Canon's 7Dm2 with DPAF) showed me that even though DLSRs have made huge steps in focusing performance, we are still far away from the average AF performance of a dedicated video camera. You know the answer already: the industrial design of a video camera is very different from a DSLR. Use the best tool for the job. If you live inside a studio, take your time to focus with your cool MILC/DLSR. I can't afford that. I can't have any AF mishaps. Not in the middle of covering a protest and your ass (or your life) is on the line, for example. For journo work, at least for the moment, I'm sticking with video cams.

Of course there are times when you would use AF: when using a dedicated videocamera, not a MILC or a DSLR! That's the way I roll, my friend. Not condescending at all, just stating that pros don't let their gear get in their way. And by that I mean not trusting AF systems on MILCs or DSLRs. Have we become that lazy?

So much controversy around a MILC that never promised earth-shattering video AF performance. We've become lazy. Either move your wrist around the barrel of the lens and make the enormous effort of +focusing+ like pros have done for DECADES or buy a good videocamera and see your AF problems melt away thanks to its inherent design nature. This coming from an owner of a 7Dm2 which has, arguably, one of the better video AF systems in the industry (DPAF). Even them, I rarely trust the camera to do the focusing for me. I can't afford even a single AF hunting second. So I go full manual. You know, like a paid professional!

Last week I updated my sister's 2010 MacBook Pro with an solid state drive sold by OWC (assembled in Mexico, btw). The machine has completely revived! It's now a monster. Sadly, Apple lost a considerable amount of customers when they decided to hard-wire their components to their motherboard. For me, that's when they crossed the Rubicon (I still use 2012 machines. Good enough for me)

I agree. I prefer the dual-pixel focusing system on my 7D MII, but the 6D is no slouch. Definetly a different "look". If you can jump for C100, go for it. Seems like a much better deal now that the newer version is available. Maybe even the XC10, as other users have said. Big increase in overall quality.

Cheers, I'll try to post some before and after still shots of the graded material of my last visit to the woods. You'll get a good idea of the latitude of the 7D MII. However, I would strongly advise you to test your particular camera-lens combination with both of the camera's you mentioned. I've found that Canon lenses make a huge difference in video. Every fault of the lens is magnified in video, as well as its attributes. This is specially true for skin tones and the overall detail you wish to obtain from the human face. Right now I can't shoot without my 17-55 or a decent prime (not necessarily L primes, though).

Hello, happy owner of a Canon 7D Mark II here. Also, buyer of Andrew's picture profiles. Tried them the other day in the woods and got a very nice image after 1-click grading with FilmConvert. Easy as pie. I shot at 60p with my F2.8 17-55mm. Most of the shots were at 17mm and F5.6. My ISOs were pretty high. I specifically decided to record some clips in the Mexican woods because of the complex detail of the leaves, sticks, etc., and the strong contrast between shadows and well-lit spaces. In years past, I've visited the same woods with my former 6D and my Fuji X100. The Canon 7D Mark II takes considerable better video than both. Hope this helps.

Have you considered Sony's RX10? It's below your budget and from what I've read has been improved since its release thanks in part to a new XAVC-S codec via firmware.

You are right. I wasn't aware of that. Still, he is not exactly the most critical figure of video or photo gear, right? That's what I meant with my original statement "PR stunt". He is a public figure known mostly for his acting skills, not his online community. Nice move, Samsung.

I agree. Image looks nice and flat, but I can't trust the origin of the project. Seems like well designed PR stunt by Samsung with the cool actor of the moment.

This is important, right? I understand it's different from the original C100 or is this just PR-speak? From Canon: " (The Digic DV III ) processes the RGB representations that originate in the single CMOS sensor of the camera into three channels (Red, Blue, and Green) to maintain the rich resolution and clean color fidelity formerly possible only in three-chip sensor designs".

Very nice, Gonzalo. I'm also obsessed with proper skin tones and relieved that the A7s can deliver natural looks (I'm planning it as future purchase). I also see you used a third-party lens and got great results. Couple of questions: Have you used Sony's native FF lenses? Do you believe they can render similar results? Thanks! (Saludos desde México)

Thanks, E. I was expecting that :[