Kisaha

That actually is one factor that suits me very well as I don’t need a viewfinder, stills or video, and have used nothing but the LCD for years now.
It just made more sense for me constantly flipping all day long between stills and video to do so.
Still prefer a tilt though…
Still banging that gong 😬

Canon has a rumoured R7C on the way:
The Canon EOS R7 C will record 7K60P in Cinema RAW Light and will reportedly have the same codec options as other Cinema EOS cameras, including the Canon EOS R5 C.
There was also talk of a C50 ages ago but that rumour didn't seem to pan out..yet.

Hi Folks,
I see a recurring question here on the opening of the module. In short, it isn't hard. You basically have to pry it apart along the seam. Some will use a guitar pick, but I happened to have a 1" square of metal (you might have it too... it came with a magnetic phone mount, the metal that sticks to the phone) that was thin and able to get in there to pry and pop it open.
I see some people have asked about a larger capacity battery, and while that is certainly possible, I wasn't able to find one. I just replaced it with another 800mah 14500 3.7v battery I found at the local electronics store. MAKE SURE IT HAS SOLDERABLE ENDS ON IT!!
Once you pop the top, you've got to pull the circuit board out and disconnect the two connectors. The battery is held in place with some double sided tape on the underside that you can't see, but you'll need a small screwdriver or something to pry it out.
Next step is to take the plastic wrapper off to expose the connections. (see my first picture)
Then on the top side of the battery, peel the black cover back (it's under the little circuit board) to expose the top battery connector. Cut that silver strip. (see picture 3)
You do the same thing on the bottom of the battery. Basically at this point you've got to pay attention to how long the solderable lead is that is on your replacement battery. Mine was about an inch long, so I didn't end up cutting the connector at the very bottom. You can see how I trimmed it in picture 5. Once those two connectors are cut, you move the unit you just cut off onto your new battery. In picture 6 I've soldered that connector that goes down the side of the battery. Do the same thing on the top.
Once you've soldered it up, wrap the battery back up with some electrical tape and you're good to go!
 
 
 
 

@John Matthews @EduPortas @MrSMW @Kisaha
This conversation reminds of a couple of pretty important aspects of film-making that are often not discussed as often as they should be, audience and longevity.  I feel these have a fundamental role in considerations of specs and outright image quality.
The audience, in the context of this discussion, seems to be predominantly people who know the people in the film.  I think this is important because trying to make a film that engages and entertains people who don't have a personal connection to the subject is, I think, many many times harder.  For wedding / engagement work, and for the personal work that I do, the intended audience is people who know the subjects in the video, and for that, the outright technical quality isn't so much of a defining factor.
Longevity is the other major factor that I believe is at play here - this content has almost an infinite shelf-life.  Most content becomes less and less relevant the older that it gets, but not this.  
Corporate work is fundamentally different in this sense, and is mostly about looking modern and fresh and new, to which the aesthetic quality of the images (clean, modern, professional, etc) can be vitally important, at least in the clients eyes.
When you're filming a wedding (or other key family events - not sure if you guys do other family related work like mitzvahs, etc) or the "family videos" that I make, you're acting as a historian.  Older rich families have entire departments of people who keep the family archives, and this is the creation of that material.  In a sense the value of this content goes up over time rather than down.  If I had a choice to send videographers back in time to film a key event of my ancestors, earlier would be of more interest than later.
I've tried to maintain a clear distinction in my technical efforts: capture and preservation first, aesthetics second.  
Even when it comes to aesthetics, what is the aesthetic of a wedding or historic family event?  It's nostalgia.  Sure, you absolutely want to try and capture who the people are, with their own styles and character, but even if your client is demanding 12K video because it's the latest and they always have the best, in 50 years time the 2D linear sequence of images will look antiquated regardless of what you do.  I would also suggest that the sharper you make it (as distinct from resolution - they're independent aspects) the more quickly it will age, rather than appearing more modern.
Aesthetics, even when I concentrate on them, push me towards a less 'trendy' look.  The modern look is high-resolution, clean and noise-free, colours so pure they seem electric, and sharpened to the point you could fillet a fish with it.
This is the exact opposite of nostalgia.  The aesthetic of nostalgia, especially of positive events which is what we are trying to achieve with weddings and family content, is the aesthetic of the dream, the warmth of remembering people you loved, especially people who are gone - either because they have grown and aged and who are not who they were or because they have passed.  
The aesthetic of warm remembering is fuzzy, which requires very low sharpening and often diffusion, it is noisy and organic, the colours are of an older time, a time when colours were less 'pure' and more likely to have come from nature somehow rather than single NM LED lights.  It's also lower resolution just because the tech of the past had lower resolution.  
The more I learn about film-making, the more I prioritise content and then colour.  From a practical point of view, in my own work documenting family trips and moments, my priorities are (starting with the outcome):
To create a great final edit that is deeply sensitive to the subject matter (people and places) In order to do this, I must have a great editing experience with footage that is easy to edit and makes me feel inspired in the editing process What inspires me in the editing process is getting great shots of the people, having great colour, and having enough content to allow freedom and options in the edit If you think about those things in reverse order, for me who shoots without permission and without re-dos or direction, it means I have to have a small camera that doesn't get barred by security and doesn't influence the people I'm shooting too much, it means it has to operate well hand-held, and must be a workhorse that is always ready and doesn't get in the way.  Once I have narrowed my options to those that can do that, it means I want the best quality colour I can get from that camera, and it means I should shoot a lot.
I find that most camera talk exists in absence, or without discussing explicitly, the end goal of the entire endeavour.  
Contrary to what people might think, I think that more resolution is actually a good thing, all else being equal.  The problem is that all else isn't equal, and any extra resolution actively hurts the things I value that are more important to the end product than the resolution itself.

Sometimes, not even that.
Met one of my former wedding clients at another wedding last weekend and 3 years after theirs, they have not even watched their wedding film a single time.
So in some cases, we could present just a thumbnail and 10 minutes of blank content… 🤔🤨😂

If you're a DP/Camera op bringing in enough monthly to more than justify the cost of a modern high-end production camera then cool. But it seems the general consensus is that the diminishing returns of camera bodies has most smaller production companies and freelancers own their lower-value base kit (your Komodos, R5c, lumix cams, sony alpha cams etc) and rent the higher end models of the same system for the demanding projects that warrant them.
I invested in Topaz too, and am a believer in the concept of older cameras being good enough. But, how often are you going to add AI upscaling as a viable process to your workflow/pipeline? It helps in a pinch when you want your C-cam Blackmagic Micro to match your big boy units for a couple shots, but upscaling doesn't sound fun to do all the time. Unless you are only upresing the final render, it doesn't sound efficient adding possible hours of overnight upscaling your clips in your home render farm.

I watched this some time ago and unfortunately can't find my notes (I did it blind and made notes before I got the answers).  I've done a number of these tests before and normally they compare a number of cameras at a similar quality level and of a similar vintage, and in those cases I rank things mostly in order of ascending price!  This test was different though and tended to correlate with the cost of the camera but also how good the codec was, with the low bit-rate bit-depth codecs not looking as good.
This is great advice but no-one wants to hear it.
We've gone through three phases that I can see:
At first non-Hollywood wanted higher resolution and higher quality digital because digital was inferior to film.  During this phase Hollywood just shot film. Then Hollywood went to high quality 2K (Alexa etc) and the consumer market was justifiably dissatisfied with their low quality 4K cameras with poor codecs and colour science.  The manufacturers were pushing higher resolution to try and sell more TVs and the consumer market bought into the hype, demanding more low-quality pixels rather than understanding that they needed better pixels rather than more of them. Unfortunately, Hollywood has now succumbed to this resolution hype as well (largely kick-started by RED and Netflix purely for business purposes with nothing to do with image quality itself). Normally I'd say "to each their own", but unfortunately it means that those that want to buy a new camera have to pay for all the BS resolution that the gullible market has demanded.  
To get a great looking 2K timeline you have to either:
Use a low-resolution high-quality camera from 2010-2015 with their support issues, crap battery life, poor pre-amps, and lack of modern features Use a modern high-resolution high-quality camera to record ridiculous file sizes like 4K uncompressed RAW, 8K uncompressed RAW and then put those on a 2K timeline, costing you a heap in storage and computation Use a modern high-resolution high-quality camera to send ridiculous resolution images to an external recorder that downsamples to something sensible and then uses a high-quality codec (like 2K compressed RAW, 2K Prores 4444, or maybe ~2.5K Prores) The missing combination here is for the camera to downsample in-camera and to write a high-quality but sensible-resolution file onto the card, but this option is very rare You can post about image quality until you're blue in the face, but people either can't (or don't want to) see past the marketing BS from TV companies that tells them that they need to quadruple the resolution of their camera every 5 years, even though it has almost zero effect on image quality.

Ok, I'm interested to know your motives and next move! I'm thinking of holding on until the rumoured S5H is released to see how the AF is (I know, I know 🤪). But I was at a wedding where someone was using a Canon R6 and seeing the continuous AF working was eye opening. They were taking photos but they showed me how it worked in video. He said he hadn't missed a photo in the whole wedding and it's more or less the same with video. He said now he really only has to worry about exposure and composition most of the time, which on a long job like a wedding, would make life a lot easier.
So I guess AF will be one of your reasons!

And that is just it, how many these days are looking for this over an arguably more complete hybrid?
I dunno, but I guess less and less each year…
 

Sony announced that these products will have an 8% price increase.
 
a1
a9M2
a7SM3
a7C
a7M4
a7M3
a6600
FE 12-24mm F2.8 GM
FE 12-24mm F4 G
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM
Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm F4 ZA OSS
FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS
FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS
FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G OSS
FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3G OSS
FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS
FE 14mm f/1.8 GM
FE 24mm F1.4 GM
FE 35mm f/1.4 GM
FE 20mm f/1.8G
FE 24mm F2.8G
Distagon T* FE 35mm F1.4 ZA
Sonnar T* FE 35mm F2.8 ZA
FE 28mm F2
FE 35mm F1.8
FE 50mm F1.2 GM
FE 40mm F2.5 G
FE 50mm F2.5 G
Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA
Sonnar T* FE 55mm F1.8 ZA
FE 85mm F1.4 GM
FE 100mm F2.8 STF GM OSS
FE 135mm f/1.8 GM
FE 85mm F1.8
FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS
FE 50mm F2.8 Macro
E 16-55mm F2.8G
Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS
E 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS
E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS LE
E 16mm F2.8
E 20mm f/2.8
Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA
E 35mm F1.8 OSS
E 50mm F1.8 OSS
E 30mm F3.5 Macro
FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G
FE 400mm F2.8 GM OSS
FE 600mm F4 GM OSS
SELP18110G
SELP18200
SELP18105G
SEL14TC
SEL20TC
SEL057FEC
SEL075UWC

Blackmagic should have done this from Day 1! As MFT supports Super 35mm lenses. 
The Pocket 6K Pro with a MFT Mount would be dreamy. 

Young at heart!

You could argue that you are better off with EF lenses for all mirrorless bodies too.
Canon RF and M,Fuji-X and G, Sony-E, L, MFT, Nikon Z and even Hasselblad-X mount all have credible electronic adapters for EF so if you use mixed bodies or even just to soften the blow if you do a wholesale change from one brand to another then having lenses with such universal compatibility is a real boon.
Not to mention the massive choice of 1st and 3rd party options as well as the cost benefits of the 2nd hand market.
In the case of Canon, it also immunises you from potential shithouse behaviour of firmware blocking of other adapters because, of course, they make their own EF-RF adapter so they can't block that.
For similar reasons, I would recommend anyone looking at getting the new wave of full frame cine primes and anamorphics in EF mount where possible as it gives the same option of mounting on all the above mount cameras but, crucially, the adapters will purely be physical with no electronics (you don't need that anyway as they are all manual) so can't be shut out by firmware.
The broader perspective here is if you picked up something like the 24-105mm f4 L with the 5D MarkII at the start of the "revolution" almost a decade and a half ago, then that lens will have followed you on whatever journey you've been on ever since today no matter if you flipped between cropped MFT, APS-C and now full frame on whatever brand you have chopped and changed to. 
EF lenses have survived every scorched earth "game changer" flip to a new system that we've all made and is still very much standing.
It is very much the cockroach of the lens mounts !
Or, more generously, it is the most forgiving of all lens mounts because no matter which ill advised and ultimately disastrous camera system change you've made it will always be loyally by your side every step of the way.
Hang on, it might be a fucking jinx 😉

It will certainly come down to the sensor and specs. Hopefully it uses the 26MP XH2S stacked sensor.
By the way A7IV becomes APS-C in 4K60p, has terrible rolling shutter, no 4K120p and overheating issues.
In the end, it probably won't convert FF Sony shooters but rather aimed at S35 FS5/FS7 users like myself that are used to the crop factor and have according lenses like the Sigma 18-35 etc.

Only the Komodo is RF, the others have swappable mounts. For instance one of the best mounts for RED is EF, so completely incompatible with RF or mirrorless lenses. That's the Motion Mount with electronic variable ND built in. So what use is RF for RED users who want to use that?
You are far better off with either EF or PL lenses for the vast majority of RED's bodies, especially the proper high-end stuff. Komodo is entry level.

Its a little sad to see you guys argue like that, I'd expect that on dpreview forums but not here.
There is no absolute when it comes to lenses imo. We all have different goals and preferences.
I personally hate zooms, my brain just works better with primes. I'm all about that fixed focal length.
That said, I'm not shooting sports/action like gt3rs, where I gather getting the shot is the only thing that counts.
And that ties into his perspective of optically better is superior. I get that and his observations are interesting.
Again personally, none of that matters. In fact the more CA, vignetting, even softness can equate to lens character. There are also other factors like micro-contrast and 3D pop that I find are often better on primes.
Not to the extreme or for every situation though, let's not get silly but case in point being the infamous EF 50mm F1.2.
I have to chuckle when gt3rs says its "useless for photo". A good friend of mine uses that lens exclusively for photography and has his work exposed in numerous exhibits.. I'm also a big fan of that lens both for photo & video (we nickname it the Hattori Hanzō).
I understand his perspective though, it's no secret the lens is soft wide open and has a bunch of CA. again, for sports/action its probably a terrible lens choice. But for artistic purposes, that dreamy look is key. Same goes I'm sure for Canon's FD "dream" lenses and all kinds of cult vintage lenses.
So there you have it really.. zoom vs primes, modern vs vintage lens designs. There is no right/wrong choice, just whatever suits you best. No need to insult one another over their personal preferences.
Getting back to the original discussion, thinking about it some more, Canon shutting down third lens manufacturers is going to hurt the system. I guess that means no more Sirui RF too, so no more native anamorphics etc. Bad move for us customers..

Big improvement they are not, I got the 16mm RF because it was the only logical choice for the R7 (in terms of size/weight and price), and a unique proposition. Great lens it is not, and I did a little research on most of them.
Obviously not many RF-S options.
How many 1.2f lenses do you believe they sell every month? Or how many people are going to buy the 28-70mm 2f?
The 35mm is a mixed bag, macro it is not.
A part of the Abbott review about the 85mm 2f
"I vastly prefer the autofocus performance of the Samyang to the RF85M, as it utilizes linear motors to achieve faster, quieter, smoother focus.  The Samyang is also weather sealed, comes with a lens hood and a pouch, and has a slightly higher build quality in terms of external materials…not to mention that it has an aperture a full stop larger at F1.4.  The big advantage for the Canon is in magnification, as the Samyang has a rather pathetic 0.11x magnification.  But how about image quality?  Comparing the two lenses at F2 (on the EOS R5) reveals that both are incredibly sharp and have excellent contrast, with perhaps a slight edge for the Samyang."
They produce such excellent lenses that are affraid of Viltrox and Samyang ones! Imagine if they have to compete with Sigma, or other established lens makers..
They put I.S on some of the zooms..something that should have been there for years now and other manufacturers already have..
Selling a piece of plastic for a big proportion of the lens's price (for the cheap lenses at least) is a terrible business decision and shows a lot, and hoods are needed.

Can people read?

Absolutely not true, some zooms are better than primes as posted above the EF 24-70 and EF 70-200 are optically better than EF 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and on pair with 135 2.0. The EF 24-70 2-8 II at 24 2.8 is much better than the EF 24 1.4 II at 2.8. I have/had all these lenses. All expensive L lenses.

The new affordable RF 15-30 seems a tad better in the corner that the RF 16 2.8 (here we go again with a zoom better than a prime) and both better than the old 16-35 II L. Also, most of the EF L wide angle zooms are better than the EF 14 2.8 L v1.

Now in case of the proclaimed by people that never have used one, no improved RF lenses, the RF 50 1.2, RF 85 1.2 are better optically than the RF 70-200 and RF 24-70.

But yes I lost all my credibility by really comparing zooms with primes instead of trusting you guys with the super generalized statement: primes always better optically than zooms and RF are no improvements over EF.

I'm really sorry that I'm so dumb not trusting your claims but lose time in testing things out.........

Do me a favor test one of the above examples you may learn something new.

Overall, maybe I'm just spoiled, I don't tend to get all that excited by cell phone footage. Ultra wide depth of field, the digital stabilization only works in good lighting conditions (also the reason why I'm am never all that happy with every 360 camera I've owned). I know lot of people think shallow depth of field is overated, and they'll list a bunch of classic movies that were shot on super 16 back in the 60's that have deep DOF, but I think it's magical, and those movies they always list are classics because of their stories, not their cinematography. They're classics in spite of their cinematography

Now imagine a NX2 with this kind of stabilization...

Digital stabilization works better with higher shutter speed; cause you don't see the micro motion blur. For serious video production we can't use any shutter speed we like. But for YouTube, sure its good enough. 

I think that 3rd party lenses are a huge draw into a system. For video creation, the Viltrox primes are quite a bit better than the Fujifilm primes at cheaper prices. The same way I think a lot of people like the 3rd party options for zooms like the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD for Sony & Fuji APS-C or the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN that is way smaller and lighter than the 24-70mm from the camera makers.
You could argue that a 2500€ lens from Canon/Sony/Nikon is a lot better than a 999€ 3rd party lens... but then when does it really matter? When has the hint of less sharpness/resolution or the higher artifacts (CA, etc.) actually detracted from the work you produce? 

Looking at it from Canon's perspective I get it. And maybe it won't hurt them if they crack down on third party lens makers. It's hard to tell how many people would really care if they do, because I don't know that we're representative of the majority of their users. To us the ability to use third party lenses and adapters is a big deal, but most professional photographers aren't going to use a Viltrox lens anyway. They'll stick with their Canon lenses. And most lower end users I feel probably will stick with Canon lenses because it's the easiest / most convenient option. 
Assuming I'm right about that, then the question is "if the majority of Canon users are going to invest in Canon lenses then why do they care about these small third party companies to begin with?" 
I think one of the big things that helped Sony, I think, was their lens options, which is kinda funny given how long it took them to flesh out their lenses. 

Well I can say for example that for someone like me who has an R5-C and is actively looking to pick up one of those RF-EF adaptors that come with the drop-in ND filter, that the Meike and Kolari offerings are just better. And that's using every metric that matters, including price. So from that perspective I can see why Canon would not want this type of smoke from third party companies.

I mostly lurk here but I got the X-H2S about a month ago. Because I got it together with the Tascam XLR adapter, my order was delayed significantly so I missed the chance to use it on most of the gigs I had lined-up originally.
 
The one time I've used it for video, it was the Wide of a three-camera interview setup (with R5Cs as the CUs) feeding an ATEM Mini ISO. Lens was the XF 23mm f/2 (set to f/4) with AF-C / Face Detect-on. The R5Cs were set to 4K/S35 mode and one had an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II (set to f/4) while the other had an RF 24-105mm f/4.
The Good:
Color: The X-H2S was set to Astia and the R5Cs were set to EOS Standard Profile and their footage was relatively interchangeable (this I already knew from my previous experience mixing Canon and Fujifilm cameras).
Video autofocus: The X-H2S autofocus is significantly better than my previous X-T3 -I didn't notice any focus hunting during the multi-hour shoot which is something I can't say for my previous X-series bodies in similar setups.
Keeps going: It records for longer than 29.99 minutes! That's all I want in my hybrid cameras since my main moneymaker is long form documentary.
Formats: ProRes! h.265! h.264! I've always appreciated the level of control Fujifilm gives the operator over file output. Anyone who's used a BMPCC will know the frustration of being format-limited by resolution and vice-versa.
CF-Express -as much as I hate that I'm back to cameras that have non-matched dual card slots, at least they're the same type as what I use in my R5Cs. And GB for GB, CF-Express is cheaper than SDXC UHS-II. But holy hell do they get hot.
The Bad:
The button and dial layout is significantly different from my other X-series cameras and it drives me nuts. One of the main reasons I skipped the X-T4 was specifically because they altered the layout and this has the same problem. I can re-map some of the functionality to standardize with my other X-series bodies but there are wholly deleted buttons and switches (the drive-mode and exposure-mode are two glaring examples) that is going to force me to change mindset whenever using the X-H2S with another of my X-series cameras. I might have to sell all my older bodies and just get another X-H2S (or the 40MP model) so that I don't get annoyed.
The fan works and I'm glad I have it. The problem is, as I type this... I can't remember where I put it. It can only be attached when you're using the camera, as it prevents the screen from closing/cannot remain attached permanently. It also has two sets of rubber covers that are easily lost if you're frequently attaching/detaching it. It's a very dumb implementation and is probably going to get lost and re-purchased. I wish they had just gone the route that Canon did and elegantly integrated into the body.
No anamorphic view. I have three Sirui anamorphics for XF-mount and I still have to use my Atomos Ninja Inferno.
No Waveform - I come from a "traditional" video production background so I was so excited to get these back into my workflow on my R5Cs when I don't want to attach a larger monitor. At least the Zebras on the X-H2S are still well implemented...
HDMI frame stuttering -this is something that happens on my X-T3 frequently, and I haven't had a chance to really figure out why it happens (is it thermal? is it a framerate mismatch? etc...). I noticed it happening to the feed coming from X-H2S but, again, I've only used it once so I can't rule out user error here, either.

The Jury is still out:
Photos: My other money maker is photography. One of my main clients is a symphony and so I'm constantly shooting in fast-moving, high contrast scenarios using electronic shutter. The X-series cameras I own (T2, H1, T3) have been as-good-as the R5C in all aspects except resolution, autofocus and extreme high-ISO. Previously, choosing a body has been a trade-off between auto-focus performance vs rolling shutter artifacts. I'm hoping that the X-H2S solves both those issues but I know there's a shadow recovery penalty with the new stacked sensor. The new season starts in about a month so only time will tell if it's actually going to be problematic.

Video autofocus: I haven't had a real-world opportunity to test the X-H2S's video autofocus against the R5C's. Hopefully, it'll be as good as the R5C -which is a low standard :-). Honestly, I was surprised by how inferior the Canon cinema implementation of DPAF is compared to the non-cinema version. Tracking moves I could do with robotic automation on the 70D/80D/5D4 I wasn't able to do with the R5C. It's made food documentary and product video capture more... annoying than it should be.
Conclusion:
I'm still stuck in the value-conscious mindset I was in a few years ago -when it would definitely have been an either/or situation- so, I'm kind of torn on whether I wasted $3000 USD on the X-H2S or $5000 USD on the R5C. If only one or the other existed, I'd probably be happy but since they both exist and they both have respective strengths and weaknesses... it's weirdly still a toss-up. I am happy that I have enough work to justify owning both.

After re-reading what I wrote above (and how non-committal I still am), I will say this: the X-H2S is what I wished the BMPCC 6K Pro would have been. It is definitely more expensive when kitted-out equivalently but it does almost everything better.
If $5000 USD is within your budget and rolling-shutter isn't a big deal, the Canon R5C is the better tool versus the X-H2.
But at $3000 USD (base+TASCAM audio unit) the X-H2S is the only hybrid camera that does all the things it does, and does them well.

JP