hijodeibn

8 hours ago, androidlad said:

Why would you grade on a TV? There are some good quality 24-27in monitors in the sub-1K range that are great for SDR grading as long as you calibrate properly.

Ok, from better to worse, which ones do you recommend?

On 5/5/2019 at 7:01 AM, androidlad said:

UP3216Q is not an HDR monitor.

To access its built-in hardware calibration 14bit 1D LUT + 3x3 matrix (slot CAL1/2), you need Xrite i1 Display Pro and Dell's Calibration Solution software.

Hey androidlad, for under $1K, which TV would you recommend to use for grading?, not professional of course, but something that can be close enough....if that option exist of course, more than one option will be great...

14 minutes ago, Jrteh said:

So ....?

A7III 4K = ferrari

EOS R 4k = ?

EOS R 4k = Rolls-Royce

The most trusted machine out there, you can go to the Sahara and feel confidence is never going to fail.....and if that happen by a miracle.....yeap, the support is on his way to the rescue....

Any news about DPAF activation in 4k or 6k?, is it possible?

1 hour ago, kye said:

Non-techie types do like using their phones, but "there is no zoom" is also something non-techie types who have a bit of interest in photography understand and care about.

Don't confuse people not knowing about cameras or tech with people not knowing about what makes a good image or what they like.  We are drowning in photos and video and therefore live in the most visually literate time in all of human history.

When in doubt, go for usability and durability, then just tell them to shoot everything and not worry about the camera.

Anyway....whatever you said.....she is going to use the NEW camera the first three days.....then just use her phone...which is always in her pocket.....camera are too bulky for vacations....

11 minutes ago, darrellcraig said:

You probably won't have to convince her... don't be surprised if they come back with mostly S7 pics & vids regardless of what camera you send.

Might consider spending the $ to upgrade the phone vs. getting a camera.

I agree, she probably get used to just use her phone, specially since it is not going to take any more room from her handbag...

Oh my Gosh...there are already 12 supporters.....if I use something like that for run and gun I will be on court almost every week.....not a gun machinne officer, the ultimate futuristic gimbal.....after FRAN 8K I should be inmune to scams.....but this creative for useless crap really amazed me.....

On 3/16/2019 at 5:54 AM, BTM_Pix said:

Sadly, they have announced bankruptcy.

Hopefully no one has been stung financially with regard to pre-orders.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/03/16/cinemartin-to-close-due-to-bankrupcy-/

I don't think anybody did a pre-order, this shit was clearly a scam from day 1....

52 minutes ago, mat33 said:

It makes perfect sense for NASA to use Canon cameras because astronauts are winners and we all know that winners use Canon cameras ?

Probably NASA astronauts are lazy and never read the spects sheet, only looked the final image and choose what they think is the best image for them, really stupid people.....how can they shoose image perception over spects sheet?

4 hours ago, ade towell said:

I've got the eos m50 which has slightly sharper hd than the usual Canon dslr mush but still looks very soft when I cut with the c100, and the limited dr and lack of c-log or wdr, zebras and waveform is frustrating. Would be happy with an updated version of the m50 - bit sharper and with c-log, am ok with crop camera for stills 

I am also looking for the same, EOS R is the best for now, but too expensive for my wallet, so a new m50 in the short time, or a drop in EOS R price....

3 hours ago, Mokara said:

I am serious.

Wow, so the the guys who are nominated to the Oscars are just snobs who doesn`t know anything about the right equipment to make their productions to shine over the crow?, then, where are the EXPERTS who are using sony, panasonic, etc....? , why their productions are not nominated to the Oscars?, is it a Canon conspiration?, I have hear non senses before, but this one really SHINE OVER THE CROW!!!!

12 minutes ago, Michi said:

Yes, I too think it‘s highly unlikely we‘ll ever see an EOS-M body that ticks all my boxes. But hope dies last (as you say in german). Maybe some day a mirrorless 7D equivalent will come, be it EOS-M or EOS-RF...

And regarding the EOS R: in principle I could work well with what it offers. But I don‘t like the idea of investing 2000 bucks to use only half of that cameras potential. At the EOS RP price point, I‘d consider it (but would still be screwd when using it for stills). Im fully invested in S35/APS-C, no need and no intention to go FF...

Just change one zoom from S35 to FF and you are done, I am also using a C100 but I keep some FF glases, EOS R for now is the best choice for a B cam, the issue is the price, too expensive for me also, probably will go down with the new RP....I hope so

22 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

This thread should rename to Snowbro & Wolf33d friendship is magic thread

What was this thread about?......ahhh yeahhhh...Canon screw me up with DPAF is EOS R(I)P!!!

CRAP!!!!!!

that`s my breaking point....too sad, now EOS R is my only option, I hope this new model at least push the price down.....

is it confirmed no DPAF for 4K in Canon RP?

5 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

A gimbal is not a handheld look replacement. A strap around the neck worked wonders for the 550d days indeed.

Then use the same here, if the camera has not enough weight just add a cage, if the problem is that you prefer another brand than Canon just go for that brand....this camera is going to be gold in the right hands...

1 hour ago, zerocool22 said:

Yeah the small size is great for photography, but for video these small camera's just jitter all over the place as they are too low weight. Sure Ibis helps, but I guess it does not look as natural as a handheld heavy weight camera. 

There are so many gimbals out there that can support a camera of this size and weight, IBIS can be easily replaced, really not an issue at all, canon colors, 4k, S35 crop, DPAF and all for 1,600 bucks...this is the wining combo, if real it is going to be my new doc camera.....hope next tomorrow is confirmed.....thanks daddy Canon!!!

57 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

They will either gimp it with no DPAF or a 1.8 crop or no Clog. 

I think crop is pretty much confirmed to be S35, but I am afraid no DPAF in 4K is the threat, that is certainly a breaking point to me, lets wait and see, if DPAF is included daddy Canon is going to sell this camera as hotcakes...

55 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Within the limitations is where you need to work... not just with the R... with all cameras. I use 4K all the time on the R. Yes there’s a crop... that’s been covered to death. But the image it produces is quite good. IMO, more filmic/cinematic than both Sony and Nikon. 

Side-by-side, comparing to the Z6, I can tell you that the Nikon’s is the more detailed image. The Sony produces a similarly detailed image. The problem is, for me at least, neither of these images feels very cinematic. They feel like video. Don’t get me wrong, they are certainly technically superior; and in low-light both handily outperform the Canon. But here in lies the problem. Regardless of technical superiority, the Canon just looks better. It looks organic. It moves better. And while the Canon cannot hope to compete at nose bleed ISOs, it works well up to 6400 or so, with noise looking more like film grain than the horrible confetti we are all too use to seeing.

Now here is the problem... while you can certainly sharpen the Canon image, there is no method I am aware of that can recreate the organic qualities that the Canon produces. I spent about two months comparing footage from these cameras. Trying to match to my C200 which is of course pretty flexible in post. During the course of this testing I tried numerous techniques, in an attempt to replicate the organic look that the EOS R could produce. I added filters to the lenses. Tried vintage glass. Used post processing... nothing... and I mean nothing could convincingly reproduce the filmic/organic feel of the Canon. Finally, frustrated and frankly, disappointed I opted to switch to the EOS R and part with the other “superior” cameras.

My conclusion: Cinema is art... and art is not a technical exercise. While the others are without doubt better spec wise, that means little if they fail to produce an image that you love.

I’m positive that if you search around you can find some awful EOS R footage. But I can tell you right now... that’s operator error... not the camera. In the right hands this camera can produce impressive imagery.

DBounce, very interesting your conclusions, this kind of profesional work is what I am always looking here, if the R is more cinematic than the C200 that´s only good news for me, what about comparing the R with the C100/C300, how much cinematic is it?, I am using a C100 and very happy with the cinematic image for now...

1 hour ago, leobauberger said:

It is, really, a ONE FREAKING HARD choice, lol.
Color wise, it's just not Canon. right? But...for all the other options (gh5s, a7iii), is the most comfortable one to pair.

There are a lot of things to put in the balance from each one and actually I'm having problem to balance the weight of each thing.
 From Canon I have the advantage to have some good glass already, some minor detail like same battery (actually how's the battery performance in the eos r?) and easier worflow using my 80d as the camera that will remain here. AF, flipscreen and all those tools that I'm used too when I need. Like, I barely use AF but when I'm doing a one man job it really save your ass and you can 'relly' on that, rather than the not to close X-T3 that is good, but it's enough?
From what I'm seeing too, the fuji lens lineup isn't too great quality wise, I don't know. Maybe it's just that feeling that Fuji NEVER was a choice and it's probably their second real video oriented camera and you just don't have the guts to jump in the entire system.
Cameras are evolving really quickly and I have the feeling that we are changing the bodies more often than before, so, the price for the sell an used equipment, thinking about investment retain, is something is in my mind a lot, because quite frankly, we know that EOS R is just a sample for the pro body to come. 
But then again, X-T3 too. And which of the two will retain its value for longer? Probably I already know the answer.
 

If you already have good glass for the Canon R then I think your choice is done, changing system and later probably have to come back is the worst option, also remember, depreciation of Canon cameras is really marginal, you still can see the 5D mark iii around 1,200 - 1,500 USD, which is incredible, also if ML crack together with Andrew the Canon R, you instantly get a more powerfull camera at $0 cost....

34 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Just came back from a video shoot with the EOS-R. Mainly handeld, lots of interviews on the go, mixed indor lighting, dim light but also outside during sunset.

It was just like using a 6Dmkii. In other words a joy. Super easy but with some added perks like C-log (for a few shots), peaking, nicer layout of the buttons and wheels (imo) and of course a nicer HD image. The digital IS was awesome as always. Used it for everything.

Hopefully I can share some footage later on, not allowed at this point. But when reviewing a few shots captured inside a stable with nasty fluorescent lights. My rather soft 28mm f1.8. Ungraded from the neutral picture profile. My commet is: pure class.

Great news Mattias!!!....hope sooner than later you can share some footage, ideally graded, so the noobs can really understand what this tool can do in the hands of an expert....

1 hour ago, gelaxstudio said:

Max Yurye had upload a side by side IQ comparison video of X-T3 vs A7III vs EOS R vs Z7 vs Pocket 4K ，and the 4K  on eos r looks like 1080p upscaled，and the 1080p looks like 720p upscaled，any brand which still using line-skipping 1080P，now just canon ，like what they did  10 years ago

And  I know some people can  still call it cinematic  looks

 

 

hahaha....another noob that think Cinematic means hard digital sharpness.....

Just copying here the answer Andrew provided in other topic which apply 100% to you:

-------------------------------------------

Pixel peeping is alive and well I see!

Nikon Z7 is fine. It is a miracle in full frame from 8.2K down to 4K. Very nice detail level. Very good dynamic range and colour, which Max's test doesn't even touch on.

Z7 in APS-C is similar but less aliasing / stair stepping - but we are talking 4K here, so at normal viewing distances you don't even see the aliasing in full frame mode, let alone in the oversampled Super 35 mode.

The EOS R is soft. So what. It's 4K. You have more detail than you'll ever need unless cropping 4x into the image.

You wanna know why I don't do tests like this very much anymore?

1. Nobody views your film or music video at 400% crop. The absolute sharpness level in 4K means JACK SHIT. What you want is a soft stable cinematic image - not hard digital sharpness. In fact it's an *advantage* to have a softer image for YouTube, when the player is scaling it down to fit any number of screen resolutions - especially a 1080p screen. It looks more natural when people view it downscaled or even on a 4K TV from normal viewing distances. In the first case the downscaling works badly with a digitally sharper, harder image vs a softer, more cinematic one. In the second case the natural downscaling from the human eye at a longer viewing distance makes a less hard 4K image at 1:1 look more natural and less fatiguing than a "harder" image which shows more emphasised detail. We have plenty enough detail in 4K as it is, even on the EOS R and to overemphasise it, like in Max's video, is a BAD THING.

2. The test by Max claims to be about image quality when he's only testing one small aspect of it and not even very well. He's actually looking 90% at the sharpening levels in the menus, rather than outright performance of the image. All the cameras apply a different level of sharpening to bring out extra detail. You can dial it down or up. So what? How natural and cinematic does that fine detail look to the real viewer? That is the real question.

3. Max's video tests just one aspect of the camera and seems to imply it's 90% of what makes a good image. A wide shot of a building with constantly shifting light at dusk so that not even the lighting conditions are matched on each comparison shot. It says nothing of colour, dynamic range, skin-tones, lenses, sensor size, rolling shutter, motion cadence, codec performance, macro blocking, mud, compression, grading, bit-depth, LOG profile performance and  how easy or not it is to grade. These are the things that determine the final result. These are the important things and not ONE in isolation but ALL together.

Go back and do a proper test Max that takes you longer than half an hour... But no, he's got subscriber numbers and viewers to chase so it must be done quick!

On 10/24/2018 at 8:23 AM, leobauberger said:

I'm really insecure what camera I will buy, damn. I'm inclined to the X-T3, it have almost all the checkboxes I'm looking for, and for almost the same price of the eos r I will bring an atomos ninja v together with perfect codecs, falsecolor, no recording limit and better and cheaper media (in the long term) using SSDs.

But then...it's Fuji and I never used any Fuji before.  I have some legacy glass from canon and I'm used to their DPAF (and actually helps a lot when you do 1 men crew jobs), there's even the variable nd adaptor that really looks good in paper. The price of canon products tend to stick a lot more too, so I believe I can resell the eos r easily then the X-T3 in the future.

Damn Canon why you make things harder than needed. 

First check very carefully the redish.... added from the X-T3 specially in skin tones, and see if that is acceptable for your footage.

I know the feeling, the Canon R is the camera I want but the price is really too much....it's a hard choice!!!

Am I the only one who notice the redish color added in Fuji and Nikon cameras?.....for me that´s terrible, footage imposible to use, I stay with Canon, pocket 4K also looked good....

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I know people waited an age for it to be finally released so just wondering whether anyone on here actually ended up getting a SteadXP and curious to know how you are getting on with it, particularly in how it compares to software only post products.

Some interesting real world example videos floating around (no pun intended) from people who have got it but the calibration and overall workflow might be a bit too much of a pain in the arse?

 

 

Is it only me or the footage from the SteadXP+ looks terrible soft?

48 minutes ago, Django said:

Ain't that the truth.. tired of hearing how "soft" Canon IQ is.. I could just as easily turn it around and say GH5 is nasty over sharpened & supersampled A7X ends up looking videoish.

Had a go at Z7 & XT3 the other day, all really capable cameras albeit each with their own quirks.. but really there is no excuse to hate on any of these latest-gen units.

That being said I'm still having issues with EOS Rs autofocus using adapted EF glass, even with the 50mm 1.8 STM i just bought. It's inconsistent, sometimes laggy or plain confused. Kinda driving me nuts, when my 2012 first gen C100 DPAF never skips a beat.. 

Indeep this is really disapointing, a break deal for me, I hope a firmware upgrade will solve this issue in the short term.....

I will choose the X-T3 only for better AF, if you are doing it manually I think both cameras are very similar, but X-T3 has a S35 crop so is still the winner to my eyes....