gt3rs

I got maybe 5 frozen episodes with the R5 in 2 years all due to a crappy CFExpress card.

I used to move around R5 + adapter + 200-400 F4 (3.6 kg lens) by holding only the camera with one hand and never had issue with play… and this 1-2 times a weeks for 2h hockey matches.

I cannot come up with 1 single advantage of the 1Dx III vs. the R5 for video usage. And only 1 for photo: initial AF acquisition.

And the 1Dx III uses a completely different sensor that the R3 so it does not have the same image and quite bad RS and no AF in 5.5k 50/60p. 

I owned both for a while then sold the 1Dx III for adding a R5c.

46 minutes ago, genXtechguy said:

I have an R3 and although it has a very high quality internal RAW format, I would love if Canon gives it the ability to do ProRes RAW.  Especially now since this R6 II can do 6K ProRes RAW.  The R3 also does 6K.  As an FCPX user, I plead with you Canon .. pleeeease, it just makes sense now.

Move to Resolve no need for external recorder if you have internal raw. FCPX not sure how long it will exist not a priority for Apple imo....

4 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Nikon have launched the MC-N10, a $429 remote grip for the Z9 which really does bring a lot to the party for video shooters.

it let’s you control all aspects of the camera like ISO/Shutter/Aperture etc but also has some neat tricks for focus and zoom.

They are not making getting the Z9 any less appealing are they ?

It should be both wired and wireless as the gimbal example is just a pain with a cable and there should be more power zoom lenses... I believe Nikon has no FF ones and neither Canon has if you exclude the Cine ones.

On 10/19/2022 at 8:58 PM, Ty Harper said:

Anyone using the R5C with a gimbal? Would love to know what other owners are using and what the experience has been like. Currently looking at either the RS2 or RS3 but I'm coming from the Glidecam era so gimbals are new to me. I'll also be looking to use mine with the battery grip and compatible Smallrig cage which I have no interest in dismantling - so curious how that might limit or complicate things for me.

I used the R5c with the full cage and the FxLion One Battery on top of the cage on a Ronin S quite a bit and depending on the lens is a bit at the limit with the clearance. The EVF of the R5c is stick out quite a bit and the cage need some more space on the motor side.

Sold the S and now I use a RS3 Pro and due to stronger motors and longer harms I can mount whatever with no issue. For my Africa project I did use a lot with the 70-200 and no problem at all to balance and still have enough clearance to go underslung.

Although Smallrig claims the cage to be compatible with the DJI arca plate ,mine is not and I tested with RSC2 (too small for this camera anyway) and RS3 Pro plates and due to the security pin both cannot take the cage directly. I have the R5 full cage so maybe.
Bottomline either you mount the DJI arca adapter (that comes with the gimbal) on the tripod hole of the cage or if you want something more solid you need to buy this: SMALLRIG Quick Release Plate for Arca-Type Standard Compatible with DJI RS 2 / RSC 2 / RS 3 / RS 3 Pro Gimbal - 3154  or this SMALLRIG Camera Quick Release Plate Adapter with Arca-Swiss for DJI RS 2/RSC 2/RS 3/RS 3 Pro & for Ronin-S Gimbal - 3061.

I use the gimbal on high vibration environment quite a bit, on MTB, Motorbike, Jeep, Skii, Heli so the stronger motor of the RS3 Pro is a no brainer for my usage. For only 200g more is imo worth. The new auto locking of the RS3 and RS3 Pro seems a small thing but it makes life so much easier. 

R5 and R5c have the same weather resistance.  Both not at the same level as 1Dx.

Used my R5 and R5c in sandy, light raining and light snow with no issue so far but they are insured so I take more risks without worrying. 

If the video will be used only on YouTube you can use most of music, but you will not be able to turn on monetization and YouTube will turn on monetization and give the revenue to the music copyright older. So, you can use a Lady Gaga song with no problem, but you get advertisement on the video and you get zero revenue.

4 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

No, both the Kolari and Meike adapters also provide electronic control for AF etc.

A simple handshake ID check between camera and adapter/lens will be able to tell the camera the identity of what it is connected to it and compare that with an approved list at which point the camera can then adopt a policy of "if you're not on the list, you're not coming in" and prevent any operation until you remove it.

 

 

Are you sure that you could not just create a simple pin passthrough adapter as the camera don't need to be aware of the adapter, of course they could check if EF lens is mounted check if OEM adapter is used, and then other adapter manufacturer are screwed. But as the adpaper support fully manual lens not sure they would really do this...

After 2 years of Canon VND adapter for EF and using normal screw in VND on RF lenses, I'm not sure that the adapter is more convenient. 

Going from min to zero is a pain as either you remove the filter and put a clear one or swap the adapter, I find unscrewing faster as I can simply put in the pocked the vnd and I'm done. 
The small wheel for me is not as easy as the front filter to do fine adjustments.
The plus that you can use lens hoods.

If I would start all over now, I would probably look into some magnetic system.
As adapter the kippertie revolva seems a better solution but is very expensive and I'm not sure how compatible is with the R5/c...

On 9/4/2022 at 8:18 PM, Andrew Reid said:

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.

This is not correct as RED V-Raptor has a fixed RF mount and you need adapters for the other mount. The RED V-Raptor XL has a swappable PL mount where you can buy the EF mount.

So from the latest 3 models that RED sells two are native RF.

 

On 9/3/2022 at 12:03 AM, ntblowz said:

Interesting to see EF 24-70 2.8 II @ 24mm 2.8 is better than EF 24mm 1.4 II at 2.8, I have RF 24-70 2.8 and got RF 24mm 1.8 a while back, on my test RF 24mm is definitely quite sharper on the corner than RF 24-70mm, does that mean RF 24mm is actually shaper than EF 24mm 1.4 II L on corner?!

There are 3 tier of RF prime, the L prime the IS prime (24/35/85) and cheap prime (16/50), I do find the 16/50 image quality is not as sharp as IS primes and L zooms.

The biggest problem is that the 24 L 1.4 II has tons of CA and wide open is quite soft, it improves at F2 and good a F2.8 but the 24-70 II is at least in my copy a tad better than the 24 II 1.4 so I don't use it a lot.... I brough for video on the 1Dx II with the 1.3x crop now in FF I use it even less.

If the RF 24 1.8 has less CA and a tad sharper than then 24 1.4 II then it will be up for sale....
The below is not really a fair comparison as is not the same camera 45mpx vs 50mpx but it seems that the RF is a tad better: 
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1625&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=480&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

RF 50 1.8 I don't have it so is hard to comment but I tested a version of my friend and is not particularly good, one of the few RFs that I do agree is not better than EF counterpart and may even be a tad worst.

The new "affordable" wide primes relay a lot on software correction especially for barrel and vignetting thus they could optimize more sharpness and size, some people scream scandal, I don't care as the final image counts...
This also a problem if third parties reverse engineer and not officially supported as the trend is to use software to correct lens desinences....

Geometric distortion and vignetting are corrected also in RAW video, obviously CA is not.

 

38 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

That is incredibly soft.

Is not a picture is a frame grab at 1/100 from 50fps video...... is normal that is soft as there is motion blur....... it was to demonstrate AF at 2.8 while an animal sprinting at 50+ mph.....

This is a picture at 1/1600

@Kisaha are you a kid or what to downvote 🤣? This is really professional..... 

I have one button to cycle through the AF frame, one to enable / disable face tracking, one to pause AF while pressing, and one as suggested above to toggle AF on/off.

One thing that I find super useful is peaking with AF..... on the R5 peaking does not work while in AF but on the R5c it works and I find a realy life saver as even is super bright sun or strange angle on the LCD I can always monitor if the AF is spot on or not. 

 Cheetah hunting R5c 8k 50, 1/100, F2.8 400mm with AF

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

You can compare whatever lenses you want, but it's not fair to compare primes and zooms. The design of a zoom lens prevents it from matching the optical quality of a prime. That's the trade off you make for convenience and versatility. So, I mean, if you want to compare a 16mm prime to 16mm on a zoom you're free to do so, but no one is going to take it seriously. It's just not a useful comparison. 

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.

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

If you can't understand that zooms are built with a different purpose than primes, then there is no point in arguing. Noone ever said "I need an 70-200, so I am going to buy an 135mm". I can't make it more graphic for you.

What I use professionally, and what I own, are two different things. You do not even know what I do in the industry! Another lame argument, and a cheap one also. 

You don't use lenses above 200mm (8 ouf 22 are above 200mm) and you only use 1 RF lens on a APS-C camera and yet you are proclaiming:

"Big improvement they are not"

Really professional and credible, only big claims with no backed evidence..... again, not a single example of what you have tested or used other than 1 single RF lens that is the second cheapest one..... and even there you complain that you did not get a hood......while no other manufacturer is offering something similar at that price.

This is the problem of this forum a lot of people trashing equipment that they never ever have used..... even less useful than those paid YT reviewers.

 

15 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

@gt3rsman, noone is comparing primes with zooms, this is the unwritten rule since ever!

Are you buying 130 primes to compare with the 70-200?! And when the prime at 138mm is better than the zoom you change lens while on action?! C'mon..

I understand and respect what you say (in your first post) but you are loosing gravitas with silly statements like these.

What are you talking about? Andrew said that is normal that 16 2.8 is better than 16-35 2.8 L II because is a prime and I should not compare prime with zoom.

My answer is that you can compare as some zooms are better than primes at the same aperture and focal length. Really the opposite of what you guys are saying... with this silly rule don't compare with primes etc..

But you know what you are right you did a lot of research and by owning 1 RF lens and zero FF camera you right in claim that RF lenses are no improvements over EF ones..... 

 

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

For me it makes no sense to compare a prime to a zoom!

Of course a 16mm prime is going to perform better than an old zoom that was never even that amazing to begin with.

 

Of course, you can compare primes with zooms

Compare the EF 24-70 II at 2.8 with a EF 50 1.2 at 2.8 and you will see how bad it is the prime, unsharp, a lot of CA.... I have both. I use the 50 1.2 for its "dreamy" effect and rarely, but for photo is basically useless.... 

Compare EF 70-200 III at 135 at 2.8 with EF 135 2.0 at 2.8 and you will see the zoom is as good as the prime.

Compare EF 70-200 III at 85 at 2.8 with EF 85 1.2 II at 2.8 and you will see the zoom is better than the prime.

Now the 16mm 2.8 is one of the cheapest wide-angle at 300$ and it perform better than 2200$ lens and people are arguing that RF are too expensive and no improvements. And no there are no 16 2.8 in EF... the closest is the EF 14 2.8 II that is not better for 4x the price...

RF has some quite good cheap leases and some very good expensive lenses what is missing is the middle ground.
But the cheap RF ones are not great mechanical but are fast focusing, construction is meh, but are quite compact, lightweight and produce better image that many EF even L counterparts.... I take cheaper plastic and no included hood that produce better images at any time.
The 24-105 RF 4-7.1 kit lens is better than the EF 24-105 4 I (not a great lens but much more expensive and heavier) go figure.... and at some point I had both.... 

 

11 hours ago, Kisaha said:

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.

I'm sorry that you find RF not compelling and a big improvement, but my experience is the opposite.

I sold the 16-35 2.8 II and replaced with the 16 2.8, saved money, is sharper and much more compact, of course it is only 16mm. Point me out a better 16mm 2.8 for the same price? Is on the same league as the RF 15-35 no way but is better at 16mm than the old 16-35.......

I have the EF 24 1.4 II and also the RF 35 1.8 and the latter is much better, so I will probably sell the 24 1.4 (sharpness is okeish, CA is horrible) and replace with the RF 24 1.8 (still waiting some more reviews). Point me at a 35 1.8 at the same price that is better? 

I sold the 70-200 2.8 II and brough the RF 70-200 2.8 and imo this a huge improvement tanks to the size and weight. I take plastic any day if it saves my back and I can handhold easier. I use it a lot backpacking and on a gimbal, the weight saving is very welcomed.

This is the most surprising, I rented 100-500 and compared it with my 200-400 F4 and at the end I decided to sell the 200-400 and brough the 100-500. In term of sharpness wide open they are almost the same, very surprising, of course you lose 1.3 stops. Before I was taking a 1Dx and 200-400 for most sports, now I prefer the R5 with RF 70-200 or 100-500 depending on the sport seems crazy, but I get better result. 

Rented the RF 400 2.8 just two weeks ago for a project and is a really good lens, super sharp and very light weight, but is just exactly the same as the EF version III. I don't need often 400 at 2.8 so I rent when I need but I would rather buy a used EF III version than a new RF.

Rented the RF 50 1.2 and compared to my EF 50 1.2 is just another league and almost not fair. I probably keep the EF one as I mostly use for video only, and it gives a bit of a unique view.

My normal sports/action kit was:
1Dx II
1Dx III
EF 200-400
EF 70-200 2.8
EF 16-35 III
EF 24 1.4 II
EF 24-70 2.8 II

Now is
R5
R5C
RF 70-200 2.8
RF 100-500
EF 24-70 2.8 ii
RF 16 2.8
RF 35 1.8

So from around 30k USD kit to 17k kit and even more impressive from 10 Kg to 5 Kg! and I get better results. 

I don't buy third party lenses anymore as I had Sigma 70-200 and Sigma 120-300 and they were very good but really inconsistent and the money you save in buying them you lose on the value when reselling... as I sell everything that I don't use or replace is an impotent aspect.

Not sure if they sell a lot of 28-70 but is basically impossible to find one. So I guess they are selling many more that what they did expect.

11 hours ago, ntblowz said:

Rf 24-70 2.8 is heavier than 24-70 ii at 900g vs 805g

Yes, you are right. Of course, once you add the adapter, they are almost the same

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The Canon RF lenses are a big turn off for me.

 

The native Canon RF lenses are almost all massively expensive and enormously heavy, and not a single one is really much better than the EF equivalent it replaces.

One can absolutely live with EF lenses plus adapter as they most all work better on the R cameras than on the DSLR, so no rush to move to RF. 

But I do not agree that RF ones are not much better than the EF versions actually it is the opposite other than price(for the L series) they are mostly all a big improvement:


RF 70-200 2.8, much more compact and quite a bit lighter than the EF version. Only downside is no TC support.

RF 70-200 4, incredibly compact and light weight compared to the EF.

RF 100-500, lighter, sharper, longer than the EF 100-400, only downside with TC it starts at 500mm

RF 24-70 2.8 IS, has IS and a tad lighter weight than the non IS EF version

RF 15-35 2.8, wider, sharper and has IS compared to 16-35 2.8 III EF. Not even a fair comparison.

RF 85 2 IS, sharper and with IS compared to the old (imo junk) 85 1.8

RF 50 1.8, a tad sharper than the EF version

RF 50 1.2, much bigger and heavier but just in another league from the old EF 50 1.2.

RF 85 1.2, much bigger and heavier but just in another league from the old EF 85 1.2.

Unique and no equivalent from Canon in EF mount:

RF 16 2.8, affordable, very compact and quite sharp

RF 35 1.8 IS, affordable, very compact super sharp, but noisy AF

RF 24 1.8 IS, too early to tell

RF 28-70 2, heavy and big but very sharp and unique, challenging for video due to the 95mm filter size

RF 600 and 800 F11, very affordable long tele with quite good image quality

RF 24-240, surprisingly good image quality for such zoom range

RF 100-400, affordable and very light weight long zoom with an ok image quality

A let down:

RF 400 2.8, no included TC as Nikon now does, just the EF version with glued on R-EF adapter

RF 600 4, no included TC, just the EF version with glued on R-EF adapter

RF 800 5.6, no included TC, sharpness so similar to the RF 400 + 2x with an insane price, it makes no sense

RF 1200 8, no included TC, sharpness so similar to the RF 600 + 2x with an insane price, it makes no sense

2 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

Totally agree, which is why I just stated what the hack was and linked to the vid for credit. I really hope this is addressed in a firmware update bcuz it seems like such a simple fix.

Exactly they could implement an optional timer setting that when you are in menus or not recording for that time the camera stops live feeding video.... or switches to a much lower res mode as R5 does.

1 hour ago, Ty Harper said:

A useful battery hack for the R5C. Basically if you hit the Media button and keep it in that mode while you aren't shooting, you can almost triple the battery's life:

 

I posted that is a kind of workaround for saving battery here 2 months ago: 

My personal rant: why a 6-minute video with a huge title for something so simple?
Basically, it saves you the 3 seconds to turn on the camera.... not sure is something worth of this fanfare 🙂 
If you are playing with the menu to setup the camera it still chews battery like crazy....

Amazing camera with pretty bad battery management. 


 

8 minutes ago, Ty Harper said:

Apparently this seller does a D tap dummy battery that allows for 8K 60p but it's a special order: https://www.amazon.com/Battery-Coiled-Canon-R5C-Alvins-Cables/dp/B09XDNQLRH

I did email them a month ago and they said that at the moment it does not support 8k 60

10 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

Anyone know whether this might work on mirrorless camera like the R5C?

https://www.amazon.ca/Ansbell-Magnetic-Adapter-Transfer-Compatible/dp/B0831KYRD2

In theory as it supports USB-PD up to 100w. It maybe a good solution to protect from breaking the camera board. I may try as currently I use a small rig protector but you could still break it.

I rally hate the power over USB C….. is the only thing that I truly hate from this great camera

Ideally a USB PD or D tap dummy battery would be even better…