gt3rs

14 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

That said,

What do you think makes more sense for a balance of photo/video - sports/events/docs

1. 24-105 f/4 + 35mm f/1.8

2. 35mm f/1.8 + 85mm f/1.8

3. 70-200 f/2.8 + 35 f/1.8

I will most likely get 1 lens to start and then i'll save for a second... to me, it seems that the above combos will get me where I want to be in most situations.  Again,  this isn't work so I don't have to worry too much and can change lenses for the most part without worrying about missing footage (i.e. I can shoot with one lens and if I want to get another angle I can stop and patiently switch lenses - no rush)

EF 85 1.8 I had that it is ok but too short for most sports, I sold it as it was mostly collecting dust. If you find a really cheap used ok but if not stay away as there is a new RF 85 2.0 so the EF 85 1.8 value is tanking... 200 $ max

If it would be me:

EF 70-200 IS II used (1000 usd), Adapter EF-R (100 usd), RF 24-105 4-7.1 used (220 usd)

When you have some more money left add

RF 35 1.8 used (350 usd) or RF 50 1.8 used (180 usd) by looking at the focal length that you will use the most out of your experience with the RF 24-105 4-7.1......

If you did not buy yet the R6 I believe is sold in kit with the RF 24-105 4-7.1  (this is why there are so many used one on the market selling out of the kit, I got mine for 190 usd)

 

1 hour ago, herein2020 said:

 

Canon EOS R Used - $1500.00

Canon EF 24-105mm F4 II Used - $849

Adapter EF to RF - $100

Total Investment: $2449.00

 

I

He wants to shoot sports EOS R is a terrible sports camera is very slow in fps. It is also not that great for video. Is really an old tech. 105mm for sports is super short.

I had all the 1D III then 1Dx I, II and III the R6 is basically an 1Dx III for a really good price. Is better in video and millions time better for action shoot than an R. 12 fps, 20 fps, and a super AF. 
For static, landscape etc.... EOS R is very good, and ok for video but for action imo is a no go.

5 hours ago, kye said:

Sounds like you're trying to buy skill.  Or are letting "just in case" push to beyond a reasonable spec.

The reason that I say that is that there are almost no other telephoto lenses faster than f2.8, and there are almost no other cameras with better high ISO performance than the A73.  What this means is that the A73 + f2.8 zoom combo is better than the state of the art for the entire history of photography up until a handful of years ago.

Let that sink in....  People have been taking photos and video in exactly the same situation you're in, with *far* worse equipment, for decades, and yet you can't even sacrifice a single stop of light?  I understand that maybe that setup would be better for you, and maybe it's a tradeoff worth making with your budget, but "needed" is a pretty strong word.  I need to breathe to live, but even clothing isn't technically "needed".  

I mean, don't get me wrong - it's your money and you can spend it however you want to.  But, if I said that I can't possibly make a film without an Alexa 65, a full set of Anamorphic Master Primes, and a $100K dolly crane, you'd take that assumption, you'd think about the fact that basically every movie ever made got made on inferior equipment, often on DRASTICALLY inferior equipment, and you'd realise that I might be overstating what is truly required.

You say you're an amateur, and yet, equipment that most pros don't have is the minimum?

Every single pro sport photographer has a 70-200 2.8 not a 70-200 4 and I can tell pro sport venues have 2 to 4x the lighting of an amateur venue. I do work on this environment every week both pro and amateur. 

Better to buy a used non IS 70-200 2.8 lens than a modern f4. As I mention BG isolation in equally important. Sports is one of the few area where equipment will trump skills.. 

3 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

 

photos are awesome!  I agree 70-200 seems like a need and I am now debating whether or not to pair it with a 24 or 35 to start (doc/sports/travel)

24 there is not too many choices at the moment on Canon basically only EF 24 1.4 II 

Maybe buy the RF 35 1.8 is quite small and not too expensive if you don’t like it resell it for a 100$ loss. Is a bit noisy the af motor but image quality is good.

For almost half the price of the 24 1.4 you can buy the RF 35 1.8 plus the RF 16 2.8. They are small and lightweight great for travel. I’m testing the 16 2.8 right now seems quite good for the price but I need more tests.

An alternative is to buy a used RF 24-105 4-7.1 you find them around 220 usd is small light weigh and okeish. You then see the most used fl and sell it and buy something better. This of curse is a no go for indoor moving subjects. 

First Canon does not have any 24 1.8 is either 1.4 or 2.8 (useless lens today).....

Are you buying the RF or EF version of the 24-105 both EF versions are meh imo? I owned the Mk I and tested the Mk II.

Second, maybe I got it wrong but you want to shoot sport right? 

24-105 F4 for sports is not great (for me is bad but other my differ). 24-70 2.8 is better especially later shots at 24 where the subject travel very fast you need very high ss...

For sports you want BG isolation, reach and high shutter speed. Most common sports lens are 70-200 2.8, 200-400 F4 and 400 2.8 not by chance. 

Not sure that the hobbyist noise remark that somebody did was for me as I said 1 stop can make a big difference...  
  


 

 

5 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Thank you! I will reread this several times to process - great stuff here!

 

I am curious why you're not recommending the 24-105 that most are?  I am curious what the average cost will be for your suggestion? I like the idea just would like to unpack this a bit.

 

I like the idea of used/adapter as it may be cheaper - how's the quality - any major loss?

 

Lastly, why not 3rd party. like Sigma/Tamron?

I had the EF 24-105 for a long time and I did not like it at all, the EF II is a bit better and the RF version is good but the 2.8  both EF II and RF are sharper. At the end the main point for me is that I do action/sport a lot and 2.8 vs 4 is iso 4000 vs iso 8000. Just shooting 2h ago a CSI Horse Showjumping event indoor and that was the condition.

You don’t loose quality with adapter nor AF speed. RF lenses are new design so in some cases are a bit better is some other much better but cost/performance used EF are a good deal, I would not buy new EF at this point. Should check which on supports mechanical 12 fps some old one do not support and camera go lower fps.

3party is a hit and miss they tend to loose value quicker, so you may save at buy but loose at sell. Some have AF quirks. I’m sure there are good ones…

R5 user here.

For video:

  EF ND adapter + EF 24-70 2.8 II, EF 24 1.4 II, EF 50 1.2 (Gimbal, handled)

  EF ND adapter + EF 200-400 F4 (tripod plus electric zoom motor)

  RF 70-200 2.8 (tripod plus electric zoom motor, handheld) + ND

For sports

  EF 200-400 4

  RF 70-200 2.8

Remote:

  EF 16-35 2.8 or EF 24-70 2.8

For travel/photo/family some combination of the following:

  RF 16 2.8

  RF 35 1.8

  RF 24-105 7.1

  RF 70-200 2.8

I just got the RF 16 I will do some test against the EF 16-35 II if it is ok (not expecting that is on pair but I don't need to be) I will sell the 16-35 as I have many options from >= 24.

The RF 70-200 2.8 is best lens I ever had only missing thing is the ND and the ridiculous hood that stays at home most of the time as it is so big. Lens is small, light for a 2.8 and super sharp. With IBIS and IS I can do a lot handheld videos too.

If I would start from zero with your use cases I would take normal adapter + ND adapter + used EF 24-70 2.8 II + used EF 70-200 2.8 II (not the III they are the same and you save money). As an alternative but more expensive. RF 24-70 2.8 and RF 70-200 2.8 plus NDs

Hard to judge from YouTube video but from Gordon's video my feeling in term of sharpness:

R3 4k 25 = R5 4k 25 HQ
R5 8K 25 > R3 4k 25
R3 4k 25 > R5 4k 25
R3 4k 100 > R5 4k 100

Unfortunately no test for 4k 60 and no 6k RAW vs 8k RAW although I bet the R3 4k 60 > R5 and R5 8k RAW > R3.

Rolling shutter seems like the R5 and A1 for video. Ready to bet for around 14ms for <= 60p

Apparently there is no CLog only CLog3. 100 and 120 fps only conformed so no audio (why why why this is my biggest complain on the R5)

Finally they got rid of this silly 30min limit.....

I think I prefer to have 2 R5 than 1 R3..... maybe best would be to have 1 R5 and 1 R3 but $$$$

Official press release: https://www.canonrumors.com/here-is-the-official-canon-usa-press-release-for-the-canon-eos-r3/

6k 60P RAW

4k oversampled from 6k

4k 120P

No time limit (so no 30min limit), can record up to 6h continuously

CLog and CLog3

As always devil will be in the details.....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zdfdmPXy1XDpoSdllbugt0ATg36gSJop/view

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Still wondering on 4K 120fps realm...?

Me too as is the mode that overheats faster

If this data is true, it seems helping quite a bit especially if you can power it >= 8v.

I never hit a stop so fare but I got close a couple of times so it maybe a good backup solution for some situation that you know it may become tricky.  

I would be interested in the findings for 8k RAW and 4k 120 under the sun at 90F. Thx!

10 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

 

Really surprised Canon is releasing major firmware updates with major features. I hope they continue this.

Next one for the R5 is around the corner:  https://www.canon.com.au/about-canon/news-and-press-releases/canon-releases-new-firmware-for-its-professional-cameras

4 hours ago, chadandreo said:

Now that these cameras have been out for a while now and have had firmware updates, what do you guys think of this comparison?

I have a R5 since October 2020. I had a 1Dx III from march 2020 until two weeks ago, sold it to buy an additional R5.

Never used an R6 so I cannot comment on that.

I basically have 2 custom settings that I use for video: 8k RAW Light 24-30 fps and 4k 120 fps Clog (rarely use Clog3). Rarely I use 4k HQ IPB with no log if I need to give the video for some quick and dirty usage without any further processing.

R5 is imo a much better camera than the 1Dx III:

8k RAW is better that 5.5k RAW not for the resolution (although it give some more room for post zoom and pan) but mostly for the much better rolling shutter 15 ms vs 29 ms

4k 120fps is way way better than the junk 1080 120 of the 1Dx III.

Crop quality is a tad better

Lightweight, better on Gimbals

Smaller to pack, basically I can take 2 R5 in the space and weight of a 1Dx III, if you add the insane big charger of the 1Dx III you can take a gazillion number of R5 batteries…..

Flippy screen much better on Gimbals and in low angles

45 mpix much better than 20 mpix for photo

Has zebra

IBIS, IBIS + IS lens allow me to film quite a bit without a tripod, very handy for filming while backpacking for ski, mtb, etc…..

EF-RF Adapter with VND

1Dx III is better in:

No overheating

Initial AF acquisition with long lenses but only for photos in non liveview mode.

Has 5.5 RAW at 60fps but no AF

Longer battery life

Same dual card type

More rugged and better weather sealing

The biggest gain for me with the last firmware is the RAW Light that basically give me almost 2x storage. I’m a fan of RAW as it give me more flexibility in post than Clog and Clog3…. is probably me not doing it right but for me is a night and day difference RAW vs. Clog how much more post processing I can do and fix mistakes. Bonus that on my PC the RAW Light file are much easier to edit than 10bit Clog ones.

At the end the only question is if you need long takes and in case that things go south can you live with 4k SQ if the camera would overheat?

In my case it has never overheated in 8K RAW Light in my usage (but it will eventually happen). I got at the limit a couple of times at 30-35° C under the sun shooting at 4k 120 fps, this is the mode that seems to overheats the most.

I'm curios to see if it can do FF DCI > 6k RAW Light 60fps with AF, I expect this but with Canon you never know. Best would be open gate... but I doubt.

My biggest complain to Canon is 120fps is conformed to 30 fps with no audio...  why not offering both conformed and 120fps (with audio)? 

15 minutes ago, Fox said:

I believe ProRes Raw produces smaller file sizes, editing standard codec, and the recorder gives me longer recording times on cheaper SSD storage with no overheating

Internally both A1 and R5 will eventually overheat with the A1 having longer recording times than the R5.

Externally I have no idea about the A1 and never used my R5 with an external recording but as it is currently not yet possible to record externally 8k RAW from the R5 I would still be cautious in assuming that it will not overheat.

As ProRes Raw being a standard codec is debatable as basically no camera supports it natively and Resolve does not support it at all.  Files being smaller it could be but are any effective datarate for 8k of the ninja being published yet?

It is fair to assume that with the Ninja V+ you will get more recording times but I would wait until is available and tests are done, there will be some quirks as always.

1 minute ago, herein2020 said:

The question though is if you can record to the internal card and output a clean HDMI signal to an external recorder at the same time. The R6 does not let you do this.

Sorry I have no idea as I hate external recorders.

48 minutes ago, Fox said:

I understand Sony A1 has an even better handling of rolling shutter with its stacked sensor.

Sony IBIS seems not as good as Canon’s indeed, but doesn’t occasionally introduce wobble to the footage as Canon R5 does either. To me that wobble issue is really a concern, and I think I’d prefer having a less capable IBIS better than nothing than a more powerful IBIS that would overdo its job. 

Sure the price of Ninja + SSDs equals to CFexpress, but CFexpress don’t record ProRes (raw) 

I’m shooting a wide variety of things, from commercials to run and gun short documentaries sometimes, as well as still photography ( that’s why I need a mirorless rather than a dedicated camera).

Again, that lack of 8K raw support is holding me off the A1. I do intend to shoot some 8K and would rather have the gear future proof

 

 

Sony A1 in 8K video has exactly the same rolling shutter as the R5 15.5ms..... don't trust marketing bla bla.

Why you want to use ProRes Raw instead of Canon Raw Light? Did you test both 8k RAW in your machine?

25 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

 

But yes, if you are as paranoid as I am about having a copy of the footage, and if the R5 allowed this, then that would be a way to get video storage redundancy. Maybe an R5 owner can chime in and say if you are even allowed to do this with the R5.

With the R5 only in 8K RAW you can have 4K 10bit or 8bit copy on the SD card, other modes are single card only.

29 minutes ago, Fox said:

thank you very much for your answer Andrew.

Well I’m in the market for a new rig and I always shoot with a monitor/recorder as to have a bigger screen to monitor my footage. I also believe ProRes (raw) offers a lot more edit friendly experience, smaller file sizes and  cheaper storage on SSDs rather than expensive CFexpress media. I don’t want to go with a real proper « cinema » camera because I want to be able to shoot stills and I like IBIS and Autofocus. I sure would love in body e-NDs but don’t mind using external ND’s given there is no choice with mirrorless. I’m now struggling with choosing my « poison » exactly as you say between Canon R5 and Sony A1, as I want to renew all my gear including wide array of lenses. I’m in for around 15,000€ and the lenses combination in RF or E Mount makes it that the camera body price difference between them eventually doesn’t show any difference in total amount. 

i tended to lean towards Sony A1 but the lack of 8K raw and 4K120 video support with the Ninja V+ is quite frustrating

On the other side I’m just totally afraid about the general unreliability that you point out regarding Canon’s R5 and especially worst rolling shutter and the IBIS wobble issue as I often like to shoot 16mm in video. 
 

i would love to have your opinion in this regards 

R5 rolling shutter is good, 8K 25 fps is 15ms about the same as the C500 II so a non issue imo, non HQ mode is 9 ms, R6 and 1Dx III are quite bad. Sony IBIS for video is worst than Canon.

With the price of a Ninja V+ + SSD you can buy 2 x 2 TB CFexpress so not sure you are saving money

But what are you shooting and for how long? And in case of overheating is 4K SQ not good enough?

It is so crazy people rave about 4k 120 R5 quality (which is indeed good second only to the A7S III) and say 4k SQ is bad but it is exactly the same.

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yeah clearly something going on there.

Wonder if 1D X III will get C-RAW Lite and C-LOG3 as well.

1DX III has already RAW Lite it was released in fw 1.4 at the same time as the R5 RAW Lite firmware. I have and use it on my 1DX III.

No CLog3 yet.

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

How are they getting around the RED patents I wonder?

Pure guess is that they have an agreement probably the RF mount in Komodo is part of that agreement too maybe the sensor as is speculated to be Canon one in Komodo (not sure just reporting rumors).

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

What is the bitrate and file size in 8K C-RAW Lite?

8k RAW (Light) (29.97p/25.00p): Approx. 1700 Mbps

8k RAW (Light) (24.00p/23.98p): Approx. 1350 Mbps

For 8K a very good compression.

5 hours ago, danieleciraolo said:

Bought and tested with my r5 with latest firmware ... heats the same. I don't understand the user above how he made unlimited raw recordings! This is wrong information. I send it back immediately ... I already have 2 cf express 512 the chamber heats up as with the cf express. If you buy it to avoid overheating forget it, it heats the same.

It is such a false info…. media is a contributor to the heat and having the door open will have some minimal cooling effect but is not the main issue and solution seems really fragile.