gt3rs

I cant agree more, It got so restrictive now especially with flying over people that < 250g is almost the only way to go.

Z E1 215 gr, mft 7.5mm 170gr.... BMMCC is 300gr without battery and lens..... 0.5 KG on your helmet is super dangerous, try to convince an athlete to attach these to his helmet..... compared to a GO 2 27gr or this new osmo at 57gr..... some of the people that I work with they complain about an insta360 R or GoPro imagine this. Since I use a GO 2 nobody is complaining.... quality is barley usable but people agree to use it. Crash happens all the time to so better throw away a 300-400$ camera (and some time is just the lens protector that breaks) than a 1500$.... Also for helmet mount or Mtb mount etc you need great stabilization so that rules out camera like Z E1 or BMMCC.... Consumer action camera has progressed so much especially on the stabilization, horizon lock, etc.. that is almost not financially doable to build a more pro version as the market is way to small compared to the investment needed. Insta and Gopro offer some flat profile but only 8 bit and has some sharpening on it..... 10 bit and no sharpening I do agree it would be great. I was very exited about the 1 inch insta but at the end is the one that I use the least as is too narrow for body mount, it has minimum focus etc. so I end up use it as kind of remote camera but most of the time for that I can put one of my R5 with a much better quality, like for ice hokcey net, car roll bar, horse showjumping obstacle, etc...

They could have a license agreement. Canon seems to have one with RED, Nikon could have also done this. It could be fairly rentable for RED to license it.

I think it would be great to have action cam with a 24 or even better 35mm 1.8 lens to chest or helmet or bike mount.... for sure you will not see all the artifacts as it will be all oof..... They call action cameras because they are made for that, not for narrative work. I'm sorry that you don't like that people enjoy skiing, snowboarding, mtb.... but you don't need to watch and it does not have to be extreme as the target are consumers. For a action POV camera the wider the better and I can tell you the 1 inch insta that is probably the better camera of all the action camera stays mostly at home as the fov is useless for POV and for non POV a mirrorless camera is 1000 better. I do agree that quality is horrible from all but you get footage that you will not get in another way. Is the same as 360 cameras quality is horrible buy you can capture scene that would cost 100x more to do with a real camera.

It depends on the usage, for POV Sports like helmet, chest and so on the wider the better, you want the ski, snowboard, horse etc in the frame, it also show more the speed. I do prefer much more a 360 reframed or GO2 than normal GoPro FOV for POV. If you want to use it as more normal then yes they are too vide. GoPro approach with the additional MaxMod lens is not a bad idea. I find the 1 inch insta too narrow for most POV work. Car mount is ok but body mounted is not that great. I'm not sure about this Osmo..... the mount is terrible for action/sports one impact and the clips will break and you will lose the camera. Seems a terrible design for an action camera. GoPro mount based on a frame or embedded in the structure is the best solution as the swivel part take the force but camera normally will not detach..

Canon was one of the first putting a 1.4x TC on the 200-400, I never understood why they did not add it to all new big lens. Nikon is doing it right it, it is super convenient the embedded TC. So now they have 180-400 F4 and the 400 F2.8 with TC and I'm sure they will do the same with the 500 and 600. It is so logical...

One recent example

I used to use PW remotes for my remote camera, now in most cases I just start video recording and select the image after from the video, is much quicker to find the right moment in Resolve that culling many images. The big advantage for me no more miss fires, buffer full and so on. Also the fact that now camera are fully silent is a big plus too in some environment that I place the remote

Photo DR is 1 stop less that Z7 II apparently but nevertheless seems impressive.

Spec are now public, seems a really impressive camera and priced quite aggressively at 5500$. I'm not a Nikon user but I'm very happy to see Nikon bring such camera to the market. To me at least at spec level it seems a much better camera that the R3 form 500$ less especially once they get Raw video and 8K 60 but even without it is still a better camera on paper.

So you are saying that you will have a better chance to time it perfectly with 1 shoot than spray at 120fps? Do you realize that there is a lag in by pressing the button until capture, so at 120fps it gives much more chances to capture the perfect moment. Of course you may miss it because it happens between frame 76 and 77 for a duration of < 8 ms...... Rarely but sometime I do this I let filming the R5 at 120fps and pull the frame there when I want the perfect moment. I mostly do at 8k 30fps as the quality is better. So is not a change the world feature but I do find it quite useful, it would be better FF than crop imo....

You can sync with full electronic shutter is basically the readout speed e.g. R3 is 1/180 … A1 I believe is 1/200

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)

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.

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..

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...

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

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!