gt3rs

At this point cinematic = is not a still picture 😂😂

At the moment it seems a huge list 🙂: https://cam.start.canon/en/H001/supplement_0160.html

Mirrorless will always have some latency as the sensor needs to be read so some ms goes there then image need to be processed, then displayed compared to a glass only that is the OVF. Now is the R5 worst than others? There is a video on YouTube that compares the latency of Sony A1 vs R5 and both have around of 250ms total latency with the R5 20ms more mostly due to the shutter lag imo (be aware that there is the human latency too in that test). Now compared to the only mechanical one of the 5D IV that is 83ms + human latency you will notice but both would need some anticipation anyway. My point is that as being constant this latency your brain will get used to it and notice less or none. In addition, with mirrorless, other than strobe situation, you can take 20, 30 or even 40 fps now getting much more chances to get the perfect timing. Drones with digital transmission have the same issue and yet people can maneuver them in incredibly challenging situation mostly due to getting used and anticipate. Assuming that your R5 was configured correctly you will get very similar latency with R3, A1 or R7.

Really not sure why you cannot do it with an EVF..... but people are different so fair enough. Then you should buy a used 1Dx III until you find one. I'm still a bit puzzled as is mentioned the strobe example, where you are in single shoot mode so in the right settings R3 and R5 both runs at 120 fps refresh, now the R3 can maintain this even at 30 fps making is blackout free but the lag is the same so in a single shoot there are no difference. Btw there is another lag that is a shutter lag that is a different story, and this is 83ms in machinal and 50ms in ES for the R5, 5IV is 58ms (plus 86ms blackout) and R3 is 20ms in ES. Some more examples where timing is key with strobes but if you do it a lot you will notice as your brain will start to anticipate the "lag"

I also never had a problem with lag on R5 and strobes, the only thing I need is to disable exposure simulation as it would be all black in scenarios like this one

The 14-bit gives you max 2/3 of a stop and only up to iso 160 from 200 on no difference: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS R3,Canon EOS R3(ES),Canon EOS R5,Canon EOS R5(ES). This is why I shoot in ES most of the time other than the few times I need max DR and I can use ISO 100 or ISO 400 (btw the R3 has less DR than R5 at iso 400 mechanical) The key differentiator of the R3 imo is the very fast rolling shutter so for somebody shooting any ball related sports it may make a big difference. My grip with the R3 is the price, it should be more on the A9 range than on the A1/Z9 range.... Overall price performance the R6 II is much better than the R3, the same for R5 vs R3.... R3 should have had the same spec but with a 45 Mpix sensor then would be worth the price imo.... R1?

A1, Z9, have stacked sensors, but none provides better RS in FF than traditional CMOS. R3 has stacked sensor and is definitely better 9,9ms in 6K and 6,6ms in S35 but is half the pixels than A1 Z9 R5 and so on...

I would not take the R5 on sales as a metric as I would guess that the R5 is the most sold R series model, so you get more on the used marked. Regarding the EVF latency I'm really not sure what to say and it is probably that some people adapt better than the others. One thing is for sure my two R5 and my one R5C behave exactly the same, but they are also configured the same. I was surprised how quickly I adjusted from 1Dx III OVS/mirror blackout to R5 EVF 20 fps (I use 90% ES). I have more keepers while tracking & panning with the R5 than the 1Dx III and this it is what it counts for me. This is why I never moved to the R3 as I prefer to have the 45mpix than the better EVF....

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.

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....

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.....