SRV1981

Been trying to find a hybrid setup that really does travel, family, and sport events 70/30 video:photo the best color I had was my Fuji XT2 but the low light and autofocus sucked. Then went to a7iii and now R6. im wondering if there’s a way to get pretty excellent SOOC color as I don’t have the time to learn color grading or time ? Maybe canon and Sony aren’t for me if I’m not willing to learn. or maybe I need to get an xt4 for video and another camera for photo? Any thoughts?

Nice! I got the RF35 1.8 and Tamron 70-200 2.8

Looking to add VND or ND to my newly acquired 70-200 Tamron and 35mm. Using for Photo/Video combo. I was naive in the past and didn't realize how much of a color shift many create. What do you suggest? 1. VND or single ND 2. What brands to reduce color shift?

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-35mm-1-8-Macro-Lens/dp/B07H4SFG4G/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=rf+35+1.8&qid=1635473609&sr=8-1

Very much! How can I determine which lenses are silent/don't make noise during video? I like the RF 35 f/1.8 but i think i saw it makes some noise during focusing in video mode that is a dealbreaker despite being so afforadable!

Gotcha, thanks

How's this: https://www.mpb.com/en-us/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/used-canon-fit-lenses/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f-2-8-di-vc-usd-g2-canon-ef-fit/sku-1219845/ New: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1317271-REG/tamron_afa025c_700_sp_70_200mm_f_2_8_di.html

Excellent point - going to buy a refurbished R6 today! I'm going to check into Sigma/Tamron EF mount to see if they have refurbished lenses (i.e. 70-200 f/2.8) to save a few hundred over Canon glass.

Of course ... for photography, but it seems one of us is missing a direct or implied part of this conversation: photo AND video. Are you saying I should be happy making docs, sport shoots, etc. with a D500? If not, then I fail to see what you're arguing? The thread is about 1 body for both or 2 separate. If you're saying 2 separate then yes I am all about listening and learning about what photography body can get excellent photos in many conditions (fast moving sports, portraits, low light/high ISO performance without noise, etc.) but my dilemma in that is then what body for video? Same mount for sharing lenses? Will 2 bodies cost much more than going for 1 that do both (i.e. R6/A7IV)? I apologize if I've misunderstood but maybe you can clarify?

Makes sense! Canon's 1 year warranty is extended to Refurbished and their new cameras so it would seem Refurbished makes sense here, I mean $200 in my pocket or toward a lens! Do you trust resellers like MBP, KEH, Adorama, BH? Or where do you go? Favorite places to buy used?

Looks like the Sigma is a good alternative and savings to Canon 70-200: https://versus.com/en/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-usm-vs-sigma-70-200-f-2-8-dg-os-hsm-s

Thanks! They said there is a 1 year warranty and the same as their new bodies so refurbished it is, I suppose.

How does this lens look: https://www.mpb.com/en-us/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/used-canon-fit-lenses/sigma-70-200mm-f-2-8-ex-dg-os-hsm-canon-ef-fit/sku-1321771/

Thanks! is that as simple as calling them on the phone? I had intended to do that regarding their refurbished bodies (Canon).

Does refurbished indicate a potentially better quality? also for used - do you like KEH? MBP? BH? Makes sense! i was going to call Canon to see about their Refurbished policy and potentially save a few hundred by getting a refurb body

I love this! Thanks! That is interesting that 85 didn't have the reach - you may be right! For the 70-200 - what's your take on Sigma vs. Canon; and if Canon EF II or EF III? Refurb/Used? I love the 35 1.8 idea! For the 24-105 what's the thought here? It's 4-7.1...why not f/4? And how do you see this helping? I guess good light/daytime for docs/sports? for sports/docs the 70-200 f/2.8 is clutch; the 35mm 1.8 is great for general/overall video/photo in all situations

Curious to see/participate in a discussion about purchasing gear - new, used, and/or refurbished. When are each worthwhile and what's your particular preference and why?

This is what is needed, however, in sports video/photography for track/field. Hence, why i felt those bodies were non-starters. Can't personally agree - I've seen parents with FF cameras at our sporting events to take photos/video of their children. Pro is irrelevant, the content and needs are - fast moving subjects and low light indoor track = need for fast lenses, high ISO performance, and good to great AF in those particular situations 100% agree - i liked some of the reviews of the a7IV but enjoy the colors better on the R6 so thats my route for now. If there was a good and affordable low light video with excellent AF that had colors I liked then I'd do that and get a used older body with good AF for photo...sounds like the R6 will cover both needs for me. Thanks all!

All great points! If anything, I may rent lenses and bring them to an event and track practice to try out for video/photo then go ahead and purchase. Here's 2 videos of guys using 85 1.8 for sports on Canon: 1. 85 1.8 and indoor Sports 2. 3rd Party 85 1.8 General

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)

I politely disagree with this. If preference of image (color/DR/highlight roll-off/etc.) didn't dictate body choice then everyone would choose the same body most of the time. How many posts, videos, articles are written to discuss color? You can lean on my inexperience to make an argument but I think it's a shallow argument - but then again the title is about the R6 and buying lenses - not debating bodies? I appreciate the feedback - I do concede I'll have to continue to improve my ability to color correct in photo/video but I put that in another post regarding whether i should get 1 body for photo/stills or separate and get a photo camera and a video camera separate. In that discussion it seemed to me that i'd have to spend a bit to get a good video camera but I could get away with buying a used photography camera. The problem for me was that the alternatives to Canon (fuji/Panasonic) have poor AF, which is still important in video for me (Sony is out - for now - because I do not like the skin tones, I don't have the skill to currently get it to the look i want, I don't have the time to do that correction and therefore having a camera that gets closest to what I want SOOC or with dropping a LUT is where i'm heading so that seems to be Canon).

Budget: I can go for a new 24-105 f/4 or a used 70-200 f/2.8 EF mount (unsure of whether to get a Sigma or Canon II) Audio - I have a Deity D3 Lighting - I have 2 LED Lights for interviews Computer - MacBook Air w/M1 chip *The discussion I generated was about which combo of lenses make sense - in general and when looking at a timeline (i.e. do you start off with the 35 prime and then add a 70-200 f/2.8 or start with a 24-105 and then add a 35/100 or 135 prime - etc. **not** about budget persay) Also 50/50 video/photos - much of the recent responses got far away from those points and focused on pro's doing photography and unrelated to original question(s) Thanks!

I hope that isn't the impression I gave off. I will not be spending $30k on gear 🙂 And I appreciate this advice I am doing that! I may swap a 24-105 for a 70-200 and a 35mm prime. So I am taking your advice, and others, and making a decision - which was my goal! So thanks! Probably is - but i've never referenced that I am seeking to be a pro or spend money as a "pro" Again, I wrote in my post: "What lenses, combos, etc. would make most sense now versus being able to put off till a later date? Thoughts on EF vs. RF. Thoughts on 3rd party EF/RF vs. Canon?" - How a few of you got to $30k, pro vs. non-pro, etc. baffles me

FYI - this was the original post.

Sweet - sounds like an ad hominem - I sold my A7III because of the video side not photos. Your comments make sense regarding photo only and much of it I never made an argument against - I never said that my A7iii sucked at photos or shooting sports. I don't like the color for video and tried correcting to get a more Canon/Fuji/Panasonic look. It wasn't successful and therefore I am moving on. I think that is a logical and not uncommon thing. But you're free to disagree. I agree - that said do you think a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 used is worth the buy rather than a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II? I think the point has been lost in this thread ... I am sold my a7iii due to video color - not because f/2.8 or f/4 lens. I am having trouble following at this point since these responses are unrelated to my inquiry/post/discussion. I fail to see how this works with poor LED lights in an indoor track with people sprinting and having ridiculous fast shutter speeds - the ISO has to be very high and the extra stop of light is needed. I do not feel that these responses are relevant to my post (video/photo) and feel like many people respond with their own experiences and opinions unrelated to the original inquiry. It's wild to me.