SRV1981

9 hours ago, kye said:

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

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.

3 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Better to buy a used non IS 70-200 2.8 len

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?

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

I would just get the EOS R, an EF lens adapter, a used 24-105mm F4 and call it a day.

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.

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

With the S5 and it's dual native ISO I shoot at ISO4000 all the time; I once shot a fashion show terribly lit at night and was able to shoot at F5.6 and ISO4000 which was just as clean as at its other native ISO which is 640. The lens was an F1.4 but I wanted more DOF to get more of the model's walks in focus.

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.

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Heck, if had to shoot a friend's sports event tomorrow for free/fun (not that any of that is happening right now... in lockdowns)

I coach HS Varsity Track and have been coaching for year with modifications - we are outdoors mostly and I don't need to have a mortgage riding for me to expect good AF.  I am open to evidence/videos showing that the Panasonic Full-Frame cameras have good enough AF for sports - I have no allegiance to a brand but I do to AF and image/color.  So I am open and look forward to any references for Panasonic before I go out and purchase a camera/lens combo over the next week.  Thanks in advance!

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But I don't think photography image quality or even stills AF should be ranked in the top three concerns for most casual snappers.

This doesn't make sense to me at all but I am open to hearing you unpack this statement.  Anyone looking to purchase a camera system should want a system that allows them to capture the images they want.  I am not spending $5-10k on a body but in a "prosumer" market I think it is a fair ask and based on sales, videos on YouTube, article write-ups I seem to be in the majority on this but again i am open to seeing a different angle if you can articulate it more deeply for me.  Again, thanks!

I think you're focusing solely on photos and I need access to both for my goals (video/photo) and AF is important in both domains.

4 hours ago, Django said:

For video/cine its indeed a different story. codecs, resolution, AF, exposure aids, media storage etc have been constantly evolving in the last ten years.

Things like eye-track AF can be life savers in solo run & gun situations. Having such a reliable AF means I can focus on other things (no pun intended) during a shoot.

i feel like this encapsulates my perspective as a "prosumer"/"hobbyist"

On 10/24/2021 at 1:02 AM, IronFilm said:

'd go with a Panasonic S1H + S5 pairing as a starting point. 

But the AF wouldn't be helpful for sports, etc. in Video or Photo so that feels like a non-starter?  I am not opposed to 2-cameras but I am *not* a professional. I am doing this for personal travel, family and for the students I work with as their teacher (mini-docs/sports - video/photo)

On 10/24/2021 at 1:18 PM, Django said:

The overheating on R6 is real but since the latest firmware updates I haven't experienced ANY overheating.

This gives me more confidence to snag an R6 this week.  I really do like the images of the S5/S1H but the autofocus is a huge dealbreaker.  I like some of the images of the a7IV but the skin tones and color just need too much work for the amount of time i'm willing to invest.  I'm convinced, thanks to this forum, that I will need to step-up my color correction game in the coming months when I shoot but I'd rather start with a product I know will produce images/color I like such as Canon.

If I go with an R6 i don't believe i'll need a separate body as I think the video/photo output is top of its class.  If Panasonic had phenomenal AF for video but not photo then I'd can a Canon EOS R for photo and Panasonic S5/S1H for video but alas that's not reality.  I could also wait for Panasonic to maybe come out with AF that is good enough, but when will that be?  How many chances to create will be missed?  It's truly amazing and frustrating how fast technology is moving.

On 10/24/2021 at 12:02 AM, kye said:

@herein2020 raises an excellent point about shooting with a potential crop mode in your camera to gain a new focal length.  Does the R6 have such a mode?

In terms of the wide end, how experienced are you with using a 24mm prime?  The reason I ask is that 24mm has a certain look that you would effectively be stuck with unless you changed to the 70-200 which is much much longer and huge and conspicuous.  If you've filmed many different events with just a 24mm then you'll know what you're getting into and that's fine, but I'd be cautious about that.

In my own personal work I use a 35mm equivalent lens as the default walk-around one on the camera, which combined with a 2X digital zoom feature (which doesn't lose resolution or quality) gives pretty good flexibility, and I don't have to change lenses much.  However, I also carry a 15mm equivalent for landscapes/vistas/interiors, and an 85mm equivalent for portraits and details, which suits the travel work that I normally do.

I'd suggest that keeping your options open on the wide end might be a good idea, for example leaving enough budget to add a 35mm or 50mm prime later on if you find that the 24mm is too wide.  Certainly, I find it too wide for people shots because as soon as you want a shot tighter than a mid-shot and step forward to reframe then the width of the lens starts dominating the image.

Have you filmed entire events on your phone?  it's an easy way to trial having a single 24mm (or 28mm) prime.

Considering the price difference between a 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4 I'd suggest @SRV1981 confirms that the extra stop is required under the typical lighting.  I'd make sure to include tests about raising the ISO and using noise-reduction in post too, which can have more of an impact than you'd think.  

This is actually a really significant point - cinema cameras are often very noisy, even at their base ISO, and professional colourists often have NR as their first node in the colour correction.  It's regarded as normal and a base-level skill in post for professional cinema and TV, yet amateurs act like noise will escape from their images and kill their family, so seem to spend thousands of dollars buying cameras that can see in the dark and lenses that look like mechanical owls, and cart around huge cases of equipment in order to avoid the slightest noise which could be eliminated in post for free in 2 minutes.

Dropping a stop on the zoom, would save a huge amount of money and free up more funds for more compact primes at the wider end.  It's definitely worth confirming that you *really* need that 2.8 aperture.

I believe the extra-stop is needed indoors based on my a7III experience (f/2.8 or faster)

On 10/24/2021 at 5:39 AM, gt3rs said:

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...  
  


 

 

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)

29 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

It's important to remember that most of the people who will be filming the diverse nature of topics you will be filming are pros or semi-pros, so they are going to have a bag full of lenses to choose from.

I may be mistaken but I thought one of your main goals was to keep things to a reasonable budget. In which case I thought that a 24-105 f/4 is a versatile lens that won't break the bank. For MOST things, I would pair it with an f/1.8 prime or two, and call it a day.

But... indoor sports is one of the most challenging things to shoot, either for photo or video.

So that is going to be the main challenge.

Well said ...

Doing some quick math:

1. 24-105 f/4 would be  , plus  for a 24 and 85 f/1.8 - or thereabouts

2. 70-200 f/2.8 would be  used, plus  24 f/1.8 ( i don't think i'd need a 85 1.8 since 70-200 2.8 should be good enough on the R6)

Thoughts?

59 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

1) and I will be using FCP - any good videos/free tutors online you suggest?

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about FCP.

Lynda.com is good, and while it normally has a monthly subscription, many libraries have a free plan for library members. If you have a library card, check with your library and see if they have a free plan for members.

I have found that Lynda.com has very systemic programs where you learn step-by-step on how to use software. 

2) any big issue going 3rd party to save a few bucks?

Unfortunately, i can't say for sure, as I only have one Canon lens (EF 16-35 f/4 L) and while it is a great lens, I use it on my Panasonic S1 and S5 bodies.

My concern would be though that maybe SOME EF lenses won't give you the same great AF performance on an R6 as the (very expensive) RF lenses would.

3) The comment on the Panny bodies - are you saying their AF is trash as I understand it?

It's not trash, but if I needed to rely on continuous autofocus, then I would either use my Sony a6500 or my Olympus E-M1 MK II (or any Canon or Sony body made in the last several years, if I owned one). 

Panasonic AF just can't keep up with that of Canon or Sony.

And I have had occasions where the Panny autofocus basically decided that it wanted to focus on the background instead of on the subject talking for no apparent reason. 

4) any places you suggest getting used bodies/lenses?  BH? MBP? KEH? all are reputable?

They are all reputable, as you noted.

I will say that I didn't like the shipping options with MBP. I bought two SMALL lenses for my m43 Olympus E-M1 MK II and they shipped them in a BIG box (12 X12 X12 inches) that was full of packing paper / foam peanuts. And it took about 10-days to arrive in California because they took about four days before they actually shipped it out, and because the only option they had that was less than $35 for shipping was FedEx ground (which takes a week from East Coast to West Coast)

If they had packed it sensibly they could have sent it via priority mail for about $15.

There are also Roberts camera (technically used photo pro https://usedphotopro.com )and midwest photo exchange (they have a small inventory but good customer service) https://mpex.com/shop-used-gear

For expensive items, I sometimes and willing to spend a bit more if they have a longer return policy / warranty on used gear.

Hope this helps.

Thanks it does help!

28 minutes ago, Django said:

If you're not familiar with grading the R6 advantage for video diminishes greatly imo. R6 only does 10-bit 4:2:2 in Clog/Clog3. So you'll be limited to 8-bit footage with the standard profiles which may or may not be to your suiting. 

This is where A7IV wins with 10-bit non-log S-Cinetone profile for great SOOC results.

Just some food for thought as your mind seems set on the Canon.

My mind is only made up because I've yet to see Sony rival Canon's color/image to my eyes ... if it did I'd have no problem because brand loyalty is a non-issue for me, personally.  Are you aware of any videos comparing this?  It seems you are right that if I want to use Clog3 i'll have to learn a bit of colorgrading but it seems that dropping a rec709 lut and doing some minor grading is something I should be able to pickup - that does seem like a different process than me saying I am not sure i'd want to learn or spend time trying to get skintones/colors of a Sony file as close as I can to a Canon and still fall short with a bit of disappointment.  Am I correct?

1 minute ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

While I still think you are making way too much of an issue over the sony colors, I guess that the R6 would be a a great fit for your needs.

Don't get me wrong: I do agree that canon colors are (subjectively) better than Sony cameras for most of the situations you are going to use it in.

I just don't think it will take you "a few months" to learn to color correct videos. 

And even with an R6 you ARE going to have to learn how to color correct videos. What will you do when an athlete is standing on a green field that is kicking up a ton of green tinted light on to their face? Or when they are standing on a red track and a bunch of red is kicked up on to their face? Canon's great color science won't save you then.

So if the AF on the R6 works as well with EF lenses as the Fro video you linked to suggests, then I wouldn't hesitate to get an R6 and use it for both stills and video. I think that is going to be your best option, and I think you wont lose any sleep over doing that.

As it is now, it is pretty hard to buy a BAD camera (unless you decide you want to buy Panasonic for that wonderful DFD autofocus... and this is coming from someone who owns two Panny bodies, an S1 and an S5).

Thanks Mark!  I am curious on a few comments you wrote:

• It does make sense I should learn to do some CC - and I will be using FCP - any good videos/free tutors online you suggest?
• I'm thinking a Sigma or used Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 as well as a 24 f/1.8 used
  • any big issue going 3rd party to save a few bucks? 
• The commnet on the Panny bodies - are you saying their AF is trash as I understand it?  The S1/S5 color does seem to rival Canon and I could see myself going there but the Canon AF makes it a must have for photo/video especially for a smuck amateur like myself lol
• Oh! I've been asking folks but having gotten much response - any places you suggest getting used bodies/lenses?  BH? MBP? KEH? all are reputable?

2 minutes ago, Django said:

Since you're shooting sports I'd lean with either R6 or A7IV. They're imo the top hybrids at their respective price point.

Both units are great choices. I went with R6 as I'm more invested in Canon (EF) glass and all my DSLR flash accessories work with it. 

That said I'm also a Sony (FS7) owner and the A7IV will be purchased as a sidekick. I like having a hybrid and dedicated cine cam that match and share the same mount. 

One thing that sucks on the R6 is no custom video modes. That one is a real bitch for me as I'm often changing frame rates and such. The A7IV with it's independent stills/video/S&Q settings via the sub-dial is the way forward. Also the new flash system, the focus breathing elimination etc.. it all adds up to a great hybrid experience. And with the 33MP, honestly I4d say the A7IV is the new hybrid king. 

Yes based on functionality for pros/prosumers, and "on-paper" stats I think you make a good argument.  At the end of the day when I'm watching content and see green/yellow shift in color my brain is like "this looks like shit" regardless of DR, resolve, or how easy it was for the creator to make that product - i'm looking at an image and my brain is calculating how much I like that image and huge component of which is determined by the color production.  

When I show random family/friends video the two things they *only* comment are are color and resolve/sharpness.  

I am producing these things for me 1st (image wise) and instructional/emotional products for my athletes, parents, and my personal family/friends.  That, for me, means that the work needed on Sony to get the color (1/2 the color/resolve equation I am arguing) takes too much knowledge and time.  So even if I could learn how to color correct videos over a few months the time it would take to do it is a non-starter for me.  

I am in control of making videos ... I have no deadlines, I have no one with whom I rely on being paid for this content - I am the customer - if that makes sense?

That excludes Sony - for me, for now - Canon is 1 as I would get great color, ISO, and AF with good enough resolve/sharpness, Panasonic is 2 though the AF means i'd need a 2nd camera for photo definitely and maybe I could focus manually on video, and maybe Fuji 3rd - though their ISO performance/Weak AF rule them out.

Based on that - any flaws in my personal situation?

23 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Have you checked to make sure that an R6 with adapted EF lenses is going to give you the AF performance you want?

It doesn't sound like you have any Sony lenses, but otherwise I would suggest just get an a7 IV when it comes out (or get a used a7 III, although I guess the MK IV has some additional AF tracking abilities in video.

Yeah, I know, Sony colors, but the new a7 IV has the s.cinetoine profile everyone seems to love (not for me, but others love it) and the picture profiles on Sony cameras are EXTREMELY flexible (as Andrew can testify with his various EOSHD color profiles).

On the other hand, if the R6 with adapted lenses will give you the AF performance you need, then just get that (unless it has a time limit that you can't deal with... I don't know if it does or doesn't).

I am actually selling my A7III - I do not like the SOOC color.  I am not a pro and don't get paid for this.  I don't have the time to color grade much - especially video.  The Fuji/Panasonic/Canon colors are what draws my eye and I am most concerned with my opinion when producing as opposed to someone who does this for a living and cares about pleasing clients.  

I was not impressed with the image on the A7IV compared to the aforementioned camera systems regarding color/image - though I do acknowledge it does look "good" just not as desirable as, say, Canon colors/image for me (Clog3 images seem superior to Cinetone for *me*).

I don't know, personally, if the R6 and EF adapters work but this video shows it does: EF lenses adapted

The images that got me to R6: Video 1, Video 2

Again - shooting for passion/fun (documentary interviews, sports indoor/outdoor, travel/family holidays)

It sounds, to me, that 24 f/1.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 should cover most of what I need for my mini doc interviews, filming/photos for track and field (indoor/out) and family events (indoor/out)

55 minutes ago, kye said:

Don't forget that there are tradeoffs with switching lenses as well.

A 24-105 or other zoom lens might not be the "best" in a direct comparison (not the sharpest, not the lightest, not the fastest, not the nicest bokeh, etc etc), but if you're shooting an event and have just taken a portrait and something suddenly happens that requires a wide, the zoom will give you an average quality benign wide shot and a dedicated portrait lens won't give you any usable shot at all, and a photo from an average lens beats no photo from the best lens every single time.

Excellent response.  You've made me think and I think my response is that I am never really in a situation that I can't change lenses - shooting mini controlled docs don't necessitate rapid changes in lens distance.  Also for sports it's fairly controlled on Track and Field - i can anticipate distance ahead of an event and use the appropriate lens.

I'm thinking that a 70-200 is 100% necessary for video/photo needs BUT ironically i think the beloved 24-70 is a wasted set of focal lengths?  

Doesn't it make more sense to do this:

• 70-200 f/2.8 zoom (sigma or canon EF w/Adapter to R6)
• 16-35 f/2.8 zoom OR 16 and 35 primes?

5 hours ago, MrSMW said:

It depends on your needs...

Mine as primarily a hybrid wedding photographer are quality of image + reliability.

I actually need 3 bodies to do my job and I always stick to one brand for consistency.

I also have a requirement each camera can do the others job as 'insurance' should one go down.

Without taking lenses into the equation, but are just as much a part of the whole, I personally, right now, clean sheet of paper, would go:

1: Canon R5 stills, R6 video. Bodies are a bit plasticky, but otherwise, for hybrid weddings, I think I'd be hard pushed to beat this combo.

2: Fuji GFX50Sii stills, XT4 video. I came from Fuji and know their video is good, their AF good enough and the stills I think are still the best. Just.

3: Panasonic S1R stills, S1H video. Where I am right now and not unhappy. Bodies maybe a tad large/heavy, but nothing that really bothers me. Only real weak element is the less than stellar tracking AF.

4: Nikon Z7ii stills, Z6ii video. Great all-rounders though possibly the weakest video spec? Great image though.

5: Sony A7iv stills, A7Siii video. Just don't interest me but if I had to, these would be the sweet spot from Sony for me. Very sticky AF but other than that, beyond the YouTube hype, do they really offer more things to more people? I'm not sure...

1 hour ago, kye said:

I fundamentally disagree with the entire premise of having one body for stills and one for video.

Instead, I suggest you have two bodies, that are each good for both video and stills, and use complimentary lenses on them to give you better coverage.

This has the advantages of:

• having shared support and accessories, such as only having a single type of battery to charge, and all accessories will be compatible
• having only one set of lenses required
• each body can act as the backup for the other one, or if you want a backup to keep two bodies at all times (even after a failure) then you can have a single backup body, rather than requiring two
• media is guaranteed to be interchangeable
• colour science and post-processing is all interchangeable and compatible

There's a reason that stills shooters have two bodies with different lenses and why video shooters also often have two bodies, this combines those real-world factors.  Ultimately, who easy and fast and streamlined you work will make a much greater impact into how good your results are than having a stills camera with slightly better photo resolution and a video camera with slightly better codec or whatever.

2 minutes ago, Mr. Freeze said:

Depends on your needs and your Budget.

If you want a simple but powerful all-in-one solution, the a7iii or a7iv could be the right route. 

If you already have lenses of some manufacturer or mount, another brand could be the better choice.

If you want to film and take pictures at the same time, you´d need two bodies anyway.

For Photography, the models you picked are very capable, so you have to ask your self if you want full frame, or if an apsc-sensor fits your needs as well.

For Video, it´d ask you whether you need internal stabilisation and/or autofocus or not. I like the Blackmagic Cameras a lot, but they depend on you to do the focusing. They do offer great value for the money, great codecs and image quality, but you need to do your part as well. 

So if you´d like face- or eye-autofocus, another brand is probably the better choice.

I am creating:

• Videos for athletes 
  • instructional - on a field, a track, and weight room
  • performances - on a track (indoor/outdoor) 
• Videos for HS students
  • how to read complex texts, writing strategies, organization, etc. 
• Videos for Family
  • family parties, baby showers, birthday parties, holidays, trips 
• Videos for Travel
  • my trips and experiences (mostly cinematic w/ music)

• Photos for athletes
  • training and performance (indoor track/outdoor track) 
• Photos for Family
  • family parties, baby showers, birthday parties, holidays, trips 
• Photos for Travel 
  •  my trips and experiences
• Photos for Friends
  • their babies, portraits, family photos, etc.

I've had a Fuji XT3 - LOVED the color but the ISO performance and autofocus made it not a good fit.  I'd be standing next to another person who had a Canon/Sony and they'd have the ISO/autofocus and get shots I missed (we even swapped bodies to try and they couldn't get a good shot or they would and the grain would look ugly at higher ISO or shutter speeds) so I decided to follow the next body.

Then I went to Sony A7III - LOVED that autofocus, liked the ISO performance compared to Fuji BUT it took too much work to get the color I wanted (love the fuji/canon colors bar none).  I am not a pro/paid hybrid shooter and may at some point learn to color grade but the reality is even then it will consume time that I really don't have so SOOC and/or minor tweeks like a drop-in LUT with a few curve moves for the whole video and done - not grading and matching 100s of clips.

Now ...

1. Canon R6 with adapter for EF lenses - this is my top move currently ... I can't think of a single body that will give me the ability to get the colors, ISO, and AF qualities I seek.  20mp is perfect for what I need and low enough to give me great to excellent ISO performance/low light performance.  I do like the colors from Panasonics S1H/S5 but the AF seems like a dealbreaker?
2.  I could go with a Panasonic S1H/S5 for video on my documentary/narrative and get a significantly cheaper body for photos, but which body would be relatively cheap and have great ISO/AF?  Would they be able to share lenses?  If the Panasonics had AF equal to Sony/Canon then it may make it a closer choice with the R6

so that is my dilemma - go with the R6 or find 2 bodies ...

How do you see the best way to capture your photos and videos?  

1 hour ago, gt3rs said:

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…

 

Thanks!  Where do you recommend I look for used glass?  Also, not familiar with the adapters you mentioned - any good places to buy/read up on?

I'm actually thinking of purchasing the R6 body on Amazon and find a place to buy the used lenses

13 hours ago, herein2020 said:

I think that is a perfect strategy, for portraits just punch in to 105mm, for groups open up to 24mm, for talking heads punch in to around 50mm or 85mm, landscapes 24mm, gimbal work 24mm...etc. I shoot literally everything (real estate, promo videos, hype videos, music videos, sports, branding shoots, commercial work, fashion, models, events, drone work, underwater, etc.) and I can tell you after years of shooting photography + video 50/50 below are the only lenses I use (all EF):

• Photography
  • Landscape - 16-35mm F4.0 (Canon)
  • Real Estate - 16-35mm F4.0 (Canon)
  • Portraits - 70-200mm F2.8 (Canon)
  • Detail Shots - 50mm F1.4 (Sigma)
  • Weddings - 24-70mm F2.8 + 70-200mm F2.8 (Canon)
  • Travel/Car Shows/Everything Else - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)
• Videography
  • Gimbal Work - 24mm F2.8 (Canon)
  • Handheld - 50mm F1.4 (Sigma)
  • Monopod - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)
  • Tripod - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon) or 50mm F1.4 (Sigma)
  • Talking Head - 50mm F1.4 (Sigma) or 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)
  • Travel/Everything Else - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)

My lenses are all pretty much middle of the road, nothing exotic about them, but they deliver on every job I get hired to do. For those rare occasions I need more I just rent the lens for the project. Here and there I will need 400mm or 600mm and I just rent those. Oh and in case you are wondering....yes the 24-105mm F4.0 Canon EF lens will balance on the Ronin S gimbal at least for the Panasonic S5 camera body with EF adapter that I use but the 24mm F2.8 prime is the only gimbal lens I use if I have it with me.

The most expensive lens that I regret is the 24-70mm F2.8. I don't shoot many weddings and that is really the only time I find that lens useful. Also the EF mount 24-70mm F2.8 has a different outer diameter so I cannot use any of the ND filters that work for my other lenses so its a PITA all around.

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

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

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

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'm sold! Thanks all - I can use the 24-105 to see how often i use different focal lengths and then get primes that meet those goals with faster speeds.  looks like amazon has the best inventory.

17 hours ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

Do you have those already in EF mount, or are those the ones you are debating to get?

If you've already got them in EF-mount, all you need is the adapter. I've had the R5 since launch, and the only RF lens I've bought is that RF 100mm 2.8 macro, simply because I needed a macro. The RF-lenses are better, but you'll do fine with EF if that's what you've got.

If you're looking into buying new lenses, I would say a 16-35 + 50mm 1.8 would be sufficient for all your scenarioes. I find 50mm lenses to be very versatile, but there are certain shots, especially in documentaries, where they are simply not wide enough.

The RF 35mm 1.8 might be a bit more exciting since it has IS and semi-macro, but it will overlap with the 16-35 and is also more expensive. Both the 35 mm 1.8 and 50 mm 1.8 are good, but not outstanding optically ( http://photozone.de/canon_eos_ff ). If you've already got the focal lengths covered by EF lenses, they are not really worth the upgrade.

I have no canon lenses!  My brain turned back on and I remember that my thought process with my A7III was to buy a 24-70 equivalent and then add a wide 14-16 and a macro 85-135 instead of another zoom?  Could that get me covered for docs, sports, etc?

10 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

I don't have an R6, so you might want to stop reading my response here, but...

On my Panasonic S1 and S5 cameras, I think the panasonic 24-105 f/4 is a really, really good all-around focal length, and f/4 is fast enough / bright enough for most things. In the not too distant past, professional wedding shooters / event shooters said that an f/2.8 zoom was a necessity, but today's cameras have significantly better ISO performance (both for stills and for video) than the cameras they used, so I think that an f/4 zoom on a contemporary body would be equivalent of an f/2.8 zoom on a prior body, at least in terms of noise or latitude.

Again, I don't know anything about Canon RF glass and have only minimal experience with EF glass (I use a Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L adapted on my Panasonic full frame bodies). The Panasonic lens has 1:2 macro capability, and if an RF lens (or the EF 24-105 f/4 L) has 1:2 macro, that might make a terrific first lens to do about 90% of your needs.

Anyway, I guess for me if I were to choose between a 24-70 f/2.8 or a 24-105 f/4, I would probably go with the 24-105 f/4... but that's just me.

Do you need a 16-35 zoom??? I use mine ALL THE TIME but I shoot real estate for a living. Personally, for landscape use I find 24mm wide enough, and even if I were shooting high-end architecture, I would use 20mm as the widest and more likely 24mm or 28mm. Alas, for REAL ESTATE they want WWWIIIIDDDEEE shots.

As @UncleBobsPhotography mentioned, maybe look at the EF 35 and 50mm f/1.8 lenses would be good.

Filming (and photographing) track and field would be the most difficult for me. For video, I might shoot 4K in aps-c mode for the extra reach. But I think for stills I would shoot in full frame mode. 

Anyway, hope this helps.

Thanks!  I like the discussion of 24-70f/2.8 vs. 24-105 f/4.  What are the pros and cons of each?

If i go with the 24-70 f/2.8 I would add a 14-16 and 85, 100, or 135 over a few months/year

If I go with 24-105 f/4 i'd probably need the same add-on lenses ?  I'd need 1-2 faster (1.8) primes to deal with low light situations?

On 10/17/2021 at 9:57 AM, IronFilm said:

If you're happy to change lens mount to Canon RF, then why not include more camera options in your list than just two?

Such as Panasonic S5? And if we're waiting on unannounced cameras, why not include the Panasonic GH6 as well. 

Sadly the autofocus on those is a non-starter.

Moving to R6 and would like to get some help with analysis for practical use as well as financial options.

Between Now and March I will be ...

-Filming short documentary interviews, b-roll for my students (teach history, politics, reading, writing, etc.) should be decently lit with sun, etc.

-Filming/Photo events (baby shower, holiday parties) should be both a mix of well-light and low light situations

-Filming/Photo Track and Field (indoor and outdoor) a mix of well-light and low light situations

Next Spring/Summer I will be ...

-Filming documentary/cinematic road trip across the west coast of the US and a mix of well-light and low light situations

Zooms (16-35; 24-70; 70-200)

Primes (35, 85, 135)

It seems that EF mount with an adapter is a good way to go to save $$$ over RF mount, so I am open to those options.

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?

Looks like it's time to sell the A7III body, maybe to KEH.  I'll keep the Tamron 24-70 2.8 lens until I know the Canon R6 is my next move!  Thanks!

On 7/23/2021 at 7:31 AM, Django said:

You must factor price when comparing R6 to the other two cams. For about 2K€ (what I paid for mine) the R6 is a pretty good deal imo. You get oversampled FF 4K, 10-bit 4:2:2, Clog/Clog3, IBIS, DPAF on RF mount. Only thing you lose really from 1DX3 is RAW.

Overheating is real though. I've had it happen after around 1h of shooting continuous short 8-bit 4K clips (!) in a cool office. So I simply can't recommend these cams for certain pro applications. I'm still gonna keep the R6 but as a B-cam and for personal / travel purposes.

The C-log3 update is quite interesting. the skin tones on the R6 is night & day with regular Clog. I'm really surprised at how much more natural they appear upon grading. Do R5 users notice the same thing? I don't remember such a difference on the C200.

Curious if you have footage that you can link - in the market for a r5/r6 for persona/travel purposes as you noted and the occasional sports game/mini doc for education

18 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Isn't the 4 being announced next week?

I'd wait and see what that brings to the party...

100% It's a patient and logical idea - thanks!

16 hours ago, ntblowz said:

Yeah, I think newer cam have better skintone on Sony? So wait til a7 4 come and see.

 

I shot with R5 and colour grading is the least of my time spent on editing. I m not pro on colour grading as well, just put lut on, do some minor adjustment and move on.

Yea - i'll see how the color space looks on the a7IV when videos come out in the next few weeks.  The comment on the R5 makes me hopeful.  I really, also, like the idea of being able to use cheaper EF mount lenses with no degradation in quality of image or autofocus.

14 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

 

There are several different custom picture profiles out there, and of course, there are Andrew's various EOSHD color profiles as well. Maybe one of the easiest ways to get pleasing colors straight out of camera is to turn OFF the picture profiles and instead use the Portrait setting in the creative styles. I have done that in the past and it is nice, although I prefer to turn down the saturation, contrast and sharpening, and I accept the fact that it isn't going to have as nice a roll off as shooting in the Cine gammas or in S-LOG.

Funny you say that! I don't us a PP and learned that from Kraig Adams and his videos on YouTube (epic travel/hiking videos - 100% must watch!). But when I look at a video from Canon there is just a magical quality that draws me in and those I watch with.  I really want to have that on Sony due to the other factors that make Sony excellent.

12 hours ago, kye said:

What NLE are you using for colour grading?

+1 for getting WB bang-on, and -1 for confidence in auto-WB doing a perfect job in difficult situations.

To be able to correct WB in post requires more powerful tools and more sophisticated methods, but these require greater skill in colour grading and more time and skill required to get them right.

NLE - FCP

8 hours ago, scotchtape said:

I'm using the phantom LUTs now and they're pretty good.

Sometimes you can get a better result if you're willing to do a bit of work, using Resolve color space transform to Arri and using the arri LUT looks pretty good as well.

I also do not like Sony skin tones SOOC, but I do like the results I get from Phantom LUTs or CST to Arri and a bit of tweaking.

YMMV. Check out the Phantom LUTs, I gave it a shot and it works for me!  More or less drag and drop if you have decent WB and exposure.

If you like Canon more just go Canon. I do think if you're only using the SOOC footage and not doing a lot of grading, Canon is probably way easier to work with for skin tones, I just can't deal with the cripple hammer. It's a bit more work on the Sony but you can get them to look amazing as well and close to Arri.

 

That's probably true and makes sense, but as I noted - I'm a full-time educator and due this for hobby/work stuff and don't have the time to put a lot of effort - so SOOC is most likely what i'll be able to do with light curve adjustments and then process/edit move-on.  

I've included a poll.  I am looking to get better video/photos SOOC.  I'm a full-time teacher and don't have the time/space to learn colorgrading or even colorgrade much more than basic adjustments.  I've enjoyed my a7III over my previous XT4.  That said the skin tones and color just don't cut it for me.  Looking for Advice.

Canon vs. Sony only ... Panasonic/Fuji autofocus takes them out of the running.

Thoughts?

I'm looking to upgrade from my A7III - I like a lot of the images i'm seeing from Canon's R5/R6 line.  That said, I may wait till the A7IV comes out as I am not seeing too many upsides of image quality of a7sIII except in low-light.  Any thoughts for a hybrid shooter (documentary, run-and-gun, travel, family events, sporting events - photo/video) upgrading for color, highlight roll-off, etc. 

This is a hobby for me and my investment waxes and wanes - this is by far my favorite forum for discourse and reviews on equipment, etc.  I rarely participate, i'm an unknown but I always check this site and forum - it would be a shame to lose this connection!