SRV1981

On 10/31/2021 at 4:38 AM, UncleBobsPhotography said:

This is a great comment. I prefer to do the first type of shooting, and when the goal is to get the best photos without caring about documenting the event, I will almost always chose a 50mm prime. From my experience, my photos simply turn out better with a 50mm than a 35mm or zoom, but I have to admit that a 35mm is considerably more versatile and a zoom even more so. When it comes to video, the argument becomes even more important.

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?

15 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Generally, lenses with an STM motor are optimized for video shooting, so the might be slightly slower than other lenses, but the focus is smoother, and I believe they are quieter. I don't know which RF mount lenses have STM motors though. 

I guess the only way to really know for sure though is to see if anyone has experience using that particular lens for video.

 

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

6 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Hope this helps.

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!

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Thus my core point is, if you need "good enough" (i.e. nearly all nonpros on a budget), then don't obsess so much over photography specs, compared to the importance of comparing their video specs instead. As in the photography world, the "good enough" point got hit many years earlier than it did for videos. 

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

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

When you buy refurbished, it means someone has really taken the time to look into the camera. (At leas more so than when it rolled off the assembly line.)

Excellent point - going to buy a refurbished R6 today!

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

I think Sigma has a good warranty / service on used lenses.

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. 

12 hours ago, IronFilm said:

And I bet 90%+ of those parents with a FF body would be better off with a well tuned Nikon D500 (which is an APS-C body) paired with the right lens. 

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?

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

For the $200 extra I'd rather have gotten the ability to get the warranty and all the benefits you get from buying something new.

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!

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

Well used/loved gear is a great way to build up your arsenal. I highly recommend it! 

Do you trust resellers like MBP, KEH, Adorama, BH? Or where do you go?

1 hour ago, ntblowz said:

I save quite a lot on buying used though, and can usally resell with minimum depreciation.

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/

39 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

check to see if there are any sort of service plans from the manufacturer that may be tempting or if they are giving away items.

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

2 hours ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

Obviously the best value savings is in used lenses

Does refurbished indicate a potentially better quality?  also for used - do you like KEH? MBP? BH?

2 hours ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

Cameras below $3000 I will buy brand new on day one to maximize the useful life and the return on my investment.

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

2 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

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)

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?

5 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Tracking AF towards or away from. THIS is where it falls down.

This is what is needed, however, in sports video/photography for track/field.  Hence, why i felt those bodies were non-starters.

5 hours ago, MrSMW said:

However, if I was not a pro, I probably would not go any further than APSC Fuji, Sony or Canon. And possibly even not beyond a high end compact. Or even one of the latest phones…

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

3 hours ago, Django said:

Nothing wrong with hobbyist/amateurs going FF. An R6 or A7IV is mid-tier prosumer gear anyways. Just saying.

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!

7 minutes ago, kye said:

I'm not really sure that those are the best combinations of lenses.

For sports, it will depend on where you sit, but there is likely to be a large difference in distance between someone being on your side/end of the ground and the other side/end of the ground, and you'll need to zoom to compensate for this (as you can't walk onto the court/field).  In this sense, I'd suggest a 70-200, or perhaps even 100-400, but you'll know better what you're shooting and what focal lengths work best for that.

For non-sports, you are likely to have more flexibility in where you can walk, so you can zoom with your feet a lot more, but there are compromises here too.  I shoot with a 35mm prime for my travel and events coverage, and find it's in the sweet spot, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't get a better shot if I was able to go wider or longer.  In this sense a 24-105 would be the best range of focal lengths and would give you the focal length you'd want for most situations.

Now, the question is you can afford.  Ideally you'd buy a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8, but I'm guessing that's not in your budget.  So, the question is what can you compromise?

You could compromise the wider zoom and go for a cheaper prime, but you're sacrificing flexibility for docs / events.

You could compromise the sports zoom and go for a cheaper prime, but you're sacrificing flexibility for sports.

You could compromise the speed of the wider zoom and go for a cheaper zoom (kit lens), but you're sacrificing the background blur and maybe a tiny bit of image quality (although kit lenses are actually very good these days).

You could compromise the speed of the sports zoom and go for a cheaper one, but you're sacrificing the background blur and maybe a tiny bit of low light performance.

Essentially these are things you'd have to try for yourself and find out.  I have invested in very nice lenses but only did that over time and with much trial and error, mostly trying out cheaper alternatives and only buying really expensive glass once I had confirmed that the focal length was right and that the aperture was actually required.

Perhaps the alternative is to buy a second hand 24-70/4 or 24-105/4 and a 75-300/4-5.6 and try them out and see what focal lengths you actually use.  Then sell them and buy what you have actually used when filming real situations you find yourself in.  For the wider lens, try and set it to a particular focal length and just use it like that without zooming, that will tell you if you can work around having a fixed focal length for that kind of work.

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

1 hour ago, kye said:

My comments aren't really about which body you should buy, they are more talking about why people in this thread have responded the way they have.  

You have to understand, the internet is full of people who want worlds-best-results, want to get them with a budget of basically nothing, and don't want to have to learn anything or do any work.  This is an understandable perspective because film-making is hard and people don't always know that up-front, but what differentiates someone who is naive from someone who is deliberately trolling and wasting everyones time is how they respond when people suggest that the equation of expectations/budget/skill doesn't add up.  

Your responses, while civil and straight-forward, seem to have a reluctance to them that has made me question how sincere you are, and perhaps others might have questioned that as well.

This thread is about helping you, but if the math doesn't add up then calling out these things actually is helping you, even if you'd rather not hear it.  

Perhaps rather than respond with comments such as "I need that" you'd take a few sentences to explain why you'd prefer that particular thing and what you might be willing to compromise elsewhere to get it.  For example, I believe your most recent post is the first time you've acknowledged that learning any colour grading will be required.

It really comes down the triangle of 1) excellent results, 2) budget friendly, and 3) easy and quick - pick one.  You can't have two, and you definitely can't have all three.  This discussion is about how to trade these off against each other, and is not about trying to break the math of the proposition.

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)

3 minutes ago, kye said:

To put it rather bluntly, your whole argument about Sony colours not being minimum standard combined with your lack of colour grading skill or knowledge really just points out that you don't have much experience in making the types of videos you're talking about making.

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).

42 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

OK, to simplify things and to make sure that we aren't just giving you bad advice:

What exactly is your budget?

Also, do you anticipate a need for things like audio equipment and lighting and backgrounds and green screen and a computer rig that will handle the video? Because if you don't already have such things, they are going to have to come off the budget.

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!

57 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

You see, most of the people who inquire about equipment to shoot "student sports" and "baby showers" are not interested in dropping $30K on gear.

I hope that isn't the impression I gave off. I will not be spending $30k on gear 🙂

57 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

So that is why I suggested something like a 24-105mm f/4 and a prime or two since it is a very affordable and still versatile combo with today's cameras that have better high ISO performance than cameras of even a few years ago. 

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!

57 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

It would be very easy to recommend something like a pair of R5's or R3's or whatever Canon's flagship sports camera is and suggest dropping $1,350 on an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and while you are at it another $12K for an RF 400mm f/2.8. 

I mean, that's what the pros use, isn't it???

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

On 10/19/2021 at 11:52 AM, SRV1981 said:

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?

FYI - this was the original post.

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"