Mark Romero 2

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!

A thing that wasn't promised at a specific time and isn't needed for ongoing creativity still isn't here.
OMFG!!!

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
 

One benefit of refurbished cameras over even NEW cameras is that they have had someone from the offical repair center go over the cameras thoroughly.
When a new camera comes off the production line, they are going to give it a quick diagnostic test, maybe take a few frames with it, and that's about it.
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.)
Back in my Nikon aps-c days about 6 years ago, I would buy refurbished from Cametta cameras (RIP). I was always happy with how the gear worked. (Bought two bodies and a couple of lenses form them). They used to have a lot of officially refurbished Nikon gear and it carried the same Nikon refurbished warranty.
I also bought my Nikon D750 straight from Nikon Refurbished for about $1,400 or so when they were selling new around $1,800 and it worked fine. Nikon DID have some shutter recall programs where they replacing shutter boxes on ALL Nikon D750 cameras, whether they were having shutter problems or not. And they were perfectly happy to do the shutter replacement on my D750.
BTW: I think Sigma has a good warranty / service on used lenses. I bought an old Sigma 10-20 used and it didn't have LiveView AF capabilities since the lens was made before Nikon had implemented LiveView (contrast-detect) AF.
They said that even though I had bought it off of craislist, to send it in and they would update the firmware to get it to work with Nikon LiveView.  

Hmmm... they might have something on their website.
I would look in to their professional service plans. It MIGHT be overkill for you, but if you are dropping some serious $$$'s on equipment, you might feel better about having a service plan.
But I am just saying this based on MY experience with Panasonic, and how if I had realized there was only about a $200 difference between a new S5 and the used one I got, and that there was the service plan for new bodies (and the free lens), I would have gone with new.

Hmmm... they might have something on their website.
I would look in to their professional service plans. It MIGHT be overkill for you, but if you are dropping some serious $$$'s on equipment, you might feel better about having a service plan.
But I am just saying this based on MY experience with Panasonic, and how if I had realized there was only about a $200 difference between a new S5 and the used one I got, and that there was the service plan for new bodies (and the free lens), I would have gone with new.

One of the key things that is in play here, and I haven't heard @SRV1981 really comment on, is having a deep understanding of what is about to happen and being able to be ready for it so that it can be captured.
Weddings, as spontaneous and magical as they may look in the photos, are often rigidly planned and highly controlled methodical events where a good wedding photographer will be able to list every angle, every shot, every focal length, and every challenge they will have on a given day after having only done a quick walk-through at each venue
So in that case, yeah, a good wedding photographer who has shot 500 weddings could probably anticipate the key moments enough to magically frame with a prime.  
Weddings are also a relatively malleable event too, where the photographer can direct or otherwise control a lot of the shots.  While sports have a certain degree of predictability to them, they have rules after all, there is no malleability or doing it again.  Events may or may not be quite so predictable and/or malleable.
This is where the skill comes together with experience to take up any shortcomings in flexibility that the equipment offers. Mostly, the better the images are coming out of a piece of equipment, the more of a PITA that equipment is to work with, and the more that it expects you to revolve around it rather than it being flexible with what is happening.

Some posts back I made the comment that people only share the images that look good, or situations that paint them in the best possible light.  I got a little bit of that from those two videos.
The first video was a guy standing next to a volleyball court on one side of the net and taking shots that are all within the width of a volleyball court.  This is great, and if you're only ever going to be shooting full-height or mid-shots of people playing volleyball then that video shows it's all good.  
However, if you will ever:
shoot something other than volleyball shoot something other than those compositions (full or mid shots) stand anywhere other than right next to the court Then the video doesn't really cover what happens then.  You might find that this guy went out and shot 2000 images that were all terrible for a variety of reasons, but managed to scrape together a dozen or so nice images and then tell a story of success in order to make himself appear like a pro, get paid work, drive people to subscribe, or use his affiliate link (or whatever motivation he has).  Sadly, these things happen and it pays to be skeptical.
The other guy took some nice shots, but think of all the other compositions he could have taken.  
I don't know about your role in shooting, but there are two kinds of shooting situations.  The first is where you shoot what you shoot and you get what you get and you enjoy that.  The second is that you must capture what happens.  I would imagine that if you're shooting sports in any systematic way, then each player will want a selection of shots of them doing cool things, and it's not acceptable to deliver spectacular shots of some players and crappy shots of other players, regardless of where they were standing.  Nice shallow DOF looks great, but if it comes at the expense of the composition or coverage you get of the other players, or that great moment that happened, then it's too high a price to pay.
Renting is a great way to get quick feedback, but don't rent the good ones.  If you rent a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, take them and use them, then you'll get great results but probably won't have learned anything.  Only by actually shooting with limitations will you understand what impacts that limitation has, what options you have to overcome it, and if you can live with that.
Every equipment purchase I have made has been based upon trying to go without, trying a lesser solution, trying a workaround, and only buying the expensive things when I tried to shoot real projects with lesser equipment.  

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.

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

5DS/R is still a studio workhorse. Few FF cameras still surpass its 50.6 MP resolution including R5. And with the lowpass filter cancelation its sharpness is another asset for certain types of photography.
Like a lot of filmmakers, my passion started out with photography at a young age. My first SLR was a Nikon and it got me infatuated with FF lenses. Fast-forward to the Canon 5D series which was my gateway into FF digital. I actually still own and use my OG 5D mk1. It has this look I attribute to early digital sensors I can't get from newer Canons. Same thing with Nikon which I actually went back to right around D700/D750. D700 also has a special mojo sensor imo. Same with Leica and why I'm sticking to the pre-CMOS (CCD) M9.
And then obviously there is film, which has made a huge comeback (well some will argue it never left). So yeah basically I agree, not only do I think still bodies plateau'd a long time ago, there are instances where older tech gives out a nicer image, subjectively speaking. Kind of like how in cinema the OG ARRI Alexa still gets praised even though the sensor and resolution are archaic by current tech standards. Let's not even get started with vintage lenses!
That said this is all coming from a sort of irrational nostalgic pov where mojo trumps DR, Resolution, AF etc.
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.

Panasonic won't be releasing a full frame camera for a while, I believe. I mean, they announced the development of the GH6 AT THE SAME TIME they released the GH5 II, so I don't think they would hold back on announcing development of a new S1 / S5 camera.

I put a preorder in for one. I have a lot invested in Sony glass.  I'll be using this for a lot of photography jobs but it will make a great second camera for my Siii. The rolling shutter sucks but I know that going into it. Being able to match the cameras will really help out compared to previous Sony models. A huge selling point is my underwater housing will also fit the 7IV along with the Siii. 
Cameras are incredible these days. So many great choices for someone and with rental houses it makes it ever easier to test what you need. 
I am happy that the 4k/60 is cropped. Maybe we will see less "cinematic" videos shooting all slow-mo of a women walking in a city or run down area. 
Now the wait begins. Fingers crossed that the late December shipping date is accurate! 

EOS R has that horrible 1.7x crop when shooting 4K. Its basically a FHD FF camera. Also it doesn't do internal 10-bit 4:2:2 or Clog3. I had EOS R and honestly do not miss it one bit for video. R6 on the other hand has the nicest FF IQ I've seen on any Canon.
The overheating on R6 is real but since the latest firmware updates I haven't experienced ANY overheating. I've been on ALL DAY 4k shoots and no overheat. I don't shoot more than 10mn clips though so my user case may certainly be different than others but thankfully for me the overheat has become a non-issue. I even left the camera on accidentally during 12 hours once and it was ready to shoot the next day no problem so it looks like they've been using some clever power management which wasn't the case at first when it was timer based.
Btw, Potato Jet made the A7IV overheat in like 12 minutes in his 100 degree test. I guess if you're shooting in that kind of heat, most hybrids will fail after X amount of time.

Some people prefer a 24mm prime, but I think that's mainly as a prime for narrative work, and to be complimented by a 50mm or so.  Also, when cinematographers talk about a 24mm prime, they're often talking about it on S35, so it's around 35mm FF equivalent.
In terms of my lenses, I use the 35 as the default lens, and maybe 60% of final images are 35mm equivalent, maybe 25% of final images are 85mm equivalent, and the remaining 15% are the 16mm equivalent.  If there was a fast enough 16-35 equivalent zoom then I'd be glad to use it, but not even close.
I find 35mm the right FOV for getting environmental portraits, taken from a normal distance away from the person for a social situation, and lots of flexibility in taking a step forwards or backwards to "zoom".  The 16mm wide, is as you say, WIDE and that's exactly what you want for those WOW shots like landscapes and buildings etc.  Then 85mm is great for sniping little moments while the kids don't notice me etc.  
It's a powerful combination of focal lengths because it perfectly matches the types of shots that you want to take, at a focal length that you want to use.  If you use a lens that's wide and get too close to someone you alter their face shape and it feels "too close" and uncomfortable, and if you use a lens that's long and stand a long way from the subject then it will enlarge the background and make the shot feel distant (at best) or voyeuristic (at worst).  Far from it being a lack of ability to "think outside the box" - it's actually a sensible lens choice for the style of video you want to make.
 

Maybe a tighter video edit (especially in the first half) could be worth considering?

As I could imagine some people might stop watching before the half way point, and never get the "wow" moment when seeing the second half that's done in a very different manner. 

LOL!!! True though. And this is despite the fact that the cameras of today are much better at higher ISO's than the cameras of about four years ago or so.
 
Agreed. 
Personally, I think that if one were trying to get most bang for the buck, using a good f/4 zoom and a couple of primes that look good at f/2 (or faster) could provide an awful lot of versatility both for stills and video. 
(I am spoiled / biased toward the 24-105 f/4 focal range because the Panasonic Lumix version I use on my S1 and S5 cameras has 1:2 macro and has been great for the product photography I do on the side.)

Many people (both photographers and videographers) will have two bodies, because:

1) you need a backup! Could be just "something/anything" to get you out of a pinch in an emergency, but ideally it would be an identical body (or at least, very similar). 

2) photographers will often run two bodies at once simultaneously, so they can switch from one to another very quickly. (for instance doing a wedding with a 24mm prime on a D760, and 85mm prime on the other D760. Or perhaps they'll use two zooms, such a Sigma 18-35mm on a D500, and a 50-150mm on the other D500. These setups could also change during the course of the day, same two bodies, but different pairings of lenses)

3) videographers often shoot with two cameras (or more!) rolling at the same time, so they've got another camera they can cut to during the edit that's in the same moment of time

Thus you've got many reasons here to go for two bodies, rather than just one. 

Unless you're working on the very high end for photography (and need something specific that's specialized from your camera kit), I'd go with a Panasonic S1H + S5 pairing as a starting point. 

If you really need high resolution, beyond 24megapixels, then I might go instead S1H + S1R, or a Nikon Z7mk2 + Z6mk2. 

But it is unlikely that's a genuine "need", as for most people, even the average professional, the DSLRs have for a long time reach "good enough" standards for photography. (unlike with filmmaking, where each step forward with camera bodies in recent years has been more worthwhile)

Heck, even an anciently old Canon 5Dmk2 or Nikon D700 is still "good enough" for many pros to use as their secondary backup! And even an old D810/D750/5DS is still a main camera for many! (Scott Choucino only just "recently" upgraded to the 5DS a couple of years ago)
 
 

As you can, I really really like Tin House Studio / Scott Choucino! He doesn't talk about gear too much (these videos are some of the exceptions! ha. But in a way, he "talks about gear" only just enough to address this and say "it doesn't matter") But he talks a lot of the philosophy / business behind what he does, which is broadly applicable not just to food photographers like himself, but even what I do as a Production Sound Mixer. Scott provides good food for thought. 

You're thinking about colour all wrong.  I don't blame you for it - I think most of the internet thinks about colour wrong and you'd be forgiven for adopting that kind of thinking.  I did at first, and now several years later, have come out the other side and now understand what things are truly like.
@Mark Romero 2 was 100% right when he said:
So, how long will it take?
It will take a few hours, and it will take many years.  Let me explain - there's good news and bad news.
The good news:
When you shoot with anything other than rec709, you're going to need to convert from whatever colour space and gamma you shot in to rec 709.  This could be via a conversion, or a LUT, or some combination of both.  The level of sophistication that goes into creating these things is absolutely huge (when done by people who know WTF they're doing - which is almost no-one on the internet by the way) and so your job is just to work out which conversion or LUT you will use.  From that point on you just apply that to all your footage and that's it - you've learned to colour grade.  If you find a conversion that gets great colours from Sony, which will be out there I can assure you, then job done.
The bad news:
The above method will only work on maybe 10% of shots, if you're lucky.  The reality of shooting events and travel and other uncontrolled situations is that the vast majority of your shots will look like garbage straight out of the camera.  This will be true regardless of what camera you have, and will completely overwhelm whatever advantages one brand has over another.
This is because the real world doesn't use lighting with matching colour temperatures, and even worse, with remotely acceptable CRI performance.  Colours will be *awful*.
An example.  Last week my wife and I went to get some food from some food trucks and I took a tiny camera to shoot a little test video with a very vintage soviet lens.  Let's look at some of the shots as they came out of the camera.  All of these are on auto-WB so the camera will have been trying to adjust as best as it could.  
Notice how the sky looks normal, the people in the foreground look brown/purple, and the various trucks look different in the background.

Too orange for the camera to compensate using auto-WB:

Interior of the truck is fine, and the outside is quite green:

BUT, you say, that's a cheap camera!
OK, here's a few shots from the XC10 - a Canon Cinema Camera shooting in C-LOG.
Background is fine, foreground is muddy purple:

A small statue that no-one has ever heard of - colour temp of interior lighting vs natural lighting coming from the skylight:

So far so good.
Let's look at some event photography.  The pub that hosted this bull-ride decided to buy a mixture of purple and green floodlights.  Take note that to the naked eye this was COMPLETELY INVISIBLE.  This shot is ungraded HLG too, if you convert to 709 then you've got a circus on your hands.

It was because of things like this that I have taken years to be able to get colour I'm happy with from my footage.  I've been shooting family trips and outings for years and the footage has been piling up waiting for my skill in colour grading to be good enough to colour grade the material I've captured to a standard that I can even live with, let alone love.
So, why aren't people talking about this?
It's simple.  Professionals mostly have control of their lighting and make sure it's done right, documentary shooters will hire a colourist to troubleshoot difficult sections they can't colour grade themselves, and amateurs who can't control the lighting and can't troubleshoot their own footage simply don't post their shitty footage to YouTube.
You, however, will be looking at the critical shot of whatever it was that happened, and wondering what the hell you do with it to make it even usable.  Screw the difference between Canon and Sony colours, your shot will look like your camera was broken and needs to be repaired.
Another example.  Recently my daughter graduated high-school.  I took my GH5 and 12-35/2.8 as I thought it would be long enough, would mean I could quickly take a wide or mid-shot if required, would have AF for quick compositions, and I thought I'd value the stabilisation from the camera and lens.  I contemplated taking my Voigtlander 42.5/0.95 prime, but decided against it.  
Turned out that for the critical moment of her walking across the stage and receiving her certificate, the 12-35 at 35mm wasn't long enough so I cropped in 2X (which the GH5 can do without a loss of quality).  This is fine, but at 2.8, which was needed as it was indoor and stage lights aren't that bright, the lens is quite soft.  I should have taken the Voigtlander, which is sharp as hell when stopped down a couple of stops to f2, and would have been longer.  Oh well, I got what I got and content is king right?  
This is the real world.  Almost all cameras can get great colour, but none will look good in difficult conditions and all will require some skill in post to colour grade.  Also, if you're colour corrected still photos before, but not video, then this is where having RAW makes a huge difference.  If you have WB challenges with mixed lighting or clips that need more correction and you've shot anything other than RAW or Prores, you will adjust the sliders and what you expect to happen (and happens on RAW / Prores footage) will not happen, instead you will be greeted with bizarre mush and strange tints and all manner of other challenges.

The S1R 4k looks pretty nice. It's line skipped but hey it's still 4k. It does have 5k 10bit as well. I think it's a solid option. 

@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.

For me personally that would not work at all. The 24mm is too wide for most of my video work and the 70-200 F2.8 especially the EF version is way too big and heavy for anything I need to shoot video wise not to mention it is too tight of a crop for the spaces I shoot in.
My favorite lenses for video are 24mm for gimbal work, 50mm for handheld, and 24-105mm F4 for everything else.  The 24mm on a gimbal turns into a 35mm because my camera has a crop when shooting 60FPS which I typically am when I am on a gimbal. I have on occasion flown the 50mm on the gimbal and it does great but it turns into 85mm at 4K60FPS so I reserve those times for 30FPS.
But this is a good example of each person needing to figure out what works for them. 

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.

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.

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)