Leaderboard

Tested on our R5 and RED Raptor, the RF 50mm 1.2 far out resolved the EF 50mm, which looked out of focus in comparison. Resolution isn't everything, but the EF also suffered from more chromatic aberration, fringing, and busier bokeh. I don't know. Great lenses are expensive—even EF lenses like the 35mm 1.4 ii or the most recent EF zooms. The RF are nearly the same price as those—and the Sony counterparts as well. If you're complaining about the RF, you might as well complain about everything else. About the RF exclusivity, we'll see how it plays out. Still see a ton of 3rd party RF lenses being released on B&H.

The patent on the EF mount expired years ago and is probably the major reason why they changed to RF. I'm of the opinion that changing mounts was one of the biggest mistakes Canon has made. We got a smaller camera that have a tendency to overheat and bigger lenses. What's the point? I'm sure there are some fine RF lenses, but there are some fine EF lenses as well and some fine FD lenses. Canon always made great lenses. At the end, the heart of this issue is intellectual property. Canon spent years and millions of dollars in R&D developing the RF mount. Chinese companies shouldn't be allowed to come in and reverse engineer Canon's property without offering some type of royalty, especially since they're directly competing with their more modern features. We're not talking about all manual lenses, using century old lens designs that sell for under $100.

The footage looks bloody fantastic! Thanks so much for posting! The only thing that bothers me is it appears to be excessively sharpened. Is there a way to turn down the sharpening in-camera (uh, phone)? Also, I would love to see some 4K 60P footage.

Overall, maybe I'm just spoiled, I don't tend to get all that excited by cell phone footage. Ultra wide depth of field, the digital stabilization only works in good lighting conditions (also the reason why I'm am never all that happy with every 360 camera I've owned). I know lot of people think shallow depth of field is overated, and they'll list a bunch of classic movies that were shot on super 16 back in the 60's that have deep DOF, but I think it's magical, and those movies they always list are classics because of their stories, not their cinematography. They're classics in spite of their cinematography

Now imagine a NX2 with this kind of stabilization...

6K open gate in 24p and 5.9K 16:9 up to 30p. The 10bit codecs, both 422 h264 and 420 h265 are pretty impressive regarding image quality. @Nikkor

Cmon. Go to the Vimeo site and download the original - it is 8K. The same 8K video was uploaded to YouTube. I have no control over what YouTube streams. I do not like being called a liar, particularly when I went out of my way to post on Vimeo so folks could download the un-recompressed 8K original. It is people like you that steer away posters.

Digital stabilization works better with higher shutter speed; cause you don't see the micro motion blur. For serious video production we can't use any shutter speed we like. But for YouTube, sure its good enough.