Leaderboard

I have one button to cycle through the AF frame, one to enable / disable face tracking, one to pause AF while pressing, and one as suggested above to toggle AF on/off. One thing that I find super useful is peaking with AF..... on the R5 peaking does not work while in AF but on the R5c it works and I find a realy life saver as even is super bright sun or strange angle on the LCD I can always monitor if the AF is spot on or not. Cheetah hunting R5c 8k 50, 1/100, F2.8 400mm with AF

Is not a picture is a frame grab at 1/100 from 50fps video...... is normal that is soft as there is motion blur....... it was to demonstrate AF at 2.8 while an animal sprinting at 50+ mph..... This is a picture at 1/1600

Hi all, about to finish the historical clip. As said, will link it here for your interest. Meanwhile I have also taken some shots of my little daughter and used that material to give you an idea of how the two LUTs I have posted for you are looking like. Have not altered anything in the material except for adding the LUTs to show what that camera is capable of. (Shot with my Sirui 50mm 1.6x anamorphic lens wide open, in ISO 400, only natural light, closed some curtains for a little bit of lighting control) Panasonic Rec709 LUT: ARRI Classic Rec709 LUT: For me I am personally in love with the rendering of the skin tones and overall colors of the ARRI Classic LUT. Don't ask me how they do it, but the skins are somewhat creamy, whilst the Panasonic approach seems to introduce more contrast. All in all if you take the ARRI LUT and opt for shooting ISO 800 you will get as well a very nice highlight rolloff. Cannot repeat myself more, love this camera now and what it is cable of doing. 🙂

Big improvement they are not, I got the 16mm RF because it was the only logical choice for the R7 (in terms of size/weight and price), and a unique proposition. Great lens it is not, and I did a little research on most of them. Obviously not many RF-S options. How many 1.2f lenses do you believe they sell every month? Or how many people are going to buy the 28-70mm 2f? The 35mm is a mixed bag, macro it is not. A part of the Abbott review about the 85mm 2f "I vastly prefer the autofocus performance of the Samyang to the RF85M, as it utilizes linear motors to achieve faster, quieter, smoother focus. The Samyang is also weather sealed, comes with a lens hood and a pouch, and has a slightly higher build quality in terms of external materials…not to mention that it has an aperture a full stop larger at F1.4. The big advantage for the Canon is in magnification, as the Samyang has a rather pathetic 0.11x magnification. But how about image quality? Comparing the two lenses at F2 (on the EOS R5) reveals that both are incredibly sharp and have excellent contrast, with perhaps a slight edge for the Samyang." They produce such excellent lenses that are affraid of Viltrox and Samyang ones! Imagine if they have to compete with Sigma, or other established lens makers.. They put I.S on some of the zooms..something that should have been there for years now and other manufacturers already have.. Selling a piece of plastic for a big proportion of the lens's price (for the cheap lenses at least) is a terrible business decision and shows a lot, and hoods are needed.

The Canon RF lenses are a big turn off for me. On E-mount there is more choice of native lenses. Sigma to name just one. Similarly with L-mount there are many ways into the system. The native Canon RF lenses are almost all massively expensive and enormously heavy, and not a single one is really much better than the EF equivalent it replaces. In fact if it wasn't for the popularity and dominance of EF & some very good adapters, I dare say Canon wouldn't have sold quite so many camera bodies. However they have always been a lenses company first and foremost, it's where the big profit margins are. It's just that they prefer to line the pockets of their shareholders, through us, whereas Sigma prefer to focus on engineering better lenses than Canon at half the price. Different company philosophies.

Well I can say for example that for someone like me who has an R5-C and is actively looking to pick up one of those RF-EF adaptors that come with the drop-in ND filter, that the Meike and Kolari offerings are just better. And that's using every metric that matters, including price. So from that perspective I can see why Canon would not want this type of smoke from third party companies.

I mostly lurk here but I got the X-H2S about a month ago. Because I got it together with the Tascam XLR adapter, my order was delayed significantly so I missed the chance to use it on most of the gigs I had lined-up originally. The one time I've used it for video, it was the Wide of a three-camera interview setup (with R5Cs as the CUs) feeding an ATEM Mini ISO. Lens was the XF 23mm f/2 (set to f/4) with AF-C / Face Detect-on. The R5Cs were set to 4K/S35 mode and one had an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II (set to f/4) while the other had an RF 24-105mm f/4. The Good: Color: The X-H2S was set to Astia and the R5Cs were set to EOS Standard Profile and their footage was relatively interchangeable (this I already knew from my previous experience mixing Canon and Fujifilm cameras). Video autofocus: The X-H2S autofocus is significantly better than my previous X-T3 -I didn't notice any focus hunting during the multi-hour shoot which is something I can't say for my previous X-series bodies in similar setups. Keeps going: It records for longer than 29.99 minutes! That's all I want in my hybrid cameras since my main moneymaker is long form documentary. Formats: ProRes! h.265! h.264! I've always appreciated the level of control Fujifilm gives the operator over file output. Anyone who's used a BMPCC will know the frustration of being format-limited by resolution and vice-versa. CF-Express -as much as I hate that I'm back to cameras that have non-matched dual card slots, at least they're the same type as what I use in my R5Cs. And GB for GB, CF-Express is cheaper than SDXC UHS-II. But holy hell do they get hot. The Bad: The button and dial layout is significantly different from my other X-series cameras and it drives me nuts. One of the main reasons I skipped the X-T4 was specifically because they altered the layout and this has the same problem. I can re-map some of the functionality to standardize with my other X-series bodies but there are wholly deleted buttons and switches (the drive-mode and exposure-mode are two glaring examples) that is going to force me to change mindset whenever using the X-H2S with another of my X-series cameras. I might have to sell all my older bodies and just get another X-H2S (or the 40MP model) so that I don't get annoyed. The fan works and I'm glad I have it. The problem is, as I type this... I can't remember where I put it. It can only be attached when you're using the camera, as it prevents the screen from closing/cannot remain attached permanently. It also has two sets of rubber covers that are easily lost if you're frequently attaching/detaching it. It's a very dumb implementation and is probably going to get lost and re-purchased. I wish they had just gone the route that Canon did and elegantly integrated into the body. No anamorphic view. I have three Sirui anamorphics for XF-mount and I still have to use my Atomos Ninja Inferno. No Waveform - I come from a "traditional" video production background so I was so excited to get these back into my workflow on my R5Cs when I don't want to attach a larger monitor. At least the Zebras on the X-H2S are still well implemented... HDMI frame stuttering -this is something that happens on my X-T3 frequently, and I haven't had a chance to really figure out why it happens (is it thermal? is it a framerate mismatch? etc...). I noticed it happening to the feed coming from X-H2S but, again, I've only used it once so I can't rule out user error here, either. The Jury is still out: Photos: My other money maker is photography. One of my main clients is a symphony and so I'm constantly shooting in fast-moving, high contrast scenarios using electronic shutter. The X-series cameras I own (T2, H1, T3) have been as-good-as the R5C in all aspects except resolution, autofocus and extreme high-ISO. Previously, choosing a body has been a trade-off between auto-focus performance vs rolling shutter artifacts. I'm hoping that the X-H2S solves both those issues but I know there's a shadow recovery penalty with the new stacked sensor. The new season starts in about a month so only time will tell if it's actually going to be problematic. Video autofocus: I haven't had a real-world opportunity to test the X-H2S's video autofocus against the R5C's. Hopefully, it'll be as good as the R5C -which is a low standard :-). Honestly, I was surprised by how inferior the Canon cinema implementation of DPAF is compared to the non-cinema version. Tracking moves I could do with robotic automation on the 70D/80D/5D4 I wasn't able to do with the R5C. It's made food documentary and product video capture more... annoying than it should be. Conclusion: I'm still stuck in the value-conscious mindset I was in a few years ago -when it would definitely have been an either/or situation- so, I'm kind of torn on whether I wasted $3000 USD on the X-H2S or $5000 USD on the R5C. If only one or the other existed, I'd probably be happy but since they both exist and they both have respective strengths and weaknesses... it's weirdly still a toss-up. I am happy that I have enough work to justify owning both. After re-reading what I wrote above (and how non-committal I still am), I will say this: the X-H2S is what I wished the BMPCC 6K Pro would have been. It is definitely more expensive when kitted-out equivalently but it does almost everything better. If $5000 USD is within your budget and rolling-shutter isn't a big deal, the Canon R5C is the better tool versus the X-H2. But at $3000 USD (base+TASCAM audio unit) the X-H2S is the only hybrid camera that does all the things it does, and does them well. JP

July / August 2022 Smartphones and their growing threat to mirrorless cameras – 2022 edition https://www.eoshd.com/news/smartphones-and-their-growing-threat-to-mirrorless-cameras-2022-edition/ 2 years later – Canon quietly removes fake overheating limits of EOS R5 in firmware update https://www.eoshd.com/news/2-years-later-canon-quietly-removes-fake-overheating-limits-of-eos-r5-in-firmware-update/ One step closer to WWIII – Throwback to my Taiwan footage and experience living there https://www.eoshd.com/youtube/one-step-closer-to-wwiii-throwback-to-my-taiwan-footage-and-experience-living-there/ (Shot on Panasonic GH2 and Samsung NX5) Thoughts on the Fuji X-H2S https://www.eoshd.com/news/thoughts-on-the-impressive-fuji-x-h2s/

Can people read? Absolutely not true, some zooms are better than primes as posted above the EF 24-70 and EF 70-200 are optically better than EF 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and on pair with 135 2.0. The EF 24-70 2-8 II at 24 2.8 is much better than the EF 24 1.4 II at 2.8. I have/had all these lenses. All expensive L lenses. The new affordable RF 15-30 seems a tad better in the corner that the RF 16 2.8 (here we go again with a zoom better than a prime) and both better than the old 16-35 II L. Also, most of the EF L wide angle zooms are better than the EF 14 2.8 L v1. Now in case of the proclaimed by people that never have used one, no improved RF lenses, the RF 50 1.2, RF 85 1.2 are better optically than the RF 70-200 and RF 24-70. But yes I lost all my credibility by really comparing zooms with primes instead of trusting you guys with the super generalized statement: primes always better optically than zooms and RF are no improvements over EF. I'm really sorry that I'm so dumb not trusting your claims but lose time in testing things out......... Do me a favor test one of the above examples you may learn something new.