Andrew Reid

Have you seen how pixilated the UI is through the viewfinder on a Sony? What matters more than EVF dots is the quality of the live-view feed to it. I can't see a downside to the E-shutter on the Z9. Any actual evidence of one? As far as I can tell it has a rolling shutter as fast as a mechanical one, so practically a global shutter or as near as makes no difference to 99.99999999999999% of shots. S1H has all of the extra video features of EOS R5C... LUT support, anamorphic (proper open gate not just desequeze), focus, exposure tools, etc. Personally I prefer to see the shot I am taking rather than a big graph! I will probably never buy another Canon. I don't like the EOS R lenses. They're as bulky and expensive as it gets... Heavier than my medium format GFX lenses.

I think Z9 is close to perfect really. Much better codec than R3 in all respects, both the RAW codec and the 10bit codec. I never use WFM, false color, all it really does is distract from the composition. You don't even need to nail exposure with Prores RAW. As for focus, with AF as good as the Z9 offers you don't need any of the focus aids, and with manual focus I don't even use peaking any more because EVFs are such high res these days. I don't see what the EOS R5C offers over the Z9 apart from some camcorder gimmicks and a big frustrating delay between modes, not to mention a worse codec and no IBIS! I'd take the Z9 over it any day for stills as well.

It's not about matching the formats though. They are stopping down to F3.5 on medium format and using just that example to say - "hey it looks the same as APS-C" They are denying the differences that exist between sensor size and lens combinations. There is only one good test that shows how depth of field differs between formats: Use same lens, same focal length, same focus point, same aperture, different sensor sizes.

It's all fine in theory but it ignores the reality. In reality you simply have different lenses designed for different formats. You cannot mimic the look of a Canon 50mm F0.95 Dream Lens from the 1970s on full frame by taking a different lens with equivalent focal length and aperture on another size sensor because: A) One doesn't exist B) If it did exist, it would not be a Canon from the 1970s C) The hand of the original optics designer matter D) The rendering is unique to that original lens. Not even the Leica Noctilux 50mm F0.95 looks anywhere near close to it. Also there are certain lenses that don't even fit a Speed Booster. There is simply no room for a focal reducer between Leica M mount lenses and any of the mirrorless mounts of today. If I have a special lens that is only at its best on the sensor size it was designed to match then I am stupid to use it on something else. Equally if I have a LOMO anamorphic that simply doesn't cover full frame, how exactly would I try to mimic the look in any other way on my full frame camera without cropping? So Yedlin's theory can go and do one to be quite honest. There's a lot more to the look of a large format than matching DoF. What exactly does he define as the look? Of course the look is not just shallow DOF. Far more depends on sensor size and format than that. Yeah well different lenses were used weren't they? So hardly surprising... Even if you go crazy about matching everything with equivalence you will need to use different focal lengths and apertures, and if you are using prime lenses that means you need different lenses for different camera formats.

It's an upgrade if you don't need IBIS and don't need a quick way to switch between video and stills!

It happened to me once with a few lenses that I had stored for 6 months in a basement in Berlin. Just one week before I was due to come back and clear it out, there was a big storm and some water got into the basement. It only took a few days of moist atmosphere to set the fungus going in 4 or 5 unfortunate lenses. So absolutely keep lenses in as dry a place as possible! Interested to see how you go about fixing it, I'll be looking at doing the same to mine as not had the opportunity to do much about them since.

It's almost impossible to tell that review apart from a marketing video.

IBIS has an off button. Why go and take it out?

It's not a vintage gear competition is it though? It's about smallest and lightest possible, even if it's a big compromise on image quality. It's how you use it that counts. I will try and get time this week to start the competition on front of the blog, then we can put some basic rules for point scoring down (nothing strict) and get shooting!

Yeah it was an eye opening moment that. It's a good lens on full frame as well, but the magic of the GFX 100 is it elevates certain lenses to a more interesting place. Makes them a bit more unique. I still haven't used the 35-70 on full frame, it's been permanently GFXed!

@kyeyup very clever what you can do in post to manipulate the image as far as computational optics go. For the sake of this thread though I think we should keep to the original topic. Feel free to open a separate thread for the other stuff, and if @Djangocan stop arguing with you that would be a plus. iPhone does computational optics in realtime, and there are apps to emulate anamorphic bokeh and all that sort of thing. Maybe in future with 8K, sensor size, focal length and FOV will ALL be computational, with smaller sensors or telephoto lenses being a crop with a depth map for computational bokeh. Until that day comes, we live in real world of real optics and real sensor sizes. Hopefully we can get back on topic, which was the unique depth of field of medium format and Chris from DPReview's video.

No, a lot of them cover 44x33. Especially 85mm or longer. Sigma ART 85mm F1.4 EF mount for example barely even has any brightness fall off at, in corners. Canon FD 85mm F1.2L is sublime. It's nice enough on full frame but on medium format takes on a whole new dimension. DPR wouldn't even bother to scratch the surface of these kinds of combos in their videos. Also Minolta tended to design a larger image circle, for better corner sharpness on full frame - side effect of that is they don't vignette as much on an even larger sensor. One thing to bear in mind with some of the really fast full frame lenses is they're not very sharp wide open so a crop sensor will magnify the aberrations and softness. That's why Contax Zeiss 85mm F1.4 on GH2 back in the day was always best at F2 for detailed shots and ninja star bokeh, and F1.4 for softer portraits and people shots. It was two lenses in one with two completely different looks at different apertures. So it is not just about sensor size but aperture as well. Not even talking depth of field differences but bokeh as well. Plus much lighter to carry round than a 170mm F1.4 on full frame would be. It gave the GH2 a handy leg up in dim light.

On the other side of the argument, it's not quite that simple either There are magic combos of mismatched sensor size and glass. This, granted, is more a matter of taste than anything to do with peak performance or corner sharpness. But I love the Contax Zeiss 85mm F1.4 on Micro Four Thirds as a fast telephoto, whereas on full frame I find it to be merely another portrait lens of which I have plenty. Usually it doesn't work like this. I find 50mm lenses on 2x crop sensor to be a no-mans land. The Canon 50mm F1.2L on APS-C and Micro Four Thirds I find lacking all that's nice about it on full frame. And what is basically a crap old boring £60 lens on full frame can really come to life on medium format. Minolta MD lenses for example. This is why you can't discuss a lens separately to image format. And this is why Chris & Jordan don't have a clue about depth of field or medium format. Maybe we could turn the spotlight back onto that. The fact that such a big proportion of the camera community is happy to idolise two ex-salesmen who don't even have a basic artistic understanding of photography and cinema.

Not to criticise, however that can't really be done, but they are absolutely 100% linked. If you only see the centre crop of a painting, the composition is different, the brush strokes are different, you're not able to discuss the aesthetics of the whole thing So you can't discuss a lens without adding sensor size to the discussion, or at the very least the sensor format it was designed for.

Legitimate twats

Can see how that workflow might be nice for photographers grading stills out of a RAW video sequence.

Canon: Let's make EOS R5 better for video shooters... *Proceeds to remove IBIS and introduce 8 second delay on video/stills switch* S1R is a bargain at current used prices. Did you upgrade the firmware when it basically got Leica SL2 specs for free? I think S1H makes a great photo camera. Great in low light, very nice EVF, good AF in stills mode but of course video AF not up to standard of competition. If S2H comes out and is smaller, lighter, same features, just as nice ergonomics, addition of internal ProRes and BRAW and has phase-detect AF on chip then it will be an end-game camera. I would literally sell ALL my E-mount lenses and invest in Sigma and Panasonic L-mount. This is Canon's desire too, avoid the 8 second delay by buying 3 more Canon cameras 🙂 Yes would be great to have an internal eND that automatically turns clear when you switch to stills mode. The time lost here is storing the filter glass somewhere safe where it isn't going to get lost or dirtied up. Controlled shoot or on set no issues, but out in field just putting it in a coat pocket isn't going to cut it.

It does come down to taste at the end of the day. Personally speaking I think sensor size and a particular lens combination is 80% of what defines the cinematic look. Other stuff can only spoil it or require workarounds to improve (like moire, 30fps, or limited dynamic range). Even then, the other things can work to the advantage of certain material. YouTubers like 30fps because it gives pre-recorded videos a more 'live' broadcast feel. Whether you choose to shoot Super 16mm with a vintage lens, or full frame with a clinically sharp modern lens, or prefer medium format lenses, or even full frame lenses on medium format that cover, or anamorphic lenses on Super 35mm, is purely a matter of taste. Personally I like them all for different projects. What DPReview Chris is saying isn't factually wrong about equivalence and matching a similar look across three different sensor sizes, but the sweeping conclusion he makes from it is wild. Just because he was able to make medium format look similar to APS-C at F1.8, his conclusion is basically "what's the point of medium format, nothing special about it"

To be clear there was not much overheating to begin with on EOS R5 original edition, it was a fake timer and initial firmware didn't even read the internal temps. Canon RAW is a very difficult codec to edit, I'd much rather have BRAW in Resolve or ProRes RAW in FCPX. These major NLEs aren't interested in supporting Canon RAW or making it work well as Blackmagic wants you to shoot BRAW with one of their products and Apple want you to shoot ProRes RAW. So I would rather impale both my eyeballs on cocktails sticks than shoot 8K RAW 60p on the EOS R5 C, just so you know 🙂 Can't make enough, shortage of raw materials like magnesium, worldwide chip shortages, lead times of 2 years on basic processors, and more.

Here's a suggestion, dump the EOS R5 and get a 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern RAW DNG, or a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K with original firmware 😉

You can't use Adobe Camera Raw controls with a TIFF I don't think?

I think that's just marketing speak from Sony. To me it shows that at the time of the interview they didn't even have a prototype out. They wanted to wait and decide what features to include, what the market research was telling them, and monitoring demand for that kind of camera. There was no rush to replace the old model. What do you mean we didn't get more than 4K60 10bit? We got 4K120p. They could have gone further with E-ND, it's s shame they didn't. Also I think A7S3 has a quad bayer sensor with high resolution mode but it is probably disabled to protect the A7R IV. Panasonic's original ship date for GH6 was December, so shipping in March or April is not going to upset me that much. It is Nikon who have the bigger problem because they put all their eggs in one basket with the Z9 and now can't make any!

Could a simple accelerometer, gyro and lidar module on top of the camera feed the same info into the computer? If camera always begins from the centre of a big room, you could measure distance to all 4 walls to see where the camera is moved. Smartphone sensors could measure tilt, orientation, etc. Or programme a lidar sensor (or 4) to keep track of a pattern on the camera and track the movement and calculate location of it within the physical space? Budget version would have to be a smartphone camera wouldn't it! They have the sensors, wireless communications, software side already in one device. Just all needs bridging up and feeding into the computer. Maybe try Unity on a Mac as well. Not as graphically spectacular but might be less taunting to get going. Are you going to hire a space and paint the walls green? 🙂 Or just a proof of concept tech wise?

I don't think they did? Got a source for this? A7S III took a long time because they wanted to establish full frame FX6 first. It was a marketing decision rather than anything technical. Plus A7S II was still selling well even 4 years later. So far it has only been delayed a few months, not years.

Don't forget you have large formats in cinema as well like 65mm, with similar image area size to GFX. RED WEAPON Vista Vision MONSTRO 8K at 40x21 is slightly smaller imaging area to GFX at 44 x 24 in video mode. 65mm Ultra Panavision is a bit larger horizontally at 52x23 Likewise Alexa 65 is also similar to medium format at 54x25.5 GFX frame for stills is almost as high as full frame is wide so not a small difference.