gt3rs

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

@Kisaha are you a kid or what to downvote 🤣? This is really professional.....

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

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.

You don't use lenses above 200mm (8 ouf 22 are above 200mm) and you only use 1 RF lens on a APS-C camera and yet you are proclaiming: "Big improvement they are not" Really professional and credible, only big claims with no backed evidence..... again, not a single example of what you have tested or used other than 1 single RF lens that is the second cheapest one..... and even there you complain that you did not get a hood......while no other manufacturer is offering something similar at that price. This is the problem of this forum a lot of people trashing equipment that they never ever have used..... even less useful than those paid YT reviewers.

What are you talking about? Andrew said that is normal that 16 2.8 is better than 16-35 2.8 L II because is a prime and I should not compare prime with zoom. My answer is that you can compare as some zooms are better than primes at the same aperture and focal length. Really the opposite of what you guys are saying... with this silly rule don't compare with primes etc.. But you know what you are right you did a lot of research and by owning 1 RF lens and zero FF camera you right in claim that RF lenses are no improvements over EF ones.....

Of course, you can compare primes with zooms Compare the EF 24-70 II at 2.8 with a EF 50 1.2 at 2.8 and you will see how bad it is the prime, unsharp, a lot of CA.... I have both. I use the 50 1.2 for its "dreamy" effect and rarely, but for photo is basically useless.... Compare EF 70-200 III at 135 at 2.8 with EF 135 2.0 at 2.8 and you will see the zoom is as good as the prime. Compare EF 70-200 III at 85 at 2.8 with EF 85 1.2 II at 2.8 and you will see the zoom is better than the prime. Now the 16mm 2.8 is one of the cheapest wide-angle at 300$ and it perform better than 2200$ lens and people are arguing that RF are too expensive and no improvements. And no there are no 16 2.8 in EF... the closest is the EF 14 2.8 II that is not better for 4x the price... RF has some quite good cheap leases and some very good expensive lenses what is missing is the middle ground. But the cheap RF ones are not great mechanical but are fast focusing, construction is meh, but are quite compact, lightweight and produce better image that many EF even L counterparts.... I take cheaper plastic and no included hood that produce better images at any time. The 24-105 RF 4-7.1 kit lens is better than the EF 24-105 4 I (not a great lens but much more expensive and heavier) go figure.... and at some point I had both....

I'm sorry that you find RF not compelling and a big improvement, but my experience is the opposite. I sold the 16-35 2.8 II and replaced with the 16 2.8, saved money, is sharper and much more compact, of course it is only 16mm. Point me out a better 16mm 2.8 for the same price? Is on the same league as the RF 15-35 no way but is better at 16mm than the old 16-35....... I have the EF 24 1.4 II and also the RF 35 1.8 and the latter is much better, so I will probably sell the 24 1.4 (sharpness is okeish, CA is horrible) and replace with the RF 24 1.8 (still waiting some more reviews). Point me at a 35 1.8 at the same price that is better? I sold the 70-200 2.8 II and brough the RF 70-200 2.8 and imo this a huge improvement tanks to the size and weight. I take plastic any day if it saves my back and I can handhold easier. I use it a lot backpacking and on a gimbal, the weight saving is very welcomed. This is the most surprising, I rented 100-500 and compared it with my 200-400 F4 and at the end I decided to sell the 200-400 and brough the 100-500. In term of sharpness wide open they are almost the same, very surprising, of course you lose 1.3 stops. Before I was taking a 1Dx and 200-400 for most sports, now I prefer the R5 with RF 70-200 or 100-500 depending on the sport seems crazy, but I get better result. Rented the RF 400 2.8 just two weeks ago for a project and is a really good lens, super sharp and very light weight, but is just exactly the same as the EF version III. I don't need often 400 at 2.8 so I rent when I need but I would rather buy a used EF III version than a new RF. Rented the RF 50 1.2 and compared to my EF 50 1.2 is just another league and almost not fair. I probably keep the EF one as I mostly use for video only, and it gives a bit of a unique view. My normal sports/action kit was: 1Dx II 1Dx III EF 200-400 EF 70-200 2.8 EF 16-35 III EF 24 1.4 II EF 24-70 2.8 II Now is R5 R5C RF 70-200 2.8 RF 100-500 EF 24-70 2.8 ii RF 16 2.8 RF 35 1.8 So from around 30k USD kit to 17k kit and even more impressive from 10 Kg to 5 Kg! and I get better results. I don't buy third party lenses anymore as I had Sigma 70-200 and Sigma 120-300 and they were very good but really inconsistent and the money you save in buying them you lose on the value when reselling... as I sell everything that I don't use or replace is an impotent aspect. Not sure if they sell a lot of 28-70 but is basically impossible to find one. So I guess they are selling many more that what they did expect.

Yes, you are right. Of course, once you add the adapter, they are almost the same

One can absolutely live with EF lenses plus adapter as they most all work better on the R cameras than on the DSLR, so no rush to move to RF. But I do not agree that RF ones are not much better than the EF versions actually it is the opposite other than price(for the L series) they are mostly all a big improvement: RF 70-200 2.8, much more compact and quite a bit lighter than the EF version. Only downside is no TC support. RF 70-200 4, incredibly compact and light weight compared to the EF. RF 100-500, lighter, sharper, longer than the EF 100-400, only downside with TC it starts at 500mm RF 24-70 2.8 IS, has IS and a tad lighter weight than the non IS EF version RF 15-35 2.8, wider, sharper and has IS compared to 16-35 2.8 III EF. Not even a fair comparison. RF 85 2 IS, sharper and with IS compared to the old (imo junk) 85 1.8 RF 50 1.8, a tad sharper than the EF version RF 50 1.2, much bigger and heavier but just in another league from the old EF 50 1.2. RF 85 1.2, much bigger and heavier but just in another league from the old EF 85 1.2. Unique and no equivalent from Canon in EF mount: RF 16 2.8, affordable, very compact and quite sharp RF 35 1.8 IS, affordable, very compact super sharp, but noisy AF RF 24 1.8 IS, too early to tell RF 28-70 2, heavy and big but very sharp and unique, challenging for video due to the 95mm filter size RF 600 and 800 F11, very affordable long tele with quite good image quality RF 24-240, surprisingly good image quality for such zoom range RF 100-400, affordable and very light weight long zoom with an ok image quality A let down: RF 400 2.8, no included TC as Nikon now does, just the EF version with glued on R-EF adapter RF 600 4, no included TC, just the EF version with glued on R-EF adapter RF 800 5.6, no included TC, sharpness so similar to the RF 400 + 2x with an insane price, it makes no sense RF 1200 8, no included TC, sharpness so similar to the RF 600 + 2x with an insane price, it makes no sense

Exactly they could implement an optional timer setting that when you are in menus or not recording for that time the camera stops live feeding video.... or switches to a much lower res mode as R5 does.

I posted that is a kind of workaround for saving battery here 2 months ago: My personal rant: why a 6-minute video with a huge title for something so simple? Basically, it saves you the 3 seconds to turn on the camera.... not sure is something worth of this fanfare 🙂 If you are playing with the menu to setup the camera it still chews battery like crazy.... Amazing camera with pretty bad battery management.

I did email them a month ago and they said that at the moment it does not support 8k 60

In theory as it supports USB-PD up to 100w. It maybe a good solution to protect from breaking the camera board. I may try as currently I use a small rig protector but you could still break it. I rally hate the power over USB C….. is the only thing that I truly hate from this great camera Ideally a USB PD or D tap dummy battery would be even better…

I do this a lot and a now most of my remote camera work I take a video, much easier and no missed moment, trigger not working, interference, etc... I posted a thread a while a go with many examples of photos taken from the video mostly sport/actions. I find 8k RAW quite similar to a RAW picture in term of what I can do in post processing. Of course, one in 17:9 and the other 3:2. I wish the camera could do open gate as it gives even more reframing possibility and better to extract vertical pictures. Especially for sports/action many don't even notice the higher shutter speed. Again, if the target is video, I use the 180 rule but many times I need both then I compromise. And sometime the panned shoots are also great with the slow shutter speed like the picture a posted in this thread. Workflow I kind of find an ok solution, the only thing I wish that you could export DNG from resolve instead tiff (or jpg).

In what settings? Fully charged lp-e6nh in XF-AVC shows 67min

If you turn on the camera, 2 min of setup and then start recording 4k XF-AVC on a fresh lpe6nh you should get at list around 1h…. official specs says 156 min…. older lpe6 probably less but I have none. Now the problem is that if you record 10 x 1 min clips and leave the camera on, go to menus etc in 1h battery is gone, although you recorded only 10 min, if you are in 8k RAW probably in 35-40 min is game over if you recording or not.

I get your arguments and are valid but if you really fear to miss the moment then video with a higher ss may be a better strategy now that camera have high res video that can take a lot of post processing. I don’t do weddings so I can’t comment but on sports it works well as I get both video and photos and I have many more expressions as I film all the time. The ss is probably less of an issue in sports.

But then you have the candid moment only in photo or video….

A couple of frame grabs to show the AF R5c, AF at max speed, at 200mm at F2.8, on a gimbal with me walking fast. 50fps, 1/100 100 fps 1/200

20 seconds? Just timed (don't believe all these drama queen youtubers): Boot in video mode: 3 sec Boot in photo mode: 1.2 sec Switch Video to Photo with no sensor cleaning: 8 sec Photo to Video with no sensor cleaning: 4.5 sec

The R5 when in standby it has low res mode and I believe when you go into menus it even stops the live feed to save battery, there is a setting to enable high res if you use it with and external recorder, streaming etc.. The R5c basically is always processing the live feed even when non recording, the menus are transparent over the live feed and basically is always filming at the current settings thus it makes almost zero difference if recording or not. One trick is to enter playback menu as there it stops the live feed and basically stop draining the battery. I also think that all the additional feature like waveform etc... consumes more cpu cycles and on top of that the OS probably was never optimized for small battery. While recording on similar settings probably they use similar battery but the R5c is much more conservative with the battery status so it will tell you that the battery is gone while on a R5 you can still continue to record. Long story short the battery is the only real BIG issue of the R5c imo. You have basically 5 options and none are really great imo: - Change battery every 45 min no matter what you are doing - Buy the battery grip it will give double battery capacity, it adds bulk, weight and still cannot use 8k 50/60 RAW. Plus add costs but if you already have batteries it may not be such bad idea. - Buy a dtap to dummy battery, add a cage and a vmount plate and use dtap battery that you may already have, still cannot use 8k 50/60 RAW, bulky but if you have the batteries already not too expensive and cables are quite safe. Camera will run for many hours. - Buy a PD 45w power bank, can run for many hours, is cheap but cable is fragile and you probably need a cage and a power bank mount that are terrible imo. - My solution, add a cage, vmount plate, and buy FXLION NANO ONE and use the USB-C cable, it runs with the small ONE around 3h of recording 8k, the NANO TWO will last probably more than 6h recording. Disadvantage it adds bulks, and you need a cable locking system to protect the fragile USB-C, batteries are expensive but cheaper than buying 4 canon batteries. I think in future you will see third party dummy battery that provides enough V for 8k 60 from dtap. You could do it already with the canon coupler for R5c plus anthon bauer dtap thing but is a big mees, super long cables, a box in between and expensive. This is a joke. Again, I really don't understand why Canon is not offering a battery grip with R3 batteries and problem solved, no cables and enough power for 8k 60. If you do docs the advantages of the R5c is the face only AF, will never overheat, XAFC is so much better to edit, the various exposure tool and if you use 4k 50/60p the quality is much better. Lack of IBIS could be an issue or not depending on your style and if you use IS lenses or not. Probably in your case if you are not interested in the 8k 50/60 RAW is to buy the battery grip, if you already have many LP-E6 batteries you "only" have the cost of the grip. I don't like to rig cameras as I only do run and guns thing mostly in areas that you cannot even go with a car, so I carry my equipment on bikes, skis, heli, etc... and yet I prefer the R5c with this big battery issue.

I was worried for this but for my usage is really not an issue at all. What scenario do you take 20 sec video switch for taking 3 picture and back to video? I switch a lot and is not an issue (disable sensor cleaning in photo so it does it only once instead of twice every switch, you can even fully disable to gain even more time) by the time I'm ready to take the picture the camera is ready. I'm sure there are scenarios that requires super quick switch but then it may be better to use a higher shutter speed and pull frame from RAW video, I do it a lot in case that they need video and photos, and the "cinematic" aspect of the video is not so key.

My understanding is that EIS is exactly what catalyst, davinci etc do but in camera, all use gyros data plus lens plus tracking algorithms. Is even documented that Canon EIS uses Gyro: "The EOS C500 Mark II is the first Canon Cinema EOS camera to feature built-in five-axis electronic IS" Action cameras do the same too just they tend to use a really high shutter speed and a really wide-angle lens on a small sensor making things easier. I would prefer to be able to use EIS in post as some time is good and some time is not. Insta allow you this and I find it much better than Gopro. People mount gopro on car rollcage with EIS enabled and is just horrible. If you do in post you can always choose what is best. The advantage in camer is that it can coordinate with OIS and IBIS.

I did sell one of my two R5 and added a R5c as I posted in the other thread. At the beginning I was not too happy about the R5c but now I like it more than the R5 other than the battery issue that basically makes it a rig only camera. And I did not buy it due to the time limit as it was not an issue for me other than 4k 120…. Initially it was for the 8k 60 and audio on the 120fps. I filmed 5 days of MTB and 2 days of Surfing in the last two weeks, and I reach out more to the R5c (A cam) than the R5 (B cam). They are quite different, the R5 even more with the new FW is a really good hybrid, the R5c is a cinema camera that you can turn in a great photo camera, it seems the same but when you use them both you realize the differences. Plus for the R5c: 8k 60 RAW 4k 60 much better quality than R5 4k 120 with sound and noticeably better quality than R5 S35 5.9k RAW XAVC much easier to edit than h265 Face only AF, AF around the point only Cinema OS makes more sense for filming. False color, waveform, magnification while recording etc… Customization of what to show in which screen VF vs LCD vs HDMI, safe marks etc. Port protector let you flip the screen Media playback UI, I really hated at first, but I discovered how to control it with the touch screen and joystick (not the wheel as I was used) and is better that the R5. Still lacks lut support and a quicker way to delete videos imo. Plus for the R5 Battery, battery and battery so no need to rig it and cables that can break etc... More AF zones type, Animal and Car AF IBIS (although I find it a problem in some cases like on gimbal with long lenses and wobble on wide angles) Faster switch photo video (I thought that the R5c would bother me but for my usage is non issue and I do switch quite frequently) C1-C3 modes this is so needed on the R5c Bigger UI font Wifi works in video mode too (this is ridiculous on the R5c that only works in photo mode) AF the way I use it is very similar in term of performance some stuff are better on the R5 and some on the R5c I really wish they would merge the two functionalities. If it would not be for the battery challenge, I would probably sell the R5 and get a second R5c.