gt3rs

R5 and R5c have the same weather resistance. Both not at the same level as 1Dx. Used my R5 and R5c in sandy, light raining and light snow with no issue so far but they are insured so I take more risks without worrying.

If the video will be used only on YouTube you can use most of music, but you will not be able to turn on monetization and YouTube will turn on monetization and give the revenue to the music copyright older. So, you can use a Lady Gaga song with no problem, but you get advertisement on the video and you get zero revenue.

Are you sure that you could not just create a simple pin passthrough adapter as the camera don't need to be aware of the adapter, of course they could check if EF lens is mounted check if OEM adapter is used, and then other adapter manufacturer are screwed. But as the adpaper support fully manual lens not sure they would really do this...

After 2 years of Canon VND adapter for EF and using normal screw in VND on RF lenses, I'm not sure that the adapter is more convenient. Going from min to zero is a pain as either you remove the filter and put a clear one or swap the adapter, I find unscrewing faster as I can simply put in the pocked the vnd and I'm done. The small wheel for me is not as easy as the front filter to do fine adjustments. The plus that you can use lens hoods. If I would start all over now, I would probably look into some magnetic system. As adapter the kippertie revolva seems a better solution but is very expensive and I'm not sure how compatible is with the R5/c...

This is not correct as RED V-Raptor has a fixed RF mount and you need adapters for the other mount. The RED V-Raptor XL has a swappable PL mount where you can buy the EF mount. So from the latest 3 models that RED sells two are native RF.

The biggest problem is that the 24 L 1.4 II has tons of CA and wide open is quite soft, it improves at F2 and good a F2.8 but the 24-70 II is at least in my copy a tad better than the 24 II 1.4 so I don't use it a lot.... I brough for video on the 1Dx II with the 1.3x crop now in FF I use it even less. If the RF 24 1.8 has less CA and a tad sharper than then 24 1.4 II then it will be up for sale.... The below is not really a fair comparison as is not the same camera 45mpx vs 50mpx but it seems that the RF is a tad better: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1625&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=480&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2 RF 50 1.8 I don't have it so is hard to comment but I tested a version of my friend and is not particularly good, one of the few RFs that I do agree is not better than EF counterpart and may even be a tad worst. The new "affordable" wide primes relay a lot on software correction especially for barrel and vignetting thus they could optimize more sharpness and size, some people scream scandal, I don't care as the final image counts... This also a problem if third parties reverse engineer and not officially supported as the trend is to use software to correct lens desinences.... Geometric distortion and vignetting are corrected also in RAW video, obviously CA is not.

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….