leobauberger

Exactly. IF the drop-in variable ND is like the cine lines, that's something really amazing and that only canon have atm. Unless another brand release something like the Sony FS5 eletronic ND. I believe the RF mount will deliver the best lenses for all these new mounts out there. In the end Canon is a lens brand more than a video brand. I would not hold my breath even for a C100 III or a XC15, I believe they will first upgrade all their c200/c300 ultra-pro line, then release a update for the entry cine line. The only difference is: copy-cat adapters usually sucks. Even metabones make almost all the AF systems horrible. That fring one is something apart, although I want to see more tests, when things got more out of control and not in a shine sun day.

Andrew just said fring works great a few posts before my answer. *What do you guys thing about the upcoming drop-in nd filter adaptor? Lackluster or gold? Because this is something that I truly miss from the cine line, but I don't know if they somehow will make it bad, afterall it's canon we're talking ?

X-T3 still having great AF even using fring adaptor aka EF lenses is a BIG bonus, indeed. My only 'hold back' into sticking to EOS R is the upcoming drop-in variable nd filter adaptor. It can be something amazing if the canon ND is somewhat good, it would be almost like a miniC200 and the fact that I already have canon bodies and glass, so this will make editing fast and money wise cheaper (no new lens system). There are just a few tests using 10bits external vs 8bits internal, I still don't know if the 10bits external is real or not, because if it is crap, it's a dealbreaker.

P4K, X-T3 or EOS R. I'm going crazy with this choice.

Look, Carl from proav did an awesome test showing lot of stuff: It's a very good video overall IMO. I wish they tested the 10 bit external in the EOS R/X-T3, because that's when I think bit deph can make a difference or not. Maybe Andrew can do something similar to that?

Andrew thanks for this, but I'm new into external recorders area. I still didn't get if you can have a better overall visible bump in image or if it's marginal and in the ends what matters is the internal recording options (regarding only the eos r)

Video wise, how's compared to 80d for an example?

Awesome test, I was looking for this! I have one question: when using an external recorder, due shooting into another codecs (dnx/prosres) the bitrate remains the same as the internal one? Because these codecs are less compressed than h264/h265, therefore easy to edit, but what about quality wise? Using a external recorder in eos r only changes the edit flow and record limits then?

Do you think ML for the eos r is a real possibility before a new body is released? It would be awesome but buying a body thinking in a ML release is like betting in the lottery. But again, I believe I will eventually buy the eos r, same battery, same color science, it will make things easier, and it's also a great camera in the end. We already have the adaptor that works great, so even if in one year from now they release a pro body w/ video pro features, the adaptor need to work the same, in the future we will have the drop in nd filter adaptor too, so almost a cinema camera. In the other side there's the x-t3 that after the h-2/x-t4 it will drop the price A LOT, probably, and heck, it's already cheap. I never thought that I would think a cheap camera actually is something bad, but thinking in value retain, it kinda is. I believe I am a little more inclined now, thank you! ?

It is, really, a ONE FREAKING HARD choice, lol. Color wise, it's just not Canon. right? But...for all the other options (gh5s, a7iii), is the most comfortable one to pair. There are a lot of things to put in the balance from each one and actually I'm having problem to balance the weight of each thing. From Canon I have the advantage to have some good glass already, some minor detail like same battery (actually how's the battery performance in the eos r?) and easier worflow using my 80d as the camera that will remain here. AF, flipscreen and all those tools that I'm used too when I need. Like, I barely use AF but when I'm doing a one man job it really save your ass and you can 'relly' on that, rather than the not to close X-T3 that is good, but it's enough? From what I'm seeing too, the fuji lens lineup isn't too great quality wise, I don't know. Maybe it's just that feeling that Fuji NEVER was a choice and it's probably their second real video oriented camera and you just don't have the guts to jump in the entire system. Cameras are evolving really quickly and I have the feeling that we are changing the bodies more often than before, so, the price for the sell an used equipment, thinking about investment retain, is something is in my mind a lot, because quite frankly, we know that EOS R is just a sample for the pro body to come. But then again, X-T3 too. And which of the two will retain its value for longer? Probably I already know the answer.

I'm really insecure what camera I will buy, damn. I'm inclined to the X-T3, it have almost all the checkboxes I'm looking for, and for almost the same price of the eos r I will bring an atomos ninja v together with perfect codecs, falsecolor, no recording limit and better and cheaper media (in the long term) using SSDs. But then...it's Fuji and I never used any Fuji before. I have some legacy glass from canon and I'm used to their DPAF (and actually helps a lot when you do 1 men crew jobs), there's even the variable nd adaptor that really looks good in paper. The price of canon products tend to stick a lot more too, so I believe I can resell the eos r easily then the X-T3 in the future. Damn Canon why you make things harder than needed.