PaulUsher

Thanks, yeah I love that 35. The crash zoom has become part of our visual vocabulary on a mockumentary we’re developing so I think we’ll need to carry one of these heavy zooms. Would try the Tamron first, as that looks to perform better, but the Sigma will pair well with the 18-35 we’ll also be using - so I may buy and try the Sigma first, and return if it’s just too heavy and the stabilisation doesn’t work as I hope it does. I worry about that zoom ring placement too - so need to get a feel of it. Will let you know my thoughts.

Thanks Mercer, that’s a good looking picture. I used f/4 for a while but kept finding a needed more light.

24-70 on RF mount: Sigma vs Tamron? Replacing ageing Tamron 24-70 VC for something with smoother AF - the focussing can be jumpy and jarring. Looking for decent in-lens stabilisation. Using EF lenses on RF mount + drop in ND adaptor (so not looking at the awesome and expensive RF 24-70). Was originally thinking the Tamron G2 but the stabilisation looks sticky for panning. Thoughts / experiences? Anyone using the Sigma 24-70 Art on Canon and can comment on the stabilisation -is it sticky, is it jerky? Mixed reports on internet, some say it’s not effective at all, some say it’s better than the Tamron. Limited footage out there - what I’ve seen looks ok... Will probably rent both the Sigma and Tamron to test, but only for a day or two, so would be grateful for long term opinions going into this upgrade. Will likely be my workhorse lens for years to come. Cheers. Paul

Using EF lenses on RF mount + drop in ND adaptor (so not looking at the awesome and expensive RF 24-70). Replacing ageing Tamron 24-70 VC for something with smoother AF - the focussing can be jumpy and jarring. Looking for decent in-lens stabilisation. Was originally thinking the Tamron G2 but the stabilisation looks sticky for panning. Thoughts / experiences? Anyone using the Sigma 24-70 Art on Canon and can comment on the stabilisation -is it sticky, is it jerky? Mixed reports on internet, some say it’s not effective at all, some say it’s better than the Tamron. Limited footage out there - what I’ve seen looks ok... Will probably rent both the Sigma and Tamron to test, but would be grateful for long term opinions going into this upgrade. Will likely be my workhorse lens for years to come. Cheers. Paul

Really enjoyed this, from the nostalgic storytimes at the beginning, through the gear talk, to the little grilling Dave gave you. It felt candid and effortless, and it left me entertained. Thanks. I’d sub to your podcasts.

There’s the excellent RF 15-35, not a lot of reach but will be great for indoors. Though in that use case I’d prefer the Sigma 18-35 and just use digital IS, if it’s as good on the C70 as it is on my R. I personally like the 18-135 image, and for outdoor ENG, especially when paired with a body (like the C70) that supports corrective auto iris. There’s the option to add servo ‘power zoom‘ with the nano version, but I never did. For a one and done though, I’d still be rocking that trusty 17-55 and cropping out any really obvious vignetting in post, when needed. My C100 would crop in for EF-S lenses so hoping the C70 has a similar setting, maybe combined with some fancy RF-era improvement for peripheral illumination correction. For me the only thing against 17-55 is its autofocus - old fashioned and certainly not the smoothest - yeah it’s definitely been crying out for an upgrade for years! Still, it’s a solid doc lens, I’d never sell mine. Not until we see some RF-S type glass but I won’t hold my breath. C70 ticks a lot of my boxes on paper (except EVF... hmmm) so looking forward to scrutinising footage of its DR etc and keen for some real world reports - especially on the ergonomics.. Not sure how it would feel, how I’d hold it (or brace it, especially without EVF) or how well my usual rig would work with it. Sounds like nitpicking but I’d definitely want to rent one before investing.

There’s the excellent RF 15-35, not a lot of reach but will be great for indoors. Though in that use case I’d prefer the Sigma 18-35 and just use digital IS, if it’s as good on the C70 as it is on my R. I personally like the 18-135 image, and for outdoor ENG, especially when paired with a body (like the C70) that supports corrective auto iris. There’s the option to add servo ‘power zoom‘ with the nano version, but I never did. For a one and done though, I’d still be rocking that trusty 17-55 and cropping out any really obvious vignetting in post, when needed. My C100 would crop in for EF-S lenses so hoping the C70 has a similar setting, maybe combined with some fancy RF-era improvement for peripheral illumination correction. For me the only thing against 17-55 is its autofocus - old fashioned and certainly not the smoothest - yeah it’s definitely been crying out for an upgrade for years! Still, it’s a solid doc lens, I’d never sell mine. Not until we see some RF-S type glass but I won’t hold my breath. C70 ticks a lot of my boxes on paper (except EVF... hmmm) so looking forward to scrutinising footage of its DR etc and keen for some real world reports - especially on the ergonomics.. Not sure how it would feel, how I’d hold it (or brace it, especially without EVF) or how well my usual rig would work with it. Sounds like nitpicking but I’d definitely want to rent one before investing.

There’s the excellent RF 15-35, not a lot of reach but will be great for indoors. Though in that use case I’d prefer the Sigma 18-35 and just use digital IS, if it’s as good on the C70 as it is on my R. I personally like the 18-135 image, and for outdoor ENG, especially when paired with a body (like the C70) that supports corrective auto iris. There’s the option to add servo ‘power zoom‘ with the nano version, but I never did. For a one and done though, I’d still be rocking that trusty 17-55 and cropping out any really obvious vignetting in post, when needed. My C100 would crop in for EF-S lenses so hoping the C70 has a similar setting, maybe combined with some fancy RF-era improvement for peripheral illumination correction. For me the only thing against 17-55 is its autofocus - old fashioned and certainly not the smoothest - yeah it’s definitely been crying out for an upgrade for years! Still, it’s a solid doc lens, I’d never sell mine. Not until we see some RF-S type glass but I won’t hold my breath. C70 ticks a lot of my boxes on paper (except EVF... hmmm) so looking forward to scrutinising footage of its DR etc and keen for some real world reports - especially on the ergonomics.. Not sure how it would feel, how I’d hold it (or brace it, especially without EVF) or how well my usual rig would work with it. Sounds like nitpicking but I’d definitely want to rent one before investing.

Where did you hear that?

Existing petition: https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-cripple-hammer New survey: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/7PTZCRG For consumer action: CanonCustomers@gmail.com

Existing petition: https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-cripple-hammer New survey: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/7PTZCRG For consumer action: CanonCustomers@gmail.com

Yes this suggests thermal management is, shall we say, a somewhat discretionary decision by Canon. Newsshooter cites Canon statement but I can’t find source. According to this statement Canon feel that they’ve addressed customer concerns. Gordon’s video suggests improvements but in the end I think most user’s chief concern will remain whether the camera actually overheats as described. Over to users to test it and have their say. https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/08/27/canon-r5-firmware-update/ “ According to Canon, ‘The effect of the new firmware addresses consumer concerns around repeated shooting capabilities and the need for improved cooling while switched on. We have and will continue to be transparent about recording limits for the EOS R5 and are confident that the camera performs to stated specifications.’ “

Thanks @wolf33d People are seeing it (1286 views) but only a fraction are signing it. Importantly, Canon were emailed the petition end of play yesterday, containing all signatures thus far and a link to the live version which continue to accumulate. The 30-day returns period (from release 30 July) expires this weekend so technically Canon have until then to respond with a firmware update that resolves the complaints. If they don’t, then petitioners could opt to wait the full 30 days from their signature before taking further action. Depending on where someone files a class action, they may need a minimum party of 40 claimants who have an existing and unresolved complaint with the company. Since this petition has preserved the complaints, the dates, and the contact details of well over 40 prospective claimants - and if Canon demonstrably ignores their complaints to the expiration of their 30-day returns period - then this petition offers decent case development to whomever files the class action. Let’s see if that firmware update comes before Friday and, assuming it doesn’t satisfy, then yes let’s turn the pressure up whilst the technical wizards of this forum continue to find alternative solutions. Keep up the good work lads. https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-cripple-hammer

Petition demands firmware update within 30 days. Reached 100 signature goal on first day. Please keep sharing this to drive the numbers and keep the pressure on. https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-cripple-hammer

maybe it should be rebranded 'Canon, please stop the Cripple Hammer' and ask Camera Conspiracies to share

Thanks @wolf33d. The petition now states "We, the undersigned Canon customers, demand a reply to this request - before our 30-day returns period expires." Please add your comment to the petition to give colour. IMO Canon know what they did. A petition can only add pressure, not force admission. There's little to be gained from a petition masthead that forces Canon to deny claims that are improperly worded without a lawyer’s drafting. This salvo is a reasonable customer request for comment. Each of us can add our own personal views in the petition comments, make our own claims based on personal experience with the camera, swear, and state that we're taking our business elsewhere, to add further pressure. If Canon don’t respond within the 30-day returns period then the legal letters that may follow from customers, drafted by a lawyer, will be strongly worded. Evidence of timers etc can be submitted to courts later. IMO it won't come to that, Canon won’t respond directly (that would be admission) and apologise, but they can and should at least add a firmware update that helps make it right. Given their options now, from their POV (even if they don't give a hoot about their customers), surely they'll decide on "a bug fix" - or whatever they could call it - as the path of least resistance to salvage their company's reputation. Need way more signees and comments - please help and share. https://www.change.org/canonR5fix

Petition to fix the R5: http://chng.it/JJFJQvT9zn

Yes we use it to match with EOS R and C300 c-log 1 — it works well. The M50 dynamic range is limited but Andrew’s profile helps squeeze the most out of it. Grades well.

lol. Even I would have left Canon by then

Great job controlling the rolling shutter. I find IS lenses help. Which lens did you use on this? This is really encouraging as I’m looking to shoot action on my R too. Nice edit points within the action. And I liked that it was tight, emphasised the speed. Thanks for sharing.

Hey Mercer, thanks for your detailed reply and reposting that image. I think it could be a goer, for the price it’s hardly a risk, but the dirt cheap copy I was looking at has gone. Inconspicuous is exactly what I’m after for personal / street stuff. You know how the bigger full frame standard zooms can draw attention. There’s that little RF 24-105 now but it’s f4-7.1 ... I’m down with the ‘f8 and be there’ philosophy for ENG, but it doesn’t excite me creatively. Speedbooster makes the 24-85 a more interesting 28-105 f2.5-3.2 approx. What’s great about the speedbooster though is being able to use it in ways you’re not supposed to. Like modding and mounting EF-S / APSC lenses - the 17-55 2.8 vignettes upto 22mm but you end up around 28-70 f2 equivalent - with IS. Or boosting lenses in FF mode (without engaging the crop) offers some characterful results for Academy/4:3 aspect ratios- I love the pillar boxed look for emulating 16mm or creating that Andrea Arnold vibe 😉 I can see the speedbooster being a nice creative option for the new R5/6 users.

It isn't based off any sensor, it's a custom one. The rolling shutter times are around 16ms in 12K and 6ms in 8K (from another thread). lol we were joking... Skin tones in that sample footage have mojo, no de-bayering or luminance/color averaging taking place - I wish all sensors did this. Canon used to do it in the original C cams, don’t know why they don’t do this more

We should be in for some sweet rolling shutter then 😉

I’m sold on the image if not its usability and its costs / sacrifices. If I could afford the body right now, plus a new computer, and the storage, and the extra time in post, I’d buy it and still use it like my R + speedbooster for 99% of what I do (24p) but also get to enjoy bursts in its quirky but good-looking steroid modes. To me it would be like a really amazing, really expensive Magic Lantern hack (to others - who use 120p and/or RAW frequently - it will be even more valuable). Talking of which, I think those boys are making progress with the M50... I think the R5 could be a grower. If in 6-12 months c-log 3 turns out to be real then it could tip the balance for me. By then there will be plenty of real world experience with it too, grey market pricing could be very attractive, and who knows I may even have a new computer...

Stunning was the word that came to MY mind, which YOU took issue with. I’m glad you now concede that we’re all entitled to our opinions. I’m sorry I had to defend my opinion (I’d rather engage in healthy debate) but you must recognise that you provoked me with your tone, so you have to expect a reaction. I did also post my grade of the image and named the things I liked about it. Although it’s not the user-friendly camera I’d come to expect from Canon (its modes limited by reliability, questionable IBIS, file size and codec quandaries) I appreciate its end product.