herein2020

I probably shouldn't say anything but I will...I too would prefer IBIS over GS if I had to pick. My reasoning is simple...fewer non videographers will notice slightly wavy lines in the video footage; everyone will notice jittery footage that could have been fixed by IBIS. I shoot handheld quite often when the gimbal is just too much of a hassle to lug along on parts of the shoot and I'm more likely to need the IBIS than I am to need to film fast moving action. The nice thing about IBIS as well is you can always turn it off (in most cameras) if it is not working for you. Doesn't fix rolling shutter, but it is another option with an IBIS equipped camera. One thing I would be curious about however....is if in post it is easer to stabilize unstable IBIS footage vs shaky GS footage. I would think it would be easier to stabilize GS footage but that's just a guess. I've never owned a camera with a GS so I have no way to test my theory.

I own the Edelkrone SliderONE, I would imagine if it worked properly that it would be a decent macro slider, the problem I ran into was the Bluetooth was really finicky and wouldn't connect half the time and their support sucks; I emailed them about my Bluetooth problems and they never replied. They have a V2 now which may be better but I don't like recommending companies that can't even be bothered to reply to an email. https://edelkrone.com/products/sliderone-v2 It seems like the Moza Slypod may not be much better during real world use, it may have gotten better since Gerald's review, but it sounds like the company's support and marketing leave much to be desired. If you check the comments below the video there are a lot of complaints.

So if a camera feels like it will fall apart due to use, the materials feel really cheap to the touch, it is not as weather sealed as other comparable cameras, it is not comfortable to hold, and the menu systems are a mess you would still care more about IQ? I'm not here to debate Canon vs Sony or any other brands, I love my current setup and I'm glad you are getting the results that you paid for out of yours, but to me IQ isn't everything. Years ago I realized I'm not producing Hollywood blockbusters, my avg viewer will view my final output at 480P on their cell phones, the content matters a lot more than the IQ, actual Hollywood movies have been shot on GoPros, and YouTube will do more damage to my footage than I ever will in the camera.....so yes I know better IQ can be gotten by many cameras other than the GH5; but for me, the GH5 feels good in my hands, has a menu system that is very easy to work with, and feels rugged and reliable; these things I value more than IQ. With that being said, sure the GH5 has many shortcomings and I have learned to work within them (highlight rolloff, DR, lowlight performance, no AF, poor color science), so if Canon delivers the same ergonomics, features, and menu system from the rest of their line, and fixes all of the things I don't like about my GH5 I will gladly upgrade.

I should have been more clear, I did do some research on live streaming and the costs to reliably provide it kept adding up; so in my local market the cost of reliability outweighs what I feel clients in my area are willing to pay. If I just bought the ATEM Mini Pro I think I could get that back, but only if I relied on the venue's wifi which is too risky IMO to be considered a professional solution without your own wireless internet solution.

See you are proving my point, I'm sure there are technical solutions to everything but the question is how fast can you get a return on your investment. Most of the clients in my area are quite happy to set their cell phone on a tripod, and hit record in their app; once again cell phones are our biggest competition. I'm seeing everyone around here just use their cell phones, even lawyers and CEOs of companies, I think because people just don't expect high quality from a livestream so the companies in this area couldn't care less about quality. For the few companies big enough that are willing to pay enough to offset the cost of the equipment, they mostly already have dedicated media teams who have acquired the necessary gear and wouldn't need me anyway. The biggest business in my area is the small events like weddings, gender reveals, etc; no way am I buying the equipment needed for low budget gigs like those.

I agree, I love my GH5's layout, the menu system took a little getting used to mainly because there are so many options, but once I set up my favorites menu it is great. The GH5 feels good to hold, has never let me down due to overheating or any other issues. I never thought I'd like another camera as much as my 5DIV until the GH5 came along.

I feel like it is too good to be true as well, I'm just not yet sure what the catch is. For the external RAW question I am sure Atomos will make something that will work. I think the HDMI 2.0 standard was holding it back but with HDMI 2.1 they just need to release some new HW. I'll just come out and say it...I don't like Sony's cameras. I picked one up at a display case in a store once and it felt so cheap and plasticky that I have never given them another chance, the ergonomics were terrible, and the menus were even worse. I'm sure they have improved a lot since then but by now I have plenty of Canon glass, I love the Canon gear I have and if this camera doesn't disappoint and fits comfortably on my Ronin S it is a no brainer for me.

I want to offer live streaming but it looks complicated as hell with too many things that can go wrong. Mainly if the venue does not offer solid reliable wifi or you are not paying some ridiculous monthly fee for an LTE data card you may not be able to deliver as promised. I have all of the equipment except I would need to buy the ATEM Mini Pro to complete my kit but I'm not sure it's worth it.

I think it does if Canon is trying to consolidate their lens mount. The C200 uses an EF mount which can take APS-C or FF lenses, but there is no APS-C RF equivalent. I think APS-C is going away, which only leaves the M mount which is too small. Canon is supposedly going to release cheaper RF glass soon, so in that context why would Canon use a mount on their newest camera that they are trying to get rid of? It also makes sense to use the C200 sensor (which is also the C300 MKII sensor btw), my C200 outputs great footage and it would be cheaper than Canon using their new C300MkIII sensor or developing a new sensor. At that size they can pull off 4K120FPS in a small body, control rolling shutter better, and provide better battery life. Everyone is caught up on sensor size yet cinema cameras have been using S35 sensors for years. I definitely agree it is no R5 replacement, this is video all the way, the R5 and R6 are still complete disasters in my book, but this news might restore my faith in Canon after their recent disasters.

If they go with a fixed XC style mount then the cripple hammer strikes again. That would almost make more sense to me (knowing Canon) than to release a body like this that risks cutting into their C200 sales. No way would I buy this with a fixed mount, but if it really is an RF mount then this could be the perfect b cam for my C200 as well as a gimbal cam. It would mean however that the R5 and R6 will probably continue as they stand now.......two bodies unfit for anything but photography with Canon protecting their new Canon Komodo. I bet this body will do everything I wanted in the R6....dual card recording and no video time limit, ibis would be nice but not necessary, for a cam this size it would mostly be on a gimbal or tripod, and if I go handheld I'll use a vmount and top handle to add weight and stability.

I like the smaller sensor, the Komodo, C200, C300, UMP, as well as many other cinema cameras have the same size sensor. In this form factor it's probably easier to do 4K120 without overheating (hopefully). If I'm not taking photos I don't care about the sensor size as long as it looks good. I would take 4K120 any day over a larger sensor restricted to 4K60. It also lets them keep the body small which means this thing may fit on top of my Ronin S, if this thing really is smaller than a 1DXIII then that's going directly head to head with the Komodo and the Zcam. Fortunately I do not need SDI, everything I have is HDMI so that's not a big deal for me. I'm not a fan of the mini XLR, everything I have is full XLR but they probably had to do that to reduce the size. The external RAW up to 4K120 sounds pretty incredible. What I can't tell from the patent drawings is if the screen is a tilt flip or fixed on the back. If it is a tilt flip then that's another benefit over the Komodo.

Over at CR they are reporting an RF mount cinema camera is going to be announced this month. I also found an article from Sept reporting a Canon patent application for what looks like a similar form factor to the Red Komodo: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/move-over-red-canon-may-be-making-its-own-rf-mount-cinema-camera Of course the codecs are not as good as the Red's but if these specs are true then Canon literally added every feature that I felt was missing from the Komodo (XLR, internal ND, better AF). As much as I wanted a true hybrid, this could be my GH5 replacement after all. Same Super35 sensor as the Canon Cinema EOS C200 Internal ND filters (mechanical) up to 6 stops 2x Mini XLR inputs Full-size HDMI 4K 4:2:2 10bit in ALL-I and IPB up to 120p 1x CFexpress Type B Slot 2x SD UHS-II slots External RAW recording options up to 4K 120P 2x LP-E6NH batteries Camera size smaller than the EOS-1D X Mark III Price: $4499 USD

No I don't have time to do the types of reviews you see online, I don't know where they find the time. There's nothing really special about my studio setup, 10' PVC for the rolls, Westcott cotton backdrops, posing stool, GVM panels, GVM lights, Westcott umbrellas, studio is 16' x 32' with a 13' ceiling, backdrops are 9' x 20' the green screen is 10' x 10'. or it might be 10' x 20' can't remember. While building my studio I watched Joe Edelman's YouTube videos a few times for ideas, and there's plenty of tutorials on the proper use of a green screen, and more tutorials on how to key out the green screen in editing. I use DaVinci Resolve and combine the alpha output technique with color qualifiers to get rid of the green screen then I use a power window to mask the edges which lets me expand my background beyond the edges of the green screen until the background fills the frame and it makes my studio look a lot larger. My front 3 photography lights are Godox 600's and they are battery powered so that clients do not trip over cables and they are mobile so that I can do beach shoots and sunset shoots for the photography side of the house. For video lighting outdoors for say a swimsuit shoot I use C stands and foam core panels to add fill light while using the sun as the rim and key light ($20 at Home Depot or Lowes). This is my GVM Panel Kit, it is mobile and can take AC power or battery power https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07J1GLLB2/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 And here are the lights I use for lower budget music videos, interviews, etc., the color changing feature is fantastic, no more gels. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07M5FD2MM/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 My backdrops never leave the studio, too much of a hassle, and lighting a green screen anywhere but in the studio isn't worth the work to me so I don't offer mobile green screen services or mobile "studio look" photography services, if I'm shooting on location it's going to be using whatever background that location can provide.

Here is my setup, the wall hooks are where I hang my 10 x 10 green screen. I use two 200w led lights shooting into a 42" umbrella on each side to evenly light it, then 3 gvm led panels to light the talent. The picture is of my photo setup, I don't have one of when the green screen is setup. Camera is a C200 but I can just as easily use the GH5, really any camera will do. For editing I use DaVinci resolve with an alpha key to replace the green screen, the key to working with the screen is to get the talent far enough away that none of the green reflects onto the talent. In my studio they sit about 12' away which works for me. Also don't over light the green screen or you will get a cast onto the talent.

I'm not a fan, I don't trust those small motors to roll up a heavier backdrop and you need to run power to them. Maybe paper, but not muslin, or heavier materials like cotton. In my studio I went with the Neewer manual system: https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Photography-Mounting-Background-including/dp/B00RV90LE8/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=background+roller+for+photography&qid=1596561098&sr=8-1 The Neewer system kind of sucks too though because if you use 9x12" cotton backdrops you can only fit two backdrops on the rollers and they are too close together to add a third one. You also have to really tune the rollers because the chains are not very strong so if the rollers are too tight the chain will come apart and if they are too lose the backdrop will unroll. In my studio I hung a 9x20' black and a 9x20' white backdrop. I also have a green screen 10'x10' which I put on PVC and manually hang on wall hooks for green screen work.

I considered that camera too, but everything I read stated it does not perform as well as the C200 in low light and I read the quality control is just not as good for the BM cameras. Many users have reported weird issues with theirs and I just didn't want to risk dealing with that. The codecs and recording options for the UMP G2 are awesome though. I will admit at the end of the day I just like Canon's menus and ecosystem so I started out my cinema camera search a bit biased towards Canon.

I considered the Red Komodo when I was deciding if I should wait for it or go with my C200 and I chose the C200 when the price for the C200 dropped to $5400USD. I shoot mainly events, music videos, interviews, etc. and the Komodo, while way more attractive than the other models does not have internal ND filters, XLR audio, flip out monitor, AF is less reliable than Canon's, and for me one of the biggest things was no lower end codec. As much as everyone trashes LongGOP and 4:2:0 8bit, the colors and picture that I get out of the C200 is incredible when you realize what codec it is using and if I ever get a gig that needs it I can always step up to RAW. For long events or talking heads you just don't need ProRes or any flavor of raw. If Red would add XLR inputs, an eND filter, improve their AF, add lower data rate codec options, and keep it in the $6K price range it would suddenly make the A7SIII, the C100, and the C200 look a lot less attractive.

I have great AF in the C200 but I almost never use it. I always feel like its going to miss the shot when it matters most. For the locked off scenarios like you mentioned I just keep my aperture around 3.5 and stick to MF even with the C200. I do truly wish I had AF for my gimbal work but I've gotten used to working with the GH5's limitations.

I've been saying all along that this was not intentional. When Canon wants to cripple something they have many tools in their belt but overheating is not one of them. I think the engineers were telling the executive leadership that it would overheat, it would take 6 more months to design a new body and proper cooling system, and the body would be larger; Canon knew that the A7SIII was on the way and decided they had to beat Sony to the launch; problems or not, especially now that we see their financials.....they probably felt that they couldn't afford to wait. I believe this is also Canon's first attempt at IBIS which makes the overheating problem more severe. More than likely Canon leadership thought it wouldn't be that big of a problem in the real world and that being able to do 8K would make the limitations not matter. TBH, I almost wonder if they did the right thing......I know it sounds crazy but maybe releasing a camera that is not fit for purpose and may require a small recall is still better than another 6 months with something like the EOS R as your flagship mirrorless camera while Sony launches the A7SIII. At least Canon showed their full hand, might even get a decent number of R5's into photographers hands, then quickly release a version with everything fixed in another 6 months; literally this is a page from Sony's playbook. On top of that they released a chart showing just how bad the problem is....so you can't really start a class action lawsuit with a chart like that available. And this crazy strategy might even be working, I know that I for one feel like Canon will release a functional hybrid model within the next 12 months and the R5 and R6 are just good enough to show me how good it could be if Canon does release an updated model. There is no way Canon is going to leave it like this for the next 4yrs.

Well if Panasonic keeps working on BS like this we will never get a GH6. I think Panasonic has gotten caught up in the same specs war as everyone else, what they don't realize is that users like me are ok with putting up with their shortcomings at the GH5/GH6 price point, but if you are telling me I now have to buy L-Mount lenses and a new body and still put up with your shortcomings that's how you start losing customers. Speaking of L mount, the lens selection is pretty dismal yet Panasonic plans on continuing to release bodies for it? Canon got that part right, build the lenses then the bodies. https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/panasonic-s5-on-the-way-a-new-smaller-version-of-the-s1-report

I actually got banned from Canon Rumors because I was the first one to call the overheating problems complete BS. I was the first one there to say it is completely unfit for purpose as soon as I saw Peter McKinnon grudgingly admit that it overheated and I knew it was a much bigger problem than he was letting on if even a Canon "Explorer of Light" felt like he had to admit it overheated. At CR literally everyone was/still is giving Canon a pass and it is ridiculous. I would pick my Canon Rebel to shoot a wedding over an R5 or R6 right now and you know what...my clients probably would not be able to tell the difference; but they would certainly know if I completely missed their vows because my camera bricked itself for 3hrs. I have a music video project coming up and we are bringing in talent, coordinating on the weather and date, in the middle of scheduling; I can only imagine having to tell the client we are going to have to wait half the day while my gear cools down as everyone is standing around on his tab. These two cameras literally might as well stick to cat videos because I don't see anyone trusting them on a professional set.

I still had a few issues with its specs even before the overheating fiasco; 30min limit on video recording this is ridiculous in 2020, no dual slot recording this has been my pet peeve for a long time with most Canon cameras, and no XLR module; I love my GH5's XLR module, it makes matching it up with the C200 so easy and all of my audio gear is XLR. But I think I would have been willing to give those things up if it had lived up to the marketing hype in every other way.

Who did you go with? Sony? I still feel like no camera maker is putting out a hybrid that I want. Panasonic is putting out fantastic video cameras in a mirrorless body but terrible AF and almost no one takes their photography features seriously, Sony just feels terrible to me (plasticky buttons, cheap feeling ergonomics, terrible menu system, proprietary accessories, inadequate weather sealing, expensive lenses, etc.), and Nikon isn't even on my radar with their Z6 and Z7.

What other camera maker makes a product so good that it's worth starting over with my lenses, new bodies, etc? I'm not one of these people you read about that changes camera systems more often than people change clothes. I don't need the latest flashiest gear to create footage that my clients will pay for. My 5DIV is already perfect for photography, my C200 is already perfect for long form video work, the only thing I wanted was the R6 to replace my GH5 due to AF, color science, and to better match the C200 as a B cam.....since it clearly can't do what I need it to do I'm willing to continue dealing with the GH5's shortcomings; it is not worth it to me to spend money only to have to deal with a new system's shortcomings. As bad as I might talk about the GH5, when you work within it's limitations it really is a fantastic camera, rock solid reliable, it isn't too hard to match the C200 if you shoot in Cinelike-D and mirror the C200's WB and exposure, and it will run for hours per battery. Spending thousands on an A7SIII or S1H just to get better highlight rolloff, slightly better color science, and better AF (A7SIII) isn't worth it, not to mention yet another lens system. You beat me to it....

I for one feel like my 5DIV will last me for years to come if Canon keeps going at this rate. The EOS R with the fn bar and one card slot was a joke, the R5 and R6 are not fit for purpose in my book, and my 5DIV still takes fantastic pictures. Thanks to Canon I am now at least 2yrs away from getting another camera.