herein2020

I think the biggest downside for the R5 is the overheating issues. I know FW 1.6 is supposed to be the final answer, and I may put that to the test this summer, but either the overheating fiasco was 100% Canon manufactured (I still think this is a bit unlikely given the horrible press), or the R5 really doesn't handle heat that well and Canon released FW that would let users push it closer to premature failure. With Sony eating their lunch, it is still hard for me to believe the overheating problems were part of Canon's cripple hammer strategy; restricting/removing features sure, 30min time limit sure, no video tools sure....but overheating? I think the truth is the marketing department heavily advertised 8K, the engineers only built it to properly handle the heat from far less, and they set the original timer to maximize the reliability and lifespan of the camera. Enter the horrendous press coverage and outraged users and the marketing department told the engineers to fix it at all costs; even if the camera would be less reliable and even if it would shorten their lifespan. Keep in mind the R5 was Canon's first real mirrorless pro focused camera, so it makes sense they would get a few things wrong. This is also the main reason why I pretty much stick to photography with the R5 or shoot video in the winter; I just don't trust the R5 with the heat. If I lived in a cooler climate I would be a bit less risk adverse. I do think the R5II will hit it out of the park, but who knows when that will be released and actually able to be purchased. With all of that said, I think if you mainly use the R5 for photography and only shoot a few video clips here and there then the R5 is fine. If you truly do need more long form video or primarily video then the R7, R6II (maybe), R5C, or C70 would be a better option. I skipped the R6 completely because it is worse at overheating than the R5 and I said maybe for the R6II because I don't think it has proven itself on actual shoots that it does not overheat. I never mention the R3 simply because I think most of its price comes from its fast readout and you get more for your money with other models if you don't shoot sports/fast action. Of course, my list is strictly based on my opinion that the overheating problems in the R5 aren't really fixed; if you believe they truly were fixed with FW 1.6 and that the R5 can shoot video for everything you throw at it without overheating or shortening its lifespan then my list would be: R7, R5, R6II (maybe), R5C, C70 (arranged in order of hybrid capabilities vs video focused with the R7 being the most hybrid focused and with the best mix of both worlds and the C70 being 100% video focused). What irks me the most about the 30min limit is it's just a FW setting and something they could easily remove; it's not like it needs a HW update to remove it. I think it's still there because Canon still doesn't want users running video long enough to risk overheating. Nothing else makes sense when the R7 and R6II both cost less than the R5 but have no limit (but better heat management). I loved VLOG out of the S5 and I was grading it within seconds in Davinci Resolve. Now though I am hooked on DR's managed color and I don't see a VLOG managed color option so that would be a step backwards, but I definitely didn't think it was hard to grade and I am far from a colorist. Not sure about CS, the XLR module stopped working with my S5 and it took them 2wks to fix it (towards the end of COVID restrictions) but it did get fixed; not sure if Canon would have been better. Of course I am just one user; overall it would surprise me if Canon didn't have better CS. It sounds to me like you've already talked yourself into the R5C 🤣. Nothing else short of the C70 will give you all of those tools in that form factor and obviously the C70 has its own long list of downsides. I think its going to come down to how important is IBIS to you and are you ok dealing with the external battery pack. Keep in mind too that the R5C is lighter than the C70 so handholding it without IBIS would be even harder unless you just plan on using a gimbal a lot more. I did get better with handholding thanks to the C70 but still far from Hollywood quality and Davinci Resolve's post stabilization was a lifesaver at times; then I got the R7 and all was well again. With the R5 and R7 they are so stable that I deliberately add some camera shake at times just to look more dynamic. One thing that does counter the missing IBIS is lens IS so lens IS combined with digital IS on the C70 made life a bit more tolerable; thats if you have lenses with lens IS. I would imagine that the R5C with lens IS and possibly some digital IS would make it more tolerable along with a cage and handles. I thought this video was pretty good at looking at R5C handheld stability and his handheld rig is similar to mine with the C70 except I use a V-mount battery and a left side handle.

Switch to Davinci Resolve....problem solved. Just kidding (but not really). I used Premier for years, got tired of paying the subscription fees, learned Davinci Resolve in 1 week, best decision I ever made. If you shoot LOG with a DR supported camera, DR's managed color is another real time saver; there's also tutorials that help you do the same things you do in Premier in DR; I used a few of those, a few of Blackmagic's training courses, especially on color grading and project setup, and within 1wk could do everything in Resolve that I used to do in Premier. No more endless subscription fees, no more weird render failures, no more crashing, no more forced updates leading to project instability, etc. etc.

1. GoPro (digital IS) 2. R7 3. S5II (if it is a good as the S5) 4. R5 5. GH5 I only listed the cameras that I have owned, all the reviews in the world won't tell you as much as actually owning the camera.

Its not easy being a Canon owner; as always with Canon you really need to pick your compromise 😄. There is one small detail though; the R5 is also dual ISO, its just rarely talked about. It's native ISOs are 800 and 3200. I did forget one big downside to the R5 which is that ridiculous 30min recording limit is still there. No idea what Canon is thinking leaving that in place. It is definitely a tough decision, I think when it comes to the R3 two more downsides would be the battery and the fixed grip. The battery because only other bodies that size use that battery so if you got a second body it would most likely be the smaller batteries. I really like being able to swap batteries between my R5 and R7. In fact, you probably already have some batteries left over from the R6 that you could use in the R5 and R5C. The other downside is the fixed grip. I know you would probably never take the grip off of the R5 if you got it but I personally have never used a camera with a grip on gimbal. I would imagine balancing a camera with a grip would be a PITA on a gimbal. With the R5C and no IBIS I would assume you would start using a gimbal more often. So it would be nice to at least have the option to take the grip off for gimbal work. Of course we could go full circle to the S5II, but there's the lens situation which locks you into L Mount or EF with an adapter. No matter how you look at it though, its great to have these kinds of choices, will be interested to see what you pick.

Your previous camera was an R6, you don't need 8K60, but a frankenrigged R5C is still attractive to you? Sure the R5C has some cool features, but you didn't have them before in the R6 and you are losing IBIS which IMO is more important than most of those video assist features combined. Just my opinion, but if you were able to deal with the R6's overheating, and its limited tools then the most natural replacement would be the R5; which overheats less than the R6, has more video options, higher resolution, and a normal battery grip that will power all video modes. Sure the R5C has more video options, and will definitely handle heat better, but no IBIS and major battery limitations sounds like a poor upgrade path from an R6 especially since you don't need one of its main features over the R5; 8K60P. Non line skipped 4K60 sounds pretty good too, but in real world shooting it truly is not perceptible. IMO there's other downsides as well to the R5C; long reboot time, fan that draws in dust/dirt, somewhat clunky form factor which could make shooting photos a bit ergonomically unpleasant, and the same DR as the R5. I think you also lose the stickiness of the autofocus from the R5 when you reboot into the Cinema OS. The C70's AF is still far behind the R5's, I would imagine the R5C's AF isn't as good as the R5'ss as well but not sure about that one. The video tools sound pretty cool and all, but I have them all in the C70 and barely use them, I just use the WFM in the C70 for exposing. Internal NDs and XLR audio is what makes the loss of IBIS bearable for me with the C70. For the R5 and R7 I just use the histogram kind of like a WFM. I'm guessing though that the R5C's video assist tools don't all disappear from the screen once you hit record especially the electronic level (personal pet peeve of mine); assuming of course that the R5C even has an electronic level when in video mode which is another major thing missing from the C70. I think you are hung up on the line skipped 4K60FPS as well; here are two sample videos that I found that had a decent variety of footage out of the R5 shot at 4K60FPS and/or 4K/120FPS both of which are line skipped. The first video is a little annoying; obviously 4K60 and 4K120 look identical until you slow them down, but he does have a decent variety of detailed footage that shows the R5 shooting something other than a test chart at 4K60FPS.

When I used the S5 with audio I swore by the DMW-XLR1; but that was mainly because my highest quality mics were all XLR. In your situation, I would just test out the Sennheiser straight into the mic port. The quality of the audio will mainly be affected by the lav mic more so than what port you use on the S5II. For the cost of the DMW-XLR1 you could get a pretty nice lav mic. The trick with the mic port is to turn down the gain within the S5II to almost as low as possible, then use the Sennheiser G4 setup to bring the levels within the -6dB range. On the transmitter side set the peaks to -12dB, on the receiver side use the receiver to boost the signal until it just taps on -6dB at its peaks within the camera. That will nearly eliminate the camera's noisy pre-amps and rely on the Sennheiser which is going to be cleaner. If you are worried about clipping then turn the transmitter down to -12dB peaks as well. Personally, I hate post synching audio so whenever possible I keep things simple. I've also found that Davinci Resolve isn't always that great at syncing audio tracks later which is an even bigger PITA when I need to do it manually. I am not an audio guy, in fact I hate most things audio, but I do need to record it quite often so when I do I keep it as simple as possible. Shotgun camera mounted mic whenever possible, lav mic to Sennheiser G4 whenever a lav is needed, or straight XLR wired into a MixPre6 with the stereo mix sent to the camera via Sennheiser G4. None of those setups need a post audio sync. Shotgun camera mounted mics into the mic port of the camera works surprisingly well if you can get close enough to the talent, as long as they face the camera, and there isn't too much background noise. I've been using them more often lately to do quick run and gun interviews for events vs handing them a mic or fiddling with a lav mic. BTW, an absolute lifesaver for me in Davinci Resolve is the Carity Vx plugin. I actually can use my shotgun mic more often and can make it sound like a lav mic with that plugin because it cleans up the background noise so well. It has literally saved some bad audio more than a few times for me.

I really don't think the line skipped 4K60p is that big of a deal; its not like its obvious within the video. IMO only during side-by-side comparisons and even then only when you zoom into a scene which has fine detail is the differences even visible. Obviously, yes on paper non-line skipped is better, but in practice I personally don't see a difference. Of course if you are shooting at the TV commercial level with perfect lighting, full rigging, and fine details, then yes in those scenarios 4K60 line skipped might be noticeable, but at least for my projects its perfectly fine. I know you can't wait that long, but I get the feeling the R5II is going to come along and really set the bar to another level, maybe the R6II would be a good stopgap until then since you consider the R7 a downgrade. I think if I had to do it all over again I would get the C70, R7, and wait for the R5II. This video is a mixture of 4K60FPS (line skipped) and 4K30FPS HQ (down sampled from 7K), using the R7 and I don't even remember which was which without looking at the source project. I would imagine the R5's line skipped 60FPS is even better but in most side-by-side comparisons, the IQ out of the R7 is nearly identical to the R5 at ISO800.

I am with you on the S5II, fantastic in every way, but too late for me. Once you buy that first RF lens you are locked in way more vs an adaptable EF lens. Not sure if it matters to you, but one big thing the R5 is lacking vs the R6II and R7 is the hybrid hotshoe for audio. I think I got my quirks worked out with that final EVF setting that was added as an option in one of the FW updates. Also, it is winter here in FL so I have been using the R5 more for video. I just completed a commercial shoot and used the R5 as a B cam to the C70 instead of the R7, mainly because the R5 already had the 70-200mm on it and I needed that lens for the shoot. The R5's IBIS is definitely amazing, I can easily handhold the R5 with the RF 70-200mm at 200mm and it looks like its on a tripod; not for long periods but enough to get the 30s or so that I typically need. In fact, the only camera that I've ever shot with that has even better IBIS ironically is the R7 (not counting GoPros). The R7 is the first camera I've ever shot with that I can walk for brief periods and it looks like I am using a gimbal when paired with the Canon EF 24-105mm F4 IS L lens. For the commercial shoot the only lens I used on the R5 was the RF 70-200mm and it was all handheld, no problems getting the tripod like stability I needed for all of the shots. As far as vertical shooting goes, I really dislike small cameras and I shoot vertical (for photography) about 90% of the time since I am mostly filming people, so the battery grip for the R5 really fixes everything for me (makes it bigger, adds battery life, adds vertical shooting buttons). IMO, I would definitely pick the R5 over the R3 any day, and just add a battery grip to it (which is exactly what I did). Another feature that I really like for photography with the R5 is that those 45MP files when using cRAW are actually smaller than the 32MP files that used to be produced by my 5DIV. To me the R3 is just too focused on sports/action and you pay a lot for that. It does have some great video side benefits and of course I've never heard anything about overheating with the R3. I'm still not 100% convinced it is fixed in the R5 for Florida summer heat. Its kind of funny, I have kept the R5 in 4K HQ mode since I got it (which disables and hides all of the 8K options in the menu), so I never bothered looking at the 8K options, I thought it only shot 8K RAW, but somewhere mixed in with all of those FW updates it now has RAW, RAW Light, ALL-I, IPB, and compressed IPB for 8K. Unless you have an M1 Mac, you would definitely need proxies for the compressed 8K files. 8K RAW though I can edit with no problems in DR. Below were the available recording times with a 51GB CFExpress card in the R5 when set to 8K-D (8192x4320) @ 29.97FPS or 8K-U (7680x4320) @29.97FPS: 8K RAW - 24m 19s 8K RAW Light - 37m 15s 8K ALL-I - 49m 55s 8K IPB - 1h 35m 32s 8K Compressed IPB - 3h 11m 11s The 8K compressed IPB almost looks small enough to be useable to me, I might have to try it out one day on a shoot.

It looks like DJI read your mind with the RS 3: https://www.dji.com/rs-3-mini?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=edm&utm_campaign=launch-rs3mini&sc_src=email_6013510&sc_eh=336e9e0d76a557b31&sc_llid=435361&sc_lid=393409123&sc_uid=zsTiv7096T

Same here, the main trick is to use the Favorites menu. I do try to learn the different menu options intimately though, the worst thing you want to happen is a setting gets changed mid shoot and you can't figure out how to change it back or you get into a situation where you need to change an obscure setting and don't remember where it is. I think a really hard question to answer now is if I had to pick today would I go with the Canon R7, R6II or the S5II. My biggest gripe with the S5 has been fixed or at least AF is now useable in my book, on paper the S5II really blows away the R7, and I would trust the S5II to not overheat any day over the R6II.

That is pretty incredible then. Sigma clearly stated their adapter did not support CAF for EF lenses. Even if Panasonic's AF does quite match Sony or Canon, from all of the reviews I've seen it is good enough for what I would need. The S5II apparently uses both PDAF and DFD so I would imagine there could be times where DFD still rears its ugly head. Panasonic just couldn't let DFD die a graceful death. The S5's menus are definitely a real PITA but I think its just because it has so many options, not sure how they could have made it better. When I shot with the S5 all I did was set up my Favorites menu and never went into the other menus. Once you do that the S5 is a real joy to shoot with. Also, I have the R7 now and the menus are way better....but I also have nowhere near the level of customization or tools that the S5 had. I will take cluttered menus that I can filter via a Favorites menu any day over less customizability.

Truly incredible camera, they took what was already my favorite camera and made it perfect by fixing the AF. I do hope its not too little too late. If that AF system had shipped with the original S5 there is a strong possibility I would be all in on Panasonic right now for both photos and video. I am still not sure though if CAF works with the Canon EF adapter, if not then EF lens owners would still need to buy L mount lenses to really take advantage of the AF. I watched Gerald Undone's review of the S5II, the one big thing I wish he had tested was the additional stability option which was Boot IS option which I believe uses AI and additional processing for stability. I really wanted to see if it was anywhere near GoPro's level of stability. I think the perfect hybrid might finally exist and it is the S5II, my absolute only gripe would be having to buy L mount lenses and for me having already gone all in on Canon its too late for me to turn around. It is definitely a great time to be a photographer and/or videographer no matter what system you choose.

But my problems with the "alliance" actually does not apply to every other camera manufacturer. When you buy a camera body and native lenses from that camera maker you will get the best user experience; I think we both agree on that. I think we also both agree that both Sony and Canon produce every lens you could possibly need in your collection. Notice I said "need" not want. My problem with the alliance is that if you buy an L mount camera each individual vendor has a limited lens selection meaning you will have a higher chance of needing something from another vendor which may not perform as well as the native lens you need that doesn't exist. If you take the marketing hype from the alliance at face value then it is easy to assume that you will get a native lens experience from any lens maker in the alliance. This is in contrast to buying a Canon or Sony body then buying a 3rd party lens. Most people I know who bought 3rd party lenses for their Canon/Sony bodies were due to cost not due to lens availability from their chosen vendor. I see the alliance the same way I saw the Canon R5 overheating fiasco; Canon heavily marketed the R5 as a very capable video camera when in reality it was not fit for purpose due to overheating. The alliance still markets heavily to consumers that any lens in the alliance will meet the user's expectations when mounted to any L mount camera body. It is easy to extrapolate that into thinking any lens in the alliance will perform the same as native lenses from the individual makers. The thing is my purchasing decision was far from the minority here when you look at market share; for 2021 all of the alliance members combined market share was less than 11% with Panasonic taking 4.4% of that. When you take out non alliance members, DSLRs, MFTs, etc. the total L mount market share is probably less than 5% and it is only that high thanks to Panasonic's 4.4% contribution and that is assuming Panny owners are buying L mount lenses vs adapters and taking an educated guess at Panny's Point and Shoot numbers. Of course, I wish the alliance well, I am a consumer just like everyone else and more choice is always a good thing but an alliance whose members are competing with each other and impacting the user experience for the purpose of advancing their own brand is a dead alliance in my book. IMO a real alliance would have been one where they all collaborated on lenses and released non vendor branded lenses where every member made a percentage of the profit from lens sales. That would have ensured maximum compatibility regardless of camera body manufacturer and given them all incentive to provide strict adherence to the specs. Of course, that type of alliance only exists alongside fairy tales and unicorns when you are talking about for profit corporations. But you are just proving my point, Canon has literally every lens I need and adapted EF lenses including 3rd party EF lenses work just as flawlessly for me as native RF lenses. With that said, the one impact it did have on me was I decided not to get the Viltrox speedbooster for the R7. Even if I got my hands on one there was a risk that a future FW update would disable it so I didn't want to take the risk. So was it an annoyance; absolutely, but it was a nice to have not a necessity. All of this is strictly my opinion, I don't expect it to be shared by anyone else (although the market share numbers show it is shared by nearly everyone else 😄) but I did feel I should provide context behind how I reached my conclusions. Anyway, it definitely was not my intention to hijack this thread 🤣, I did forget two entries on my wish list for the R7 and R6II that would help make them the perfect cameras: Dual Native ISO - The S5's second native ISO is 4000 and I found that incredibly useful in low light. The R7 doesn't have dual native ISO and I don't think the R6II does either Global Shutter - While we are dreaming I might as well add this one to my list. I agree with you if you do not already own tons of Canon EF glass, but for those of us that do, its great to just have to buy one of Canon's recent bodies and every EF and EF-S lens you already own work just like it did with the EF mount. With that said, it would be very mentally difficult for me to go buy a brand new EF lens today knowing the mount has reached its end of life, but the adapters are a great stopgap for lenses that are still optically excellent and still perform like the day I got them. EF lenses even have some advantages over the RF lenses such as speedboosters, drop in ND filters, etc.

Sony does it and Canon definitely does it but at least that is to be somewhat expected when buying into a vendor's ecosystem. The difference with the alliance though is that the customer's expectation is that everything will just work and if you don't dig in past the marketing material you will have no idea why things aren't working later. Your focus breathing correction is a great example; one article I read even said that Sigma disables certain features in their lens protocols if they detect a non Sigma lens has been attached....not exactly an open alliance in my book. I agree it could turn around but what incentive does it have to do so? The alliance was formed out of necessity and no other reason, at the end of the day each member really wants you to buy their first party lenses and bodies, they don't make anything when you buy another member's products. I think if one of the members does go the PDAF route the cracks in the alliance will become even more obvious because newcomers and existing users would expect all of the features they see out of Canon and Sony to just work after buying a L mount body with PDAF (eye tracking, low light tracking, face/head/body/car/animal detect AF, CAF, etc. when in reality it would probably be very hit or miss depending on what alliance member made the lens. I believe even @MrSMW reported first hand that the Sigma L lens was significantly worse at AF than the native Panny lenses and that is just DFD. So @Amazeballs no I didn't just make such a statement lightly, a lot of research went into me reaching that conclusion. The ability to mount a lens to a body and how many lenses can perform this feat are just two small parts of the equation, the total user experience is the rest and IMO the "alliance" cannot currently offer a user experience equivalent to the E mount on Sony cameras, or the EF or RF user experience when mounted to Canon bodies. Personally, I decided not to buy into a mount that "might" turn around one day when making my body and lens purchasing decisions.

Primarily because I owned the S5 and did a ton of research before deciding not to go all in on Panasonic's lenses and ecosystem; the #1 reason of course was the dismal AF but the second was the lenses. You are focusing on the numbers but not the user experience. What I found in my research was that sure tons of lenses and multiple vendors; but each one was tweaking their lenses to work optimally with their own native cameras. So the "Alliance" is primarily in name only and yes the physical mount is the same across cameras, but in reality unless you owned a Sigma body and got Sigma lenses or a Panasonic body and got Panasonic lenses then there was no guarantee that you would have the best user experience. This would manifest itself in everything from FW support to AF issues to working properly with adapters. So, if you go right back to square one and focus on only the lenses from each maker working optimally with their own bodies then yes; your lens selection is in fact limited again unless you go all in on MF lenses or just don't care about AF or adapters. Dead is probably a strong word, but to me, converting my entire camera ecosystem to something like that while trusting that the lenses and adapters that I need will all work properly was definitely an idea that was DOA for me.

The L Mount alliance is dead, that would not be a good direction for them to go in (limited lens selection, inconsistent lens experience between the different members, very expensive Leica lenses, etc.), the only good thing about it is that Sigma makes an L mount to EF mount lens adapter but that would bring them right back to where they are now with an EF mount and the adapter does not support CAF at all. With that said, I have no idea what mount they could use, no way Canon will let them use an RF mount if Canon doesn't even allow 3rd party RF AF lenses unless maybe they pay a licensing fee and even then I doubt Canon would allow it. The E Mount might be their only other option but that would still mean all existing BM owners would need to get new lenses or an EF to E mount adapter which still brings you back to a dead mount and that's assuming Sony even let them use their mount. No good mount options for BM at this point. I am surprised no one, not even Panasonic is putting eND's in their mirrorless lines. I often wonder if Sony patented it preventing anyone else from doing it. eND would be a game changer for many of us. Sony definitely took a page from the Canon cripplehammer playbook by not adding it to their FX3; of course it is also possible there is some technical limitation we don't know about or maybe it drains the battery when it is in use. I would love to dial in F1.8 in midday sun with a 180 shutter angle and let the eND automatically fix the exposure for me.

That would just generate another wish list -- lens mount (EF is dead), IBIS, AF, weather sealing, battery life, photography capabilities, ergonomics, codecs, etc. etc. The OP created a list after evaluating all of the things the FX3 already does perfectly.

I agree with you, they are all very close. My own list for perfection would be to start with the R7 or R6II and add: eND WFM GoPro level of digital IS Panasonic S5's level of menu customization 32bit Float Audio XFAVC codec Add all of FW features from the R6II to the R7 (focus guides, false color, etc.) Add the R6II's back dial to the R7 and add the R7's wheel around the joystick to the R6II Add a built in wireless flash transmitter to the R6 and R7. This would be awesome for quick off camera flash setups Honestly though, for me the R7 is already close enough that I don't really need any of those things and it is as close to perfect for what I do that it already is the perfect hybrid camera for me. But nice to haves will always be nice to have For me its just minor ecosystem optimizations that are on my wish list. The resolution, lowlight performance, DR, and codecs of any modern midrange mirrorless are more than sufficient for anything I need. And when I need more I have the C70.

I really have no bias at all; I literally just grab whatever camera works for me and go shoot with it; I don't do the pixel peeping thing, I am not an IQ purist, I don't sit on YT and watch reviews all day...in fact I am probably one of the least IQ purists on this forum. I also have never even watched a GoPro IQ or review video, I think I watched a single GoPro video on stabilization when I was buying the 8 (the guy mountain biking down a rocky trail and still getting stable footage sold me on the 8), but I have never purchased a GoPro for IQ. BTW I am not basing my opinion on the Hero 8, I am basing it on the videos you posted along with my own firsthand experience with small sensors starting with the Hero 3 and drone cameras. I honestly couldn't care less about sensor size as long as it is producing the IQ that I need. With all of that said, I still see the "sensor/lens haze" in the videos you posted and in every video out of my drones and GoPros. I do think with some very precise color grading and some very specific scenes with perfect lighting and colors in the scene it could be possible to eliminate it, but unless all of those conditions are met, I see the haze instantly when I am watching your sample videos; not because I am looking for it but simply because it is there; in fact I have seen the same haze when using the Canon EF 75-300 F4-5.6 lens, or when looking at dashcam or CCTV footage. The exact same camera with the Canon EF 24-105mm F4 L lens is a night and day difference proving whatever is the weakest link will decide the final IQ. Like I previously mentioned, I think some of it may be due to the lens quality that they use on GoPros or it could just be the resolving power of the sensor; either way it is immediately noticeable to me. But you don't have to convince me, shoot with whatever works for you, maybe when the GoPro 20 comes out they will have eliminated it; either way, its no big deal, my Hero 8 is still perfect for what I got it for and its IQ is good enough for what I need when I need a camera that can do a job none of my other ones can; all I am saying is that for me; GoPro has IQ problems that codecs, bitrates, and color profiles can't fix.

I am far from a pixel peeper but my opinion will not change, I checked the samples in your post and I still see it; there's still a muddy muted overall look and feel to everything the GoPros and other small sensors currently produce. I see the same thing out of my drone camera when compared to my other cameras and it has a 1" 20MP sensor. 4K/6K/8K, 10bit, etc. doesn't really matter when the sensor and or sensor/lens combination is producing muddy footage. To me the video out of these cameras including the GoPro 11 look like they were shot through a dirty glass window or mirror. I can reproduce the look by using one of my regular cameras and film a subject reflected in a mirror with a slight haze to it or one that is slightly smudged; that's the best way I can describe it. That in no way detracts from what they are; fantastic little action cams that can be mounted anywhere and that produce a great image "for what they are"; but it doesn't mean they produce a great image when compared to the rest of the current crop of mirrorless or cinema cameras not to mention they have zero lowlight ability. My GoPro falls apart over ISO400 and my drone falls apart after ISO800. Both are completely unusable at ISO1600. I didn't forget; but we were discussing IQ not IS. When it comes to IS though, I 100% agree with you; their stabilization technology is nothing short of amazing and I wish other camera makers could find a way to implement whatever it is they have done.

On paper sure its specs are not bad. But to me in reality the colors are very muddy, details are not sharp, and anything short of daylight lighting is a disaster. Due to its sensor size, unless there is some major breakthrough, GoPro will always be best at one thing; going places no other camera can. I love my Hero8, its my go to action camera and underwater camera, but I also know it has severe sensor limitations that no codecs, data rates, or log curves will fix.

I know, totally left field here but someone had to do it so might as well be me 😀 but would the Ronin RSC 2 not work for you? I know it is heavier and probably larger than you are looking for but at the end of the day no one comes close to DJI for reliability, stability, and performance. I've had a love/hate relationship with their gimbals for many years now. I started out on the original Zhyiun Crane; switched to DJI's Ronin S and have never went back. I now have the RS2 and there is nothing more that I could want out of a gimbal. The thing is, your starting rig is pretty heavy, so putting a rig on a gimbal that is anywhere near its maximum payload is asking for trouble; the payload capacity could be overstated, the motors could simply die sooner, or you could just get jittery footage. The RSC 2's payload capacity is nearly 50% more than your planned payload so it will be able to handle everything you throw at it. Every other gimbal maker feels like they are just trying to be as good as DJI (but failing) so for me I'd rather buy once and use for many years vs always looking for something "almost" as good as DJI. As far as fatigue goes, you probably know all of these but there's many little tricks to reducing it. I stick the end of the gimbal into my belt anytime I am not shooting with it or have to stand for long periods of time, you can get a shoulder strap for them, there's even a shoulder strap mounting rig, etc. Working out helps greatly too, a few dumbbells and hammer curls each day will make your payload feel weightless and help with the fatigue within just a few weeks. Also, I don't know your particular typical project, but for me I've pretty much ditched my gimbals altogether and really enjoy handheld. I only use gimbals when I need to walk or run with the talent or need complex camera movements. If you do a lot of interview type stuff you could try a monopod or even a shoulder ENG style setup which are all less stressful than a gimbal. Obviously if you are only shooting complex camera movement and need what a gimbal offers then a gimbal is your only option; but for me personally I have gotten much better with my handheld technique and the gimbal usually never leaves the bag.

I have the Azden SMX-30 which is what I use with the R7, but that mic is why I didn't want another Azden. The audio quality is fine, but the buttons are terrible quality and the one main feature I bought it for (turn off automatically when where is no audio signal) stopped working within about a month of owning it. I am pretty happy with the SGM-250MX though; no buttons for them to cut corners on, no batteries, mini XLR straight into the C70, and since it uses phantom power it turns off and on with the camera automatically. I will say though after the SMX-30, if I had found a Rode mini-XLR shotgun mic I would have picked it over the Azden. To me, audio quality wise, they are all good enough for what I need, it is the other smaller details that matter more to me.

Not possible with the given budget, time and venue. I brought the MixPre6 with me but wouldn't have been able to mic all of the instruments with only 4 XLR channels and no setup time. Only the mics were ran to an amplifier, everything else was live. Plus I'm not a sound guy, I would have later had to mix them in post which would have taken me a long time so once again not possible given the budget. For paying projects, budget is everything, when you start turning it into a passion project you start losing money in the form of time. I think most music videos are at least half passion projects anyway, you definitely do not shoot them for the money; but they are great to push your creativity. I agree, I would have liked to have had more b-roll to add to the footage; but there's that budget thing again. I even thought about shooting some b-roll at a different venue on the way back from the shoot but it was already dark and the rest of the budget was allocated for editing. The two cameras mix perfectly at least to me. I am not a pixel peeper or Hollywood colorist so all I did was WB them the same, same LOG profile (CLOG3), and exposed the same (both were set at F2.0) to keep it simple. I used AF on the R7 for all of the indoor shots, I used MF a few times outdoors to get it to focus on what I needed but indoors even in the lowlight it was perfect. I kept it simple as usual and used the center crosshairs only, no fancy face or subject tracking. All of the band performances was a single take so no camera problems from either one. The C70 of course was locked down and set to MF, no way would I have trusted that camera with AF in that lighting (yes it really is that bad at lowlight AF) plus I didn't need it anyway with the 24mm lens on it and stationary. Yes, that mic is awesome, I was a little skeptical since I wanted a Rode mic, but that one is one of the few mini XLR shotgun mics available and I hate fiddling with extra wires and adapters if I can avoid it so I got that one instead. BTW mini-XLR has really grown on me, I think it was a really good decision by Canon and I believe BM did the same thing with their smaller cameras. It really makes the handheld form factor more manageable without dropping all the way down to 3.5mm. For my Sennheiser wireless receiver, I got this locking mini-XLR cable which pairs with the camera and receiver perfectly.

I recently completed a music / band performance video project where I was asked to shoot 3 videos in 2hrs without even seeing the venue. To make it even better, the audio was not pre-recorded so I had to record it live during the band performances. The venue was actually a junkyard with a rehearsal stage in one of the buildings, so definitely challenging all around. Below are the first two videos, I haven't released the 3rd video yet. The stationary A camera was the Canon C70 shooting 12bit Cinema Raw LT at 30FPS with the Canon EF 24mm F2.8 lens because there was no room to get the camera further back from the stage (very small venue). The B-cam was the Canon R7 with the Canon EF 24-70 F2.8 lens and lens adapter; all shots with the R7 were handheld with IBIS enabled and digital IS disabled. The cover photos were taken with the Canon R7. Both cameras were set at ISO800, CLOG3 Cinema Gamut. The audio was captured by the C70 using an Azden SGM-250MX shotgun mic. Everything was edited in post with DR and managed color. A light creative LUT was placed over the top at the end. The lighting was all over the place, I did not bring lighting because I thought we were shooting outdoors so I just had to make do with what the venue provided. Fun fact; the venue was about 90F during the recording so blazing hot and we had to turn the fans off to capture the audio; definitely would not have trusted a camera that overheats for this shoot.