Canon EOS R7 and R10 have released...

[MrSMW]

4 hours ago, kye said:

I use that mode to shoot around corners.

I mean flat out not camera held out and screen turned in 90 degrees...which it doesn't need to flip out the side to do!

I am talking purely out to the side rather than in line with the lens with the operator behind the camera.

Zero reason to be out to the side other than if it's going to be rotated forward for selfies.

My dislike for flippy screens is when you can ONLY flip them out to use them as anything but flat against the camera back and removing your line of sight from that of the lens.

But folks are free to like whatever they wish. I'm not attempting to impose my preferences on anyone 😜

[kye]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

My dislike for flippy screens is when you can ONLY flip them out to use them as anything but flat against the camera back and removing your line of sight from that of the lens.

I'm confused.

I was talking about screens that are flat against the back of the camera unless they are flipped out to the side where they can then rotate to face up and down.

For example, this is the GH5 mk2:

It cannot be tilted up or down while remaining in-line with the lens.

This is the type of screen that is required to shoot sideways, like this:

A screen that only tilts in-line with the lens cannot be seen from the side:

...and seeing the screen from the side is required for shots like the train one, where it's not possible to stand in-line with the lens because you'd be standing outside the train.

I know you don't like the flippy screens, but you said "They can also be flipped out sideways and used for no reason known to man in that manner." and I am telling you that I use it in that manner from time to time, and in those situations it's the only way to get the shot (and be able to see your composition while recording).

[Kisaha]

It depends of the use and the personal style. It doesn't have to be right for everyone. I do not use gimbals and I do not shoot out of trains, but I choose to shoot from chest/waist height or even lower (on the floor) or high up (in dance/music/other events).

The NX500 I have you can use for Vloging as well (never do, but for family selfies it works) as it turns 180 degrees.

[hyalinejim]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. When it's flipped out to the side it will tilt through 270 degrees - from facing 180 degrees toward the front and 90 degrees down.

If you don't want to flip it out to the side then it will tilt up to around 30 degrees up. That's it. It's not like the XC10 which could do 90 degrees up, I think, which was cool.

[kye]

38 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

Sorry, I should have been more specific. When it's flipped out to the side it will tilt through 270 degrees - from facing 180 degrees toward the front and 90 degrees down.

If you don't want to flip it out to the side then it will tilt up to around 30 degrees up. That's it. It's not like the XC10 which could do 90 degrees up, I think, which was cool.

Thanks, that what I thought you meant and what it would be.  

It would obviously be nicer if it could tilt through 180 degrees (straight up to straight down) while in-line with the lens, and then the normal 270 when flipped out to the side, but I'm used to the GH5 screen which you have to flip around to at least 90-degrees before it can be rotated to face up or down.

I don't use it for selfies (I think I tried it a couple of times, but nah...) so for me it's like @Kisaha said - low angle where you are looking straight down or high angle where you are looking straight up (as well as train shots lol).

I've gotten quite a number of nice shots by using that high angle approach.  Sometimes I'm tall enough that at zoos I can get the camera higher than the glass barriers and so can get a reflection-free shot, or avoid some other barrier or other.

The XC10 really was great for standing behind the camera.  The ergonomics and layout etc were all exactly what you'd want.  Canon sure know how to make a cinema camera. 

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, kye said:

I'm confused.

Check out the S1H rear LCD and be less confused.

It can do all of that and tilt up or down without having to stick out of the side, but you can stick it out the side, rotate it endlessly through 360 degrees etc.

It is hands down the best design out there as it ticks all boxes.

[FHDcrew]

1 hour ago, kye said:

The XC10 really was great for standing behind the camera.  The ergonomics and layout etc were all exactly what you'd want.  Canon sure know how to make a cinema camera. 

Diverging off topic here. But if the fake, post-production DOF matures then an xc10 paired with that technique could be awesome. Davinci has a decent depth map but the edges always look fake, and there is only so far the technique can be pushed before it looks fake. But if some AI methods got good, I’d pick up an XC10 in a heartbeat 

[Kisaha]

4 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Diverging off topic here. But if the fake, post-production DOF matures then an xc10 paired with that technique could be awesome. Davinci has a decent depth map but the edges always look fake, and there is only so far the technique can be pushed before it looks fake. But if some AI methods got good, I’d pick up an XC10 in a heartbeat 

XC10 was a brilliant design, I was expecting an evolution of that design to be the must have run and gun camera of our age (something the C100 was). 

Ofcourse C70 is that good, but a little bit weirder, I guess! And a bit more expensive than most of us would like.

[hyalinejim]

4 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

I’d pick up an XC10 in a heartbeat

The crushing disappointment with the XC10 was the ghastly temporal smoothing resulting in ghosting artifacts, most noticeable in log.

[webrunner5]

Another gripe was the lens not having a constant aperture. That was stupid on Canon's part.

[herein2020]

9 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Check out the S1H rear LCD and be less confused.

It can do all of that and tilt up or down without having to stick out of the side, but you can stick it out the side, rotate it endlessly through 360 degrees etc.

It is hands down the best design out there as it ticks all boxes.

You are definitely right, the S1H does have the perfect LCD rear screen tilt options I thought it only tilted up but it flips out as well. That would work for what I need. As usual....Panasonic is ahead of the game in every area except two (lenses, and AF).

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

XC10 was a brilliant design, I was expecting an evolution of that design to be the must have run and gun camera of our age (something the C100 was). 

Ofcourse C70 is that good, but a little bit weirder, I guess! And a bit more expensive than most of us would like.

The C70 is definitely an odd one; I have gotten used to the shape and look; but the lens situation is infinitely confusing for me....I will always be stuck with EF glass for the FF look and extra stop of light, or lose all of that while paying twice as much for all new lenses.

I feel like the R7 could end up in the same category.....it being a crop sensor makes everything complicated; go with a speedbooster and stick with EF glass for who knows how long, or go with RF glass and take the crop penalty while trying to mitigate it by shooting with wider fast lenses. Shooting with RF-S variable aperture lenses is not a viable option in my book unless I am doing the tourist traveling thing.

[kye]

12 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Diverging off topic here. But if the fake, post-production DOF matures then an xc10 paired with that technique could be awesome. Davinci has a decent depth map but the edges always look fake, and there is only so far the technique can be pushed before it looks fake. But if some AI methods got good, I’d pick up an XC10 in a heartbeat 

The deep DoF on the xc10 was definitely a downside, but perhaps an even larger downside was the autofocus performance.

If anyone thinks that Panasonic auto-focus is bad then their brain will literally melt if they ever saw what a truly bad AF looks like.  Using the camera was a joy, punctuated with regular occurrences of the AF messing up a shot and it was so slow and traumatising it was like watching a car accident in slow motion.  You would literally be screaming at the camera inside your head, and several sentences would pass that way before it locked focus - often well and truly after the moment had passed and the shot was already lost.

8 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

The crushing disappointment with the XC10 was the ghastly temporal smoothing resulting in ghosting artifacts, most noticeable in log.

I didn't tend to notice that in real life TBH, and I shot in all kinds of conditions using auto-ISO and hand-held.  The way people talk about it I would have thought that I'd have shot after shot after shot ruined but I don't think I ever noticed it.  I definitely noticed indoor shots that had heaps of noise, so I definitely used it in situations where the ISO noise degraded the image severely.

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Another gripe was the lens not having a constant aperture. That was stupid on Canon's part.

I always used the camera on full-auto and I know that the lens wasn't parfocal but IIRC Canon mapped the lens and when you changed the focal length it adjusted the focus on the fly to maintain the same focus distance, so if you zoomed at a slow-medium pace then it would feel like a parfocal lens.

I mention that because I don't think I ever noticed it change exposure when I zoomed either, so maybe it was compensating for that in some way too.  Still, if you shot with it manually it would have been an issue.

[MrSMW]

I loved (and still do) the look of the XC10 plus…well plus nothing else, just how it looked.

[Kisaha]

Yep, I was talking about the evolution of it, not the actual XC10!

It had some serious disadvantages.

 

@herein2020

As of the C70 and R7 situation, using EF lenses makes the most sense right now, and just a few RF or RF-S lenses in the future.

Going 18-135mm EF-S for run and gun (that's what I was using on C100mkII) with the ND adapter is a solution. For tele I have the EF 70-200 4f (yes, 4f, mostly because of the lesser weight and size, and cheaper as a bonus). Then you can use some primes, the 16mm RF is my favourite focal length 24mm equiv..or a classic solution of an 24-105mm either way (RF or EF).

I do not understand the crop agony..this is what it is, an X1.6 sensor, check your options and work with what you have. I wish there will be some pro level RF-S lenses on their way. I stayed with the NX system because of their amazing lenses, 16-50mm 2-2.8f almost 2f until 32mm (like having some 2f primes at the wide end), a ton of small pancakes (plus an amazing fish eye I use a lot).

I hope they will feel the heat from Pana/Only/Fuji, even Sony is pushing APS-C lenses as of late and will release more RF-S lenses.

After all these years, I feel that Sony has made for themselves the best situation. If some remember how much I disliked Sony for their sub par releases of the past (terrible ergonomics, menu system, lenses situation, overheating, spec warriors, terrible battery life), lately they seem to do all the right things I have to admit.

[mercer]

7 hours ago, kye said:

The deep DoF on the xc10 was definitely a downside, but perhaps an even larger downside was the autofocus performance.

If I remember correctly the XC10 could AF in MF mode by pushing and holding in the Push AF button at will and it would lock on until you let go. I remember it being one of the cooler functions of the camera.

In many ways, it was a semi-automatic camera. There was an impromptu element to operating it that made you feel like you were a character in the video you were shooting.

It was a fun camera... even with its flaws. 

[kye]

2 hours ago, mercer said:

If I remember correctly the XC10 could AF in MF mode by pushing and holding in the Push AF button at will and it would lock on until you let go. I remember it being one of the cooler functions of the camera.

In many ways, it was a semi-automatic camera. There was an impromptu element to operating it that made you feel like you were a character in the video you were shooting.

It was a fun camera... even with its flaws. 

It could also MF in AF - if you wanted it to go in a certain direction or to change the subject of focus a spin of the MF ring would tell it to go in that direction and choose a new subject.

It was a good camera for certain things, I think that what I tried to use it for was just waaaay outside what it was designed for.  

[herein2020]

11 hours ago, Kisaha said:

Yep, I was talking about the evolution of it, not the actual XC10!

It had some serious disadvantages.

 

@herein2020

As of the C70 and R7 situation, using EF lenses makes the most sense right now, and just a few RF or RF-S lenses in the future.

 

I wouldn't mind slowly going all native RF lenses, but due to the crop, the cost of the speedbooster which I already purchased, the fact the speedbooster is bolted to the C70 (making switching lens mounts harder), and the additional stop of light gained with the speedbooster for a camera that is not that great in low light (C70), I will probably just permanently be stuck with EF glass. 

 

12 hours ago, Kisaha said:

 

Going 18-135mm EF-S for run and gun (that's what I was using on C100mkII) with the ND adapter is a solution. For tele I have the EF 70-200 4f (yes, 4f, mostly because of the lesser weight and size, and cheaper as a bonus). Then you can use some primes, the 16mm RF is my favourite focal length 24mm equiv..or a classic solution of an 24-105mm either way (RF or EF).

 

I like the 18-135 EF-S as well for when I am shooting for personal use, it is a very useful lens for simple shoots during daylight hours. The Canon ND adapter converter is so expensive it is easier to just stick with screw on ND filters to me, my current filters I use for photography already and with the Canon set you still have to buy a clear drop in for when  you don't have an ND filter in the adapter.

12 hours ago, Kisaha said:

 

I do not understand the crop agony..this is what it is, an X1.6 sensor, check your options and work with what you have. I wish there will be some pro level RF-S lenses on their way.

For me the crop sensor agony is that I like to keep my kit simple, the fewest lenses possible, a single system, etc. I shoot crazy chaotic events and do it all solo (photography, video, audio, drone, lighting, etc.) I don't want to have to fiddle with multiple lens mounts, crop sensor vs FF, etc. in addition to everything else that is out of my control. 

The problem with crop sensor cameras is you need to buy lenses for them that you won't use on a FF camera. My photography camera is FF and I don't want lenses in my bag that I can't use on every camera at the event completely interchangeably. With the C70 this was fixed by the speed booster. If I got the R7 it would need a speedbooster as well.

I want to be able to grab a 50mm, or 24-105mm, or 70-200 and have the same FOV regardless of what camera I put it on vs buying 16mm or the 15-35mm just because I have a crop sensor camera. I've even had to swap lenses between my photography bodies and video bodies mid shoot to get a certain focal length....that would be harder with a mixture of crop sensor, S35, and FF all with different crop conversions.

So individually yes....a crop sensor is no big deal, but when you have to use it with a mixture of other cameras and need complete interchangeability and simplicity it can become a thorn in your side at the worse possible moment. I have had to grab a body, rig it for an interview (audio, lighting, stabilizer) within minutes then after the interview is over grab a light stand, flash trigger, modifier, and studio strobe and head to the other side of the venue for a photo shoot. So for my particular needs, my kit just needs to work and everything needs to interchange with everything else as quickly and simply as possible. 

The R7 does look promising to me though, maybe I can put a single "hero" lens on it like the 24-105 F4 with a speedbooster opening that aperture up to an F2.8 and just never take off that lens and use it for everything like a walkaround lens for both photography and video. Currently the EF 24-105mm F4 is almost the only lens I use on the C70; that extra stop of light really turns that mediocre lens into something way more useable.

[webrunner5]

The only negative I have about Canon EF lenses are that they are Huge and Heavy, even the 24-105 F4 is a moose. I will give Sony credit their FF FE lenses are pretty small and light. 

That 24-105 F4 on the R7 would probably be front heavy as heck I bet.

[Kisaha]

@herein2020

All the Canon adapters are very expensive. I have ordered the MEIKE vND (plus Clear, plus 1/8 of Black Pro mist). Performed better in the reviews I have seen for almost half the price.

The normal Canon supposedly is a gift with the camera (which I am not sure I am getting it, because I am still in "pre order" status), and I have heard the Viltrox ones are quite good also.

Your equipment is the only thing you have in control in these circumstances! and it should be that way.

From everything you have described, the less problematic is the use of a crop camera! In no way you have to change lenses all the time. When I was shooting photos I had 2 cameras left and right, and another smaller one with a fish eye or other unique/oddball lens somewhere near. I never changed anything.

If you do everything alone, hire someone to help you and ease some of the burden. I read people's stories about doing video and photography and everything in between, but that is not my cup of tea. I prefer to give someone a chance for some work experience and money, and do me a favor to my self! 

You can be specific about the use of your equipment, and that would make everything easier. e.g you can have the 50 RF on the R7 as a short portrait solution of 80mm equiv..Ultra light setup to have always on you..C70 with the 24-105mm (as you do) and your full frame camera, with whatever matches your needs. Probably a 24-70mm for photography? There must be a way to organize most things beforehand. Or just change one for the 70-200 (maybe for interview?) and that's it..

By the way, the RF 24-105 is better than the EF in everything (something which isn't true in general about all RF lenses vs EF). It is smaller/lighter/faster AF and performing better IQ wise. Anyway, I was never a fun of the EF 24-105, I am not sure if I will be for the RF.

Just some ideas. I am not trying to impose anything to you! Obviously we haven't been in someone's elses shoes. You know better your work flow.

[kye]

6 hours ago, herein2020 said:

For me the crop sensor agony is that I like to keep my kit simple, the fewest lenses possible, a single system, etc. I shoot crazy chaotic events and do it all solo (photography, video, audio, drone, lighting, etc.) I don't want to have to fiddle with multiple lens mounts, crop sensor vs FF, etc. in addition to everything else that is out of my control. 

Absolutely.  I think unless you've done it, you really don't know how stretched and fast that video work requires sometimes.  I shoot home and travel with zero direction and no retakes, and even I wouldn't suggest I understand the full experience of a wedding gig, especially when mixing stills and video!

The other factor about having bodies with the same mount/crop is the redundancy factor.  If you have a FF lens stop functioning then replacing it with a S35 one further complicates everything, if it's even possible.
I've got an MFT based system and have worked out a kit that includes backups of almost everything, but involves using the backup camera as a second/third camera in some situations.  If my two bodies had different crops/mounts then my kit would be a lot larger and heavier to keep that level of backup functionality.
I can't imagine what it's like dealing with clients (let alone bridezilla) if you had an equipment failure and had a compromised ability to get the shots you need!

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

If you do everything alone, hire someone to help you and ease some of the burden. I read people's stories about doing video and photography and everything in between, but that is not my cup of tea. I prefer to give someone a chance for some work experience and money, and do me a favor to my self! 

You're suggesting a career change from solo-shooter to management.  Navigating all the perils of managing staff, being an employer / dealing with other contractors and their own schedules etc, dealing with no-shows / sick days / poor skills / "artistic differences" etc...  let alone navigating all those and still making a profit on each job.

The wedding shooters I've seen (those that actually run real businesses - eg Scott McKenna) basically say that the amount of work and learning curve for hiring one person (or coming to have your business rely on services that require another contractor to deliver) is so large that you should only do it if your plan is to scale the business to the point where you're not shooting, you've got half-a-dozen crews going each weekend, and your exit strategy is to sell the business in a few years and pocket the money.