If I could only have ONE CAMERA

[zlfan]

On 5/19/2024 at 4:02 AM, zerocool22 said:

Are there any good eos r or 7d2 magic lantern videos? I saw a 5diii magic lantern vs eos r magic lantern, but found that the 5diii had more DR over the eos r. Could be a bad test. 

Don't have any canons left, to test myself. Strange that there are no comparison video's online. Like eos r magic lantern vs pocket 6k, a7s iii, s5 and so on.

5d3ml if operates in full sensor mode is a vista vision cam, eos m is at most a s35 cam. 5d3ml certainly is better in terms of resolution and dr. 

[kye]

16 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Its about 1.5 stops more DR. Not a huge jump. Not sure if the r5 will be able to run magic lantern at some point. That jump would make more sense to me. Allthough the r5 would overheat after 2 mins I guess.

Depending on what you typically shoot, it might be a significant difference just because the DR for each is quite low by modern standards.  I've run into DR limitations frequently because I tend to shoot a lot at sunset and also in uncontrolled conditions in full daylight where you have to choose between what is in sun and what is in shade.

[eatstoomuchjam]

17 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Its about 1.5 stops more DR. Not a huge jump. Not sure if the r5 will be able to run magic lantern at some point. That jump would make more sense to me. Allthough the r5 would overheat after 2 mins I guess.

The R5 seems like it would be a really weird choice for the ML people since it already shoots 8k raw - and I haven't noticed the DR in raw on my R5 seeming all that different from the DR on still images.  Whatever differences there are, IMO they wouldn't be enough for me to use ML raw and have to convert each clip before importing into Resolve vs just being able to directly open the Canon raw files directly.

Better for ML to target bodies like the original R6 which didn't include any sort of raw video - or even better, flesh out support for the M series which is tiny, cheap on the used market due to being a dead system, and has some models that are at least 4k capable. 

At least, if I were on the project, I'd be more excited to tell people "Now you can shoot 2.5k raw (or 3.2k or whatever SD card slot can support) on a $400 M50" than "Now you can shoot otherer more differenter raw on your $2,300 camera that already has raw."

[zlfan]

there are very few cameras better than 5d3ml. Alexa ev or other Alexa members may have better dr, but only s35 sensor, and much larger body size. f35 has ccd, but s35, and cumbersome body too. they may be better than 5d3ml, but to me, it is more a give and take option instead of they are blowing 5d3ml out of water. r5 has 8k raw, but not uncompressed. so on for others. I think 5dml already reaches a plateau, even though other cams are better, but not so much. 7d2 gives 1080p 60p slow, which is the weakness of the 5d3. 7d2 1080p s35 may also have effective dual pixel af, which is very useful for tracking. 

anyways, I think ml cameras are the best deals in this world. 

[ade towell]

2 hours ago, zlfan said:

there are very few cameras better than 5d3ml. 

I thought you were all about 60p, 5diii is only any good at 24/25p

Have been using the R5 recently and the DR in video is a long way below the DR in stills, I use Panasonic S5ii when DR is likely to be an issue especially in the shadows - there is something strange going on with the R5 and R6 in the shadows, as though it is cut off prematurely

For an allrounder video camera with internal ND, audio etc there are some great deals on Canon C500ii at the moment, would get my vote although wish it was RF mount

For a stills and video camera the Nikon Z9, Z8 looks hard to beat

[eatstoomuchjam]

For a dedicated video camera, the C70 also has great DR, internal ND, and decent audio - and it has RF mount.  Put on Canon's focal reducer and your lenses will look almost exactly like they do on FF (though then it will be EF).

I'll do a side-by-side with my R5.  I never noticed raw video having a lot less DR than stills, but I never did any formal test.  I mostly just thought it seemed pretty mediocre/blah for both.  😄

As time goes on, I care less and less about having full frame for video.  I bought two dedicated cameras for video work in the last year and they were both RF mount with S35 sensors (though the K-X is more like APS-H than APS-C).  I've liked everything I shot with both, except for self-inflicted technical problems (which were no fault of the cameras').  

[ade towell]

I find the R5 disappointing for DR in video mode, apparently the R5c has a little more. I think the reason none of Canon's mirrorless have Clog 2 is because they don't have the DR to make use of it

Yes the C70 has RF mount but criminally doesn't have an EVF which for my way of shooting is too important a feature to leave out

I would be happy with apsc too although Canon don't seem to be interested in creating any decent apsc lenses for RF

[SRV1981]

21 hours ago, zlfan said:

why is this one better than go pro?

Better image, DR, and usability for non sport situations 

[zlfan]

8 hours ago, ade towell said:

I thought you were all about 60p, 5diii is only any good at 24/25p

Have been using the R5 recently and the DR in video is a long way below the DR in stills, I use Panasonic S5ii when DR is likely to be an issue especially in the shadows - there is something strange going on with the R5 and R6 in the shadows, as though it is cut off prematurely

For an allrounder video camera with internal ND, audio etc there are some great deals on Canon C500ii at the moment, would get my vote although wish it was RF mount

For a stills and video camera the Nikon Z9, Z8 looks hard to beat

I am not limited to 24p. If the camera has 60p, I will use it. If the cameras, like the magic lantern cameras, use 24p to maximize the resolution, I will use 24p. I don't limit myself. magic lantern is true lossless raw, so even at 24p, slow panning is usable. 

r5 canon raw is compressed, i think the compression ratio is 3 or 5. the dark area loses the details due to the compression. 

[zlfan]

16 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

The R5 seems like it would be a really weird choice for the ML people since it already shoots 8k raw - and I haven't noticed the DR in raw on my R5 seeming all that different from the DR on still images.  Whatever differences there are, IMO they wouldn't be enough for me to use ML raw and have to convert each clip before importing into Resolve vs just being able to directly open the Canon raw files directly.

Better for ML to target bodies like the original R6 which didn't include any sort of raw video - or even better, flesh out support for the M series which is tiny, cheap on the used market due to being a dead system, and has some models that are at least 4k capable. 

At least, if I were on the project, I'd be more excited to tell people "Now you can shoot 2.5k raw (or 3.2k or whatever SD card slot can support) on a $400 M50" than "Now you can shoot otherer more differenter raw on your $2,300 camera that already has raw."

you are right. r5 has low priority in magic lantern community. on the other hand, if there is no magic lantern community, r5 would have no 8k raw in stock mode. even so, r5 raw is compressed. people tested it against the 5d3ml, the dark area of r5 raw was not that good. 

[zlfan]

7 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

For a dedicated video camera, the C70 also has great DR, internal ND, and decent audio - and it has RF mount.  Put on Canon's focal reducer and your lenses will look almost exactly like they do on FF (though then it will be EF).

I'll do a side-by-side with my R5.  I never noticed raw video having a lot less DR than stills, but I never did any formal test.  I mostly just thought it seemed pretty mediocre/blah for both.  😄

As time goes on, I care less and less about having full frame for video.  I bought two dedicated cameras for video work in the last year and they were both RF mount with S35 sensors (though the K-X is more like APS-H than APS-C).  I've liked everything I shot with both, except for self-inflicted technical problems (which were no fault of the cameras').  

in the still photo world, people care full frame much more. aps-c or aps-h are considered lower quality. i don't know why in the video world, people don't care about full frame that much. maybe the full frame has more rolling shutter in video mode, which is not important at all in still photography?

 

personally, for still photography, i don't care about sensor size, i use nikon v1, pentax q, canon nikon pentax minolta olympus aps c, and 5d3 full frame, and kodak 645 pro 36x36. actually kodak 36x36 is the best, 5d3 is good, but not significantly better than others. nikon v1 1 inch sensor has better dr than many larger sensors. pentax q is good at iso100. 

[zlfan]

I think that the still photo cams reach plateau at around 2005-2010, the video cams at around 2010-2015. There are improvements later on, but not revolutionary. 

It is not so exciting to talk about cameras now. It is more about content. 

[kye]

23 hours ago, zlfan said:

there are very few cameras better than 5d3ml. Alexa ev or other Alexa members may have better dr, but only s35 sensor, and much larger body size. f35 has ccd, but s35, and cumbersome body too. they may be better than 5d3ml, but to me, it is more a give and take option instead of they are blowing 5d3ml out of water. r5 has 8k raw, but not uncompressed. so on for others. I think 5dml already reaches a plateau, even though other cams are better, but not so much. 7d2 gives 1080p 60p slow, which is the weakness of the 5d3. 7d2 1080p s35 may also have effective dual pixel af, which is very useful for tracking. 

anyways, I think ml cameras are the best deals in this world. 

Alexa LF and 65 are both FF or larger, you know, just in case you care about if what you're saying is actually true...

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

19 hours ago, zlfan said:

in the still photo world, people care full frame much more. aps-c or aps-h are considered lower quality. i don't know why in the video world, people don't care about full frame that much. maybe the full frame has more rolling shutter in video mode, which is not important at all in still photography?

This is a really weird paragraph.

APS-C is popular in the filmmaking community because it's a really close match to the size of Super 35 film.  A majority of films made for decades were done on that film and there are bazillions of lenses that support the format.  Since the lens is generally much more important than the sensor, S35 continued to be popular in the video world.

Also, the real-world differences between FF and APS-C/APS-H are not nearly as big as people make them out to be.  One thing that hinders APS-C adoption in the still photo world is the lack of high-quality lenses optimized for the format.  As somebody mentioned before, Canon barely make any of them for RF mount and barely made any for EF-S mount.  On the other hand, Fuji APS-C bodies are growing in popularity and have a fantastic line-up of great lenses to support them.

It has nothing to do with rolling shutter, fwiw.  There are full frame cameras with global shutter.  Readout speed is only partly based on sensor size.

[kye]

9 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

This is a really weird paragraph.

APS-C is popular in the filmmaking community because it's a really close match to the size of Super 35 film.  A majority of films made for decades were done on that film and there are bazillions of lenses that support the format.  Since the lens is generally much more important than the sensor, S35 continued to be popular in the video world.

Also, the real-world differences between FF and APS-C/APS-H are not nearly as big as people make them out to be.  One thing that hinders APS-C adoption in the still photo world is the lack of high-quality lenses optimized for the format.  As somebody mentioned before, Canon barely make any of them for RF mount and barely made any for EF-S mount.  On the other hand, Fuji APS-C bodies are growing in popularity and have a fantastic line-up of great lenses to support them.

It has nothing to do with rolling shutter, fwiw.  There are full frame cameras with global shutter.  Readout speed is only partly based on sensor size.

It's also a strange comment to make if you've seen the PR videos of larger format cinema cameras where cinematographer after cinematographer gush about how the larger sensor will make all their dreams come true, and using all the words that forum fanboys use, and making all the mistakes that forum fanboys make around crop factor and DOF and FOV.

I used to think that the pros automatically knew more about this stuff, but then I saw behind the curtain and realised that everyone is susceptible to sensor size envy.  Since the Alexa LF and mini LF were released, the price of FF vintage primes has gone through the roof, to the point that a decade ago people were practically giving away sets of F1.4 primes and now the average cinematographer struggles to even put together a functional set of the F2.8 versions.

[zlfan]

16 hours ago, kye said:

Alexa LF and 65 are both FF or larger, you know, just in case you care about if what you're saying is actually true...

 

i understand your point here. alexa 65 and alexa large format are equal or larger than 135 full frame. what i was talking was that the alexa classic and its direct followers like alexa ev, alexa 35, amira. especially, the alexa ev was about the same era as 5d3ml. the former is s35, 5d3ml is vista vision. alexa ev/35/amira have not one side win over 5d3ml. the same as f35. alexa 65 has three alexa ev sensors and alexa lf has two ev sensors. 

[zlfan]

9 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

This is a really weird paragraph.

APS-C is popular in the filmmaking community because it's a really close match to the size of Super 35 film.  A majority of films made for decades were done on that film and there are bazillions of lenses that support the format.  Since the lens is generally much more important than the sensor, S35 continued to be popular in the video world.

Also, the real-world differences between FF and APS-C/APS-H are not nearly as big as people make them out to be.  One thing that hinders APS-C adoption in the still photo world is the lack of high-quality lenses optimized for the format.  As somebody mentioned before, Canon barely make any of them for RF mount and barely made any for EF-S mount.  On the other hand, Fuji APS-C bodies are growing in popularity and have a fantastic line-up of great lenses to support them.

It has nothing to do with rolling shutter, fwiw.  There are full frame cameras with global shutter.  Readout speed is only partly based on sensor size.

lens compatibility is a valid point here. but they are exceptions, like sigma 18-35 f1.8, canon efs 17-55 f2.8, etc. 

saying 135 full frame is not significant better than aps-c, whereas, a lot of still photog will be unhappy about this. even in video world, there is difference. i remember that i watched many 5d2 videos on vimeo in 2008-2010, and 7d videos. somehow, 5d2 just feels better than 7d. you have to watch many to get the feeling. 

in the still world, there are more choices on sensors in addition to sensor size, like ccd vs cmos, kodak vs canikon, etc. even canon 1 series vs lower tiers. in the video world, such differences are not there. to my opinion, video world has fewer options in terms of sensor. video world spends a lot of time on codec, whereas, still world cares about only uncompressed raw, uncompressed jpeg, tiff, etc.

probably, the major difference that the video world cares that the still world does not pay any attention is the rolling shutter. 

 

[kye]

6 minutes ago, zlfan said:

i understand your point here. alexa 65 and alexa large format are equal or larger than 135 full frame. what i was talking was that the alexa classic and its direct followers like alexa ev, alexa 35, amira. especially, the alexa ev was about the same era as 5d3ml. the former is s35, 5d3ml is vista vision. alexa ev/35/amira have not one side win over 5d3ml. the same as f35. alexa 65 has three alexa ev sensors and alexa lf has two ev sensors. 

Sure, but I recommend trying to be correct where you can.

Early in my journey I read a lot on forums and I "learned" all sorts of things that simply weren't true, and it cost me a lot of money.  Sure, casual readers of this forum aren't likely to be in the market for an Alexa, but if you're wrong about this then it makes me wonder what else you're saying that isn't correct either.

Forums are not a group of people having a discussion amongst ourselves, they are more like a panel discussion where there are many more people that read the threads than who actually post in them.  The technicalities of cameras and video are overwhelming enough without sprinkling in random statements that are factually incorrect.

[zlfan]

26 minutes ago, kye said:

It's also a strange comment to make if you've seen the PR videos of larger format cinema cameras where cinematographer after cinematographer gush about how the larger sensor will make all their dreams come true, and using all the words that forum fanboys use, and making all the mistakes that forum fanboys make around crop factor and DOF and FOV.

I used to think that the pros automatically knew more about this stuff, but then I saw behind the curtain and realised that everyone is susceptible to sensor size envy.  Since the Alexa LF and mini LF were released, the price of FF vintage primes has gone through the roof, to the point that a decade ago people were practically giving away sets of F1.4 primes and now the average cinematographer struggles to even put together a functional set of the F2.8 versions.

hollywood pros use large format as a differentiator. if they really care so much about the sensor size, in 2015, 5d3ml 1080p full frame was already mature, yet many video pros bashed 5d3ml as unstable, amateur. yet, once alexa showed its lf and alexa65, the american cinematographer journal started to publish a series articles on how wonderful large format is.  

[kye]

2 minutes ago, zlfan said:

hollywood pros use large format as a differentiator. if they really care so much about the sensor size, in 2015, 5d3ml 1080p full frame was already mature, yet many video pros bash 5d3ml as unstable, amateur. yet, once alexa showed its lf and alexa65, the american cinematographer journal started to publish a series articles on how wonderful large format is.  

Do you think that any cinematographer in their right-mind would use a 5D with a hacked firmware on a shoot that's $100,000 a day?

Hollywood gets nervous if the camera is anything except an Alexa.  If they get nervous about using RED, then you're dreaming that they'd even contemplate using a hacked firmware for anything.

You talk as if you're familiar with the industry, but.....