EOS-R - It's out. Thoughts?

davesrose wrote in post #18702471
Until this thread, I never thought to do a UV light test on someone else's camera gear before picking up

Talley's Title Fairy "gift" isn't Talley Whacker for nothing you know

(Not that I can say much, given mine)

Don’t know how I missed this but the new RF 28-70 at $3K does not have IS. So not having IBIS is a real head scratcher.

sploo wrote in post #18702439
See my post above; I'm not entirely sure there's an extra crop for 16:9 on top of the stated ~1.7x; unless I've misunderstood.

I.e. the ~1.7x crop is the total crop factor with the camera going from all its pixels [at 3:2 ratio] down to just the pixels for a 16:9 4K crop.

There isn't a double crop occurring, I addressed that earlier, I believe. There is a video posted where the photographer used the 10-18 efs lens for 4k video, and it produced a 17mm view in the video.

gossamer88 wrote in post #18702476
Don’t know how I missed this but the new RF 28-70 at $3K does not have IS. So not having IBIS is a real head scratcher.

I've never really missed it with the 24-70II on a 5D3 and 5D4, but granted, in the mirrorless field it does seem a shame for the EOS R to not have IBIS.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18702479
There isn't a double crop occurring, I addressed that earlier, I believe. There is a video posted where the photographer used the 10-18 efs lens for 4k video, and it produced a 17mm view in the video.

Yep, that sounds about right. Given that the EOS R can use EF-S lenses the 4K crop is maybe less of a problem than on the 5D4.

gossamer88 wrote in post #18702476
Don’t know how I missed this but the new RF 28-70 at $3K does not have IS. So not having IBIS is a real head scratcher.

Wowzers

I did not catch that either

umphotography wrote in post #18702484
Wowzers

I did not catch that either

Yea, but you'll always be shooting it at f/2, so the shutter speeds will be high enough to never need IS. Right?

umphotography wrote in post #18702172
There is nothing an A9 does that a 1Dx2 cant do or the 1Dx2 does better than the A9

prove me wrong. I doubt anyone can

The A9 (and other mirrorless bodies) can do focus peaking, which will show me exactly which parts of my subject are in sharpest focus before I take the shot. No more photos where the deer's ear or muzzle are a little bit sharper than the eye. And yes, this really, really does matter.

The A9 (and other mirrorless bodies) will do their focusing on the sensor, so that I no longer have to be at all concerned about microfocusing adjustments. This will be particularly helpful when my subjects are far from me, as optical focusing often struggles at long distances when the subject is small in the frame.

The A9 (and other Sony mirrorless bodies) have IBIS. This would be especially useful with my Sigma 300-800mm, which is unstabilized. Even when I am using proper long lens technique and mounted to a tripod, I could really use stabilization. There are times when I am at 800mm and the proper exposure calls for 1/15th of a second, or 1/10th of a second. I just can't get perfectly sharp photos at these shutter speeds at 800mm, even when doing everything right. But with IBIS, I would be able to get perfectly sharp results in the same exact scenario.

The A9 (and other mirrorless bodies) would allow me to shoot with a completely silent shutter, even in high FPS bursts. The Canon DSLRs have a silent mode that isn't really silent - it makes enough noise to spook Ruffed Grouse off of their drumming log when shooting them from a blind at extremely close range). Even worse, the Canon DSLRs won't allow me to shoot high FPS bursts when in the so-called silent mode. Sorry, but I am not interested in shooting one frame at a time.

umphotography wrote in post #18702179
Im surprised to hear you say that sony gives us so much

exactly what does sony give you that a 1DX2 cant match/

heck a 5D4 is batter than the A7iii

so what are you missing for the way you shoot ?

The response I gave to your other post (written above) itemizes some of the things that the Sony offerings give us that I don't think the Canon 1DX2 or the 5D4 can match.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18702479
There isn't a double crop occurring, I addressed that earlier, I believe. There is a video posted where the photographer used the 10-18 efs lens for 4k video, and it produced a 17mm view in the video.

I disagree

attached is how a 5Div crops video. It's 1.7 with respect to video mode. While the calculation you present is correct, the 16:9 ratio for video, in itself is a crop factor!

For instance, when shooting a 35mm for video, you dont frame the same way as photography, you need to step back a bit or you start chopping off heads. So when you want a 35mm FOV, it's best to start with a 28mm lens, or you make do and try to work that space (my only choice if a prime is the only lens I carry).

While it's still considered 35mm Full frame by all standards, it's more like 40-45mm in practice. This is ok for me, since I've shot 50mm for many years, I can learn to cope, but to add a 1.7 crop factor on top of that, that's near 80mm in practice, very hard to cope with but good for B-roll.

Just consider that ALL video has an inherent crop factor, 16:9 is not the same as 2.35:1, and while the wide and mm standards may be the same, you definitely have to consider the crop factor, 2:35:1 is very tight!

Charlie wrote in post #18702489
I disagree

attached is how a 5Div crops video. It's 1.7 with respect to video mode. While the calculation you present is correct, the 16:9 ratio for video, in itself is a crop factor!

For instance, when shooting a 35mm for video, you dont frame the same way as photography, you need to step back a bit or you start chopping off heads. So when you want a 35mm FOV, it's best to start with a 28mm lens, or you make do and try to work that space (my only choice if a prime is the only lens I carry).

While it's still considered 35mm Full frame by all standards, it's more like 40-45mm in practice. This is ok for me, since I've shot 50mm for many years, I can learn to cope, but to add a 1.7 crop factor on top of that, that's near 80mm in practice, very hard to cope with but good for B-roll.

Just consider that ALL video has an inherent crop factor, 16:9 is not the same as 2.35:1, and while the wide and mm standards may be the same, you definitely have to consider the crop factor, 2:35:1 is very tight!

Hosted photo: posted by Charlie in
./showthread.php?p=187​02489&i=i45299509
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

I think I see your point - the cropped 4K diagonal field of view ratio is 1.7x, but I understand that the 16:9 ratio means you need to go a little wider due to the wide but shallow ratio.

To be consistent though, we'd have to label the full frame 4K video from other cameras as "cropped" (cropped from their native aspect down to 16:9). My point being that Teamspeed's statement "There isn't a double crop occurring" is technically correct; but I can understand that the ratio change is, for the practical purposes of the videographer, also a crop.

EDIT: It's a real shame Canon couldn't do a 1.5x downsampling; that way they could take a 6144x3240 pixel region from the sensor (and downsample to 4096x2160) ; which would only represent a ~1.16x crop vs the whole 3:2 frame. That would have much less visual impact than the ~1.7x crop.

sploo wrote in post #18702495
EDIT: It's a real shame Canon couldn't do a 1.5x downsampling; that way they could take a 6144x3240 pixel region from the sensor (and downsample to 4096x2160) ; which would only represent a ~1.16x crop vs the whole 3:2 frame. That would have much less visual impact than the ~1.7x crop.

I could almost see that as a firmware enhancement if the processor has the capability to run such a routine. Even taking a reduced crop and down sampling would be exciting.

samueli wrote in post #18702503
I could almost see that as a firmware enhancement if the processor has the capability to run such a routine.

As a software guy that's the thing that does bug me about Canon; Fuji seem to have a really good attitude towards adding new features in firmware, but with Canon we tend to only get bug fixes for existing models (original 7D excluded).

I'd assume there would be hardware to do that sort of scaling (e.g. for generating medium & small images for writing out as JPEG), but maybe it doesn't have the performance to do it at video rates (or would overheat the camera). The 5D4 has been out long enough (and caught enough flack over the 4K crop) that I'd assume they would have fixed it by now if they could.

sploo wrote in post #18702495
I think I see your point - the cropped 4K diagonal field of view ratio is 1.7x, but I understand that the 16:9 ratio means you need to go a little wider due to the wide but shallow ratio.

To be consistent though, we'd have to label the full frame 4K video from other cameras as "cropped" (cropped from their native aspect down to 16:9). My point being that Teamspeed's statement "There isn't a double crop occurring" is technically correct; but I can understand that the ratio change is, for the practical purposes of the videographer, also a crop.

Yes!

Going from 3:2 to 16:9 isnt a huge crop, but something you need to cope with when doing video. Both aspect ratios are considered FF, but in practice, it is noticeable and different. A 35mm prime is most often my daily carry, and the aspect ratio crop is bothersome, but I make due with it, too much trouble to carry a 28mm just to get what I really want.

davesrose wrote in post #18702450
Now you are wrong. Arri's flagship has a sensor larger then FF. Red's flagship is larger then FF. But the most common 4K cinema recording are done on the likes of Super-35mm sensors like the Arri Alexa series.

I think you'll find an awful lot of cinema is now shot on large sensor cameras. In the past before digital really took off the standard more or less was 35 and 70mm film, 70mm is really quite a big negative when you hold it in your hand, 65mm of frame width & lets not go into 70mm IMAX. The technology for allowing a similar width is only lately beginning to appear, the Alexa 65 was only introduced in 2014. That might change in the next few years though

In reality there is no standard in cinema as systems will be used depending on the need for camera placement & use. There is a reason to shoot large sensor sizes and a reason not to even within the same project.

Choderboy wrote in post #18702415
Look, it's a gear forum so loving your camera is OK. I think your taking it too far though....

haha *Bet*

davesrose wrote in post #18702431
You still seem to be missing my point that Super-35mm is a cinema standard. How can casually say "nevermind standards"? There have been no major motion picture that has used the 5DII for the majority of their shots. Arri, Panasonic, Blackmagic, Sony, Canon are some of the major Super-35mm formats that have been used in the majority of motion pictures. The RED Dragon has a 1.76x crop relative to FF in 4K: just to throw another wrench as to FF being a "must" for video.

I'm not making movies. I'm a dad capturing my kids moments like recitals, birthdays, etc. that wants to record in 4K for 1. to have the best quality/memory of my kids and 2. to be able to extract a decent JPG at the same time.

I'm pretty sure people who makes movies are not interested in any of these types of cameras.