R5 v/s R6- here they are. which for you and why ?

davesrose wrote in post #19095385
I don't understand why you want such pro video specs from a stills camera. If you're serious about video, get a video camera.

My phone does 4K60, what’s so pro about it?

Cameras have been able to do 1080/120, 4K120 is natural progression.

digital paradise wrote in post #19095135
It will work. R5 with the 100-400 II. No TC but that won't matter much.

https://www.fredmirand​a.com/forum/topic/1653​903/9

We know that the new AF on the EOS R5 works beautifully on the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM lens (see video below)
Since both the R6 and the R5have the same AF system, I'm assuming the results will be identical.


https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=pFJNqOsNT7g
Canon EOS R5 Animal AF Test (w/ EF 100-400mm)

So the question I need to ask here is "Will the EF 1.4x III or EF 2x III Extenders work with this combination?"

My assumption is that they should work very well since I'm fairly certain that Extenders work fine on the EOS R camera.
* Can anyone confirm or deny?

Charlie wrote in post #19095392
My phone does 4K60, what’s so pro about it?

Cameras have been able to do 1080/120, 4K120 is natural progression.

Because an iPhone isn't at least a super-35mm sensor dimension with mechanical shutter. iPhone 6S may have been able to do 4K, but last time I checked, no one uses it for serious video.

davesrose wrote in post #19095394
Because an iPhone isn't at least a super-35mm sensor dimension with mechanical shutter. iPhone 6S may have been able to do 4K, but last time I checked, no one uses it for serious video.

What “video camera” is there that weighs 5-600g and has autofocus?

What video camera can also do very good photography? The R5 can do 4K 120 if you haven’t noticed.

Charlie wrote in post #19095397
What “video camera” is there that weighs 5-600g and has autofocus?

What video camera can also do very good photography? The R5 can do 4K 120 if you haven’t noticed.

This is another demonstration of how you want your own specs independent from the industry. #1 cinema cameras are capable of high fps, for the few times its used. #2, cinema cameras don't have AF in the lens because it leads to distortion and less smooth focus pull compared to an external focus pull. Again, if you want top notch video specs, go with a video camera. Why one bemoans poor video with a stills camera is beyond me. The fact that these cameras do have a stills AF lens is another indication how its geared for Youtube bloggers and such that would use AF.

davesrose wrote in post #19095398
This is another demonstration of how you want your own specs independent from the industry. #1 cinema cameras are capable of high fps, for the few times its used. #2, cinema cameras don't have AF in the lens because it leads to distortion and less smooth focus pull compared to an external focus pull. Again, if you want top notch video specs, go with a video camera. Why one bemoans poor video with a stills camera is beyond me. The fact that these cameras do have a stills AF lens is another indication how its geared for Youtube bloggers and such that would use AF.

I’m buying the camera for myself, not to adhere to some generic industry. That does nothing for me if the camera stays home, it’s a simple concept.

You telling me the R5 has poor video specs?

Charlie wrote in post #19095399
I’m buying the camera for myself, not to adhere to some generic industry. That does nothing for me if the camera stays home, it’s a simple concept.

You telling me the R5 has poor video specs?

Compared to a dedicated cinema camera (say Arri, RED, Black Magic, Canon C series)....yes, the R5 does not meet the specs of an actual video camera (surprise surprise). I do appreciate that Canon has set the R5 (like some of its other HDSLRs) DCI resolutions: so it would be good for a B-roll camera (myself, I use stills to photo merge HDR lightmaps at 8K or 4K HDR square). But it's never going to be meant as a main camera except for amateur or a really budget production. You keep going on abut read out speed and rolling shutter: if you really wanted to eliminate, you'd invest cinema camera that wouldn't exhibit that.

mccamli wrote in post #19095320
https://youtu.be/sx8Di​vtkhe4

This looks promising for animal eye tracking!

That's impressive.

davesrose wrote in post #19095400
Compared to a dedicated cinema camera (say Arri, RED, Black Magic, Canon C series)....yes, the R5 does not meet the specs of an actual video camera (surprise surprise). I do appreciate that Canon has set the R5 (like some of its other HDSLRs) DCI resolutions: so it would be good for a B-roll camera (myself, I use stills to photo merge HDR lightmaps at 8K or 4K HDR square). But it's never going to be meant as a main camera except for amateur or a really budget production. You keep going on abut read out speed and rolling shutter: if you really wanted to eliminate, you'd invest cinema camera that wouldn't exhibit that.

This is the most absurd and clueless post. Those cinema cameras are especially poor for photography and you totally ignore that low rolling shutter is beneficial for photography, not just video. The R6 is an example of that.

Black magic, Arri, red, don’t have AF, C series are massive, absurd recommendations. In this day and age, “Buy a cinema camera” is the silliest piece of advice.

Tommydigi wrote in post #19092918
Is anyone who has an R considering an R6? Loosing 10mp seems like a lot.

I am planning on just sticking with the R. I am not a professional, and the R does everything I need as a replacement for my 5D3. I plan on hanging on to my 7D2 for quite some time for wildlife, and I have the M50 for a small, light weight travel kit.

Maybe when the R6 MKII comes out in a few years I will be ready for a change.

Scott M wrote in post #19095536
I am planning on just sticking with the R. I am not a professional, and the R does everything I need as a replacement for my 5D3. I plan on hanging on to my 7D2 for quite some time for wildlife, and I have the M50 for a small, light weight travel kit.

Maybe when the R6 MKII comes out in a few years I will be ready for a change.

Have you used the 7Dii much since you got the R? Mine's gathering dust.

nero_design wrote in post #19095386

[Image from Petapixel]

I'm going with the R6 for the following reasons (these are just the ones that caught my eye from the Canon Improvements Page):

R6 has can focus with -6.5EV (For comparison, the EOS R & R5 have -6EV and the EOS 6D has -3EV).
R6 has IBIS - exactly the same IBIS as the R5 - (up to 8 Stops) for still photography with non-IS lenses.
R6 has up to 8-Stop In-Body Image Stabilization that works in conjunction with Lens OIS.
R6 has 1/8000 sec shutter speed - same as the R5 (RP has only 1/4000 sec).
R6 has same sensor-protecting "shutter shield" curtain as the R/R5 (RP does not have this).
R6 has same new AF as the R5 (identical).
R6 now has DiGiC X image processor (R has DiGiC 8)
R6 has new Multi-Controller Joystick and new Eye-Cup Design.
R6 now has 300,000 actuation Mechanical Shutter Life (R = 200,000 / R5 = 500,000 / 6D = 100,000).
R6 now has a quieter mechanical shutter.
R6 now has relocated Battery Grip Terminal for improved weather sealing.
R6 now has improved Power-On/Off switch with increased tactile feel.
R6 has expanded ISO range: 100-102400 (EXP to 204800) - the R5 has only100-51200 (EXP to 102400)
R6 has the same weather sealing as the 6D.
R6 has Power Delivery Support (in-body Charging)
R6 has 4K video @ 60p.
R6 has Full HD video at 120p.
R6 has new 'Zebra warning' setting for highlights.
R6 Head (eye) Detection AF.
R6 has Animal (eye) Detection AF.
R6 has a 3.69 million dot EVF (same as EOS R) - (R5 has 5.76 Million dot EVF).
R6 has Control Dial - (the Top Down Screens on the R were known to crack fairly easily).
R6 has same LP-E6NH battery as R5 - which redirects power to critical components to resist overheating.
R6 has oversampled 5K video.
R6 has E3 port (same as R5)
R6 has USB 3.1 Gen 2 Support - up to 2x faster data transfer than the EOS R.
R6 has rugged build quality.
R6 has Dual SD UHS-II card slots
R6 has 12fps mechanical shutter and 20fps electronic shutter.
R6 has Canon Log
R6 has 10-bit HDR PQ HEIF File Recording
R6 has Bluetooth 4.2 (R5 has 5.0)
R6 has improved Lighting Optimzer and enhanced support for Still Images.
R6 has improved ISO Auto User Interface.
R6 has improved processing of Milti-Shot Noise Reduction and HDR mode.
R6 has Continuous Flash Control.
R6 has subject detection video recording (People, Animal, No Priority)
R6 has Animal Detection with (whole body, Face, Eye)
R6 has Deep Learning Head Detection (even when face and head are obscured).
R6 can Switch Tracked Subjects in Video.
R6 now has Movie Self-Timer added.
R6 now has HDR-PQ Time-Lapse Movie added.
R6 now has Overhead Control Protection (not available on the EOS R)
R6 now has video Clarity Control.
R6 now has Auto Switch Card Recording Options Interface.
R6 now has Movie Digital Image Stabilization.
R6 Focus Brightening Range for stills increased from -16 to +18 (EOS R) to -6.5 to +20 (EOS R6).
R6 Focus Brightening Range for video increased from -4 to +18 (EOS R) to -5 to +20 (EOS R6).
RF has maximum Coverage area of 100% Horizontal x 100% Vertical (R was limited to 88% Horizontal x 100% vertical)
R6 has Increased Maximum Burst RAW images (Mech/Elec 1st Curtain) 240 Shots High Speed SD UHS-II (R5 = 180 with CFexpress)
R6 has Increased Maximum Burst JPEG images (Mech/Elec 1st Curtain) 1000+ shots HighSpeed SD UHS-II (R5 = 350 with CFexpress)


* The R5 will demand the most expensive and highest resolving glass with that 45MP sensor.
* Take away the 8K 'limited' video and the R5 is indeed overpriced.
* EOS R6 has a 1.62m dot LCD Screen compared to the R5/R which have 2.1m dots.

wheres the love button

biggest point for me is that 45mp sensor and using EF L lens....I dont want to start investing in RF glass...I currently have great L lens so with an adapter I feel the R6 sensor is a much better fit for people that are going to move GRADUALLY into R glass.....for me...the R24-105 is about the only R glass i am interested in

excellent post

davesrose wrote in post #19095385
I don't understand why you want such pro video specs from a stills camera. If you're serious about video, get a video camera.

I have repeatedly walked by this post and simply refused to get involved, but alas; I simply can't anymore.

You do understand that virtually the entirety of marketing for DSLRs for the past 20 years has been virtually equal on the photography and videography side of promotion, right? Since the advent of the 5D Mk II, DSLRs have become the go to for videography everywhere. No longer does someone have to tote around a shoulder rig that costs upwards of $50k in order to produce cinema worthy films.

The whole notion that we could have an interchangeable lens camera with variable apertures has totally revolutionized the world of cinema, and we put them in the hands of people that would have never had the opportunity at $50k and did it for, in many cases, less than $2000US.

Nobody on this forum wants to talk about it, but photography as an art is going the way of the dinosaur. Videography is where it's at, and the manufacturers know this. This is why today's DSLRs and mirrorless cameras have the levels of video that they have. We used to walk around holding a photograph. Today, the entirety of the world known to man can be watched and heard in full motion and surround sound on a device we carry in our pockets. Why look at one snapshot in time when you can see and hear the entire world surrounding the moment!

I am still an avid photographer, albeit very much non-pro, but more and more, I find myself shooting video. Why? Because it captures not only the moment, but the sounds and entirety of minutes or even hours of memories.

Denial does not change the evolution of our hobby. The more effectively we can capture moments in time, the better we can record our history, and isn't that really what it's all about?

Video in our cameras is here to stay and will only grow as time passes. It's not going anywhere.

By the way, these are video cameras. Pro video cameras.

I can relate to WilsonFlyer's comment. For example, I was creating images of Trumpeter Swans in early spring ice out, but only the video I created was able to show the head bobbing motions of the swans as they approached one another, or allowed one to hear what the swans sound like.

Still images are important for published articles but for social media videos communicate much more.