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

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #19095568
..........

Pretty much this.

To add to that:

The amount of paid photographers vs paid videographers is significantly swinging in favor of video. Far more people are making a living from video content than still-photo content (speaking from an individual basis, not companies that generate ad revenue).

Very best,

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #19095568
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.

No, I find it hard to believe that stills brands have been advertising video for 20 years, when the 5D2 came out less than 12 years ago. And in that time, remind me again how many movies and TV series have used a HDSLR or mirrorless camera as their main production cameras? If any, it is dwarfed by the number of productions investing in Arri, RED, or BlackMagic.

My argument was that if you're serious about video, you get a video camera instead of a stills camera that includes video. They have had distinct advantages over hybrid cameras: less recording limitations, better DR performance for the generation, no need for external recorders, no rolling shutter effects, etc. To my knowledge, HDSLRs have been used for B-Roll as compact cameras for filming FF aspect as well as crash cameras: they have not made inroads into being production cameras for movies or TVs (even with dedicated rig).

I understand that there is a market for stills photographers to want to film video segments for events or (more popularly) film for YouTube videos. I would not equate that market to the professional market that is involved with TV and movie production.

Anyone can get professional results from any camera.

What you pay for as a working professional however is reliability.

C-Series is pretty small and has ideal ergonomics for video operation. I have rigged mirrorless to match its features and the result is a larger, less reliable, and clumsy contraption.

Readout is fine and has applications for still photography. But some of the specs y’all are wishing for just simply don’t exist in any other camera at this moment in time.

The S1H requires manual focus and has a nonstandard L mount. The Sony FX9 doesn’t have as great of autofocus, records to last gen XQD, and lacks 4K 120P cropped, which is simply unheard of until now at this price point.

You can pray for the A7S III. It may be a great camera with specs that “kill” the R5, but until the announce date, it doesn’t exist and has been rumored for years now from the unreliable SonyAlphaRumors website.

Question on shutters:

Seems the electronic shutter is faster, has faster sync speed and is silent. So when might you choose to use mechanical shutter?

rebop wrote in post #19095673
Question on shutters:

Seems the electronic shutter is faster, has faster sync speed and is silent. So when might you choose to use mechanical shutter?

For anything moving quickly, under artificial lights or with any flash or strobe mechanical shutter is the best choice to prevent rolling shutter distortion. Electronic shutter can be used if you must be completely silent but you must be aware of its limitations. So for me the speed of the electronic shutter is basically useless and the claim of 20 frames per second in electronic shutter is not useful for moving subjects. What good is a shot if there’s distortion in the image due to rolling shutter.

rebop wrote in post #19095673
Question on shutters:

Seems the electronic shutter is faster, has faster sync speed and is silent. So when might you choose to use mechanical shutter?

Mechanical vs Electronic Shutter: Ask David Bergman

Also, since we have been talking about video: HDSLRs and mirrorless cameras shoot video with electronic shutter....while there are video cameras that have a mechanical shutter (most readily a disc rotary shutter that can easily do 1/240).

davesrose wrote in post #19095696
Mechanical vs Electronic Shutter: Ask David Bergman

Also, since we have been talking about video: HDSLRs and mirrorless cameras shoot video with electronic shutter....while there are video cameras that have a mechanical shutter (most readily a disc rotary shutter that can easily do 1/240).

Thanks. Very good link.

umphotography wrote in post #19095555
.
wheres the love button
.

.
You didn't even use the LIKE button for this post that you say you like so much ...... so I'm thinking that even if there was a LOVE button, you wouldn't have even bothered to use that, either. . I'm trying to understand why you wouldn't even "like" it.


.

mccamli wrote in post #19095547
Have you used the 7Dii much since you got the R? Mine's gathering dust.

Actually, with the shutdown everywhere due to the virus, none of my bodes have seen much use this year. We've had two trips cancelled due to the lockdown. We have a three day trip planned to Mackinac Island in a couple of weeks that hopefully will not get cancelled. That's not somewhere I would have taken the 7D2 under any circumstances, though. It will be either the R or M50 (or maybe both).

butterfly2937 wrote in post #19095691
For anything moving quickly, under artificial lights or with any flash or strobe mechanical shutter is the best choice to prevent rolling shutter distortion. Electronic shutter can be used if you must be completely silent but you must be aware of its limitations. So for me the speed of the electronic shutter is basically useless and the claim of 20 frames per second in electronic shutter is not useful for moving subjects. What good is a shot if there’s distortion in the image due to rolling shutter.

The only body out there that has eliminated rolling shutter distortion is the Sony A9 II. 20 fps is too much anyway. Imagine the culling after a days shooting.

digital paradise wrote in post #19095789
The only body out there that has eliminated rolling shutter distortion is the Sony A9 II. 20 fps is too much anyway. Imagine the culling after a days shooting.

“With great FPS comes great responsibility.”

- Uncle Ben death croak

digital paradise wrote in post #19095789
The only body out there that has eliminated rolling shutter distortion is the Sony A9 II. 20 fps is too much anyway. Imagine the culling after a days shooting.

With the 7Dii I didn't mind the culling process, other than finding it disheartening, as there was so much stuff that wasn't good enough for my tastes and was easily binned, or at least mentally rejected.

However, with the R, even with its slow FPS, I find that process more onerous because there are far fewer obvious fails.

I will enjoy the higher FPS again but that culling process will be much more time consuming. Hopefully I don't have the impulse to shoot at 20FPS very often.

I almost hope there is rolling shutter so I'm dissuaded from using it...almost

mccamli wrote in post #19095794
With the 7Dii I didn't mind the culling process, other than finding it disheartening, as there was so much stuff that wasn't good enough for my tastes and was easily binned, or at least mentally rejected.

However, with the R, even with its slow FPS, I find that process more onerous because there are far fewer obvious fails.

I will enjoy the higher FPS again but that culling process will be much more time consuming. Hopefully I don't have the impulse to shoot at 20FPS very often.

I almost hope there is rolling shutter so I'm dissuaded from using it...almost

I’m also looking forward to getting back to 7D2 level FPS.

digital paradise wrote in post #19095789
The only body out there that has eliminated rolling shutter distortion is the Sony A9 II. 20 fps is too much anyway. Imagine the culling after a days shooting.

Actually I shoot 16 to 20fps on my 1DX3 And for sports, wildlife and action it lets me capture the precise peak of action I am looking for. I love it and culling is very fast.

butterfly2937 wrote in post #19095846
Actually I shoot 16 to 20fps on my 1DX3 And for sports, wildlife and action it lets me capture the precise peak of action I am looking for. I love it and culling is very fast.

I guess I'll find out