Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81415161718192021 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 203
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    197
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    FWIW, I can say after my experience with the Fringer Pro and the XT-3 using EF lenses, I don't like adapters.
    I don't like the added weight (definitely noticeable on a tiny camera like the XT-3), length it adds to using an
    EF lens on the Fuji or the way it works. I'm sure an RF to EF adapter would function well on a Canon camera
    with Canon lenses but still, adapters are not that great IMHO. I had the Metabones adapter for my GH4 and hated it too compared to native M43 lenses.
    I hate adapters, too. Been on some projects where FW between Metabones & Canon glass on Sony bodies got in the way. I also had a Canon M5 for a while and using EF glass on that was a pain. Lenses were simply too big for the very small body.

    That said, the Canon adapter on the R is seamless. It's like it's not even there. The ND adapter is also incredible for video. I have had the R for about a year and never thought twice about the adapter, still haven't purchased a RF lens.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member cpreston's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,319
    Default
    I have an EOS R as a gimbal camera and I mostly use EF lenses other than the 35mm f/1.8 stm RF that I just picked up. The RF EF adapters act like solid extensions of the camera. It isn't the same as using a metabones and I don't think the average user would have the concern of "Oh, but I would have to use an adapter and I don't like that." The RF amount also allows the addition of the control ring, polarizer, or any other specialty filter that you might want to create in front of the sensor when using ef lenses. The RF mount also allows more classic SLR mount types to be adapted to the camera. The primary upside is that the new RF lenses are significantly better than the ef lenses. I am sure the reason for the lack of an RF mount option is due to the current mechanical ND filter design, but I am also sure that most people would ultimately end up getting the RF mount adapter for the camera even if they were mostly using ef lenses.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member indiawilds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    New Delhi, India
    Posts
    1,287
    Default
    I am fine with EF as of now. Have tons of lenses. RF range is limited to a few wide zooms. 70-200 is not yet out. It will take years to build a good breadth of RF lenses. Till then lets enjoy or EF glass.

    C500 Mark II is fine. However, the cost of mounts is a bitter pill to swallow. Nevertheless, if a person who is getting regular jobs in cinema shoots with PL glass, he won't mind. Good thing is this is a camera you can take and build up depending on your need. You don't need to run to the service centre to change mounts and refuse jobs. There are lot of positives.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member cpreston's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,319
    Default
    I have the full range of ef zooms, but I would also be willing to spend some money on a full frame f/2.8 24-70mm parfocal zoom with IS, AF. and the ability to seamlessly ramp the aperture. I would even probably spring for the 15-35mm.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,905
    Default
    A decent piece on Canon RF-mount lens roadmap and the currently available lineup.

    https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/f...f-lens-roadmap

    The problem for Canon is in the sub-$3,000 market where C100 MKII is long in the tooth but the real question is whether Canon wants a Cinema line in that price range anyway or whether it will be happy with a EOS R doing its jack-of-all-trades thing.

    If they go above $3,000-$4,000, then they're risking C200 sales. IMO, it'd make more sense for them to just keep lowering the C200 price, as they had done with C100/300/500 units over their respective cycles.

    Then C500 MKII could fit into a $10,000-$13,000 range in a couple of years (preorders seem to be strong, the reviews have been good).

    With Sony occupying the $10,000 slot with FX-9, the room for Canon is in the $25,000 territory. Which is where an 8K camera would fit nicely. That should come around 2022. Which is, as IantheM noted, two years from now.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    9,871
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DLD View Post
    A decent piece on Canon RF-mount lens roadmap and the currently available lineup.

    https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/f...f-lens-roadmap

    The problem for Canon is in the sub-$3,000 market where C100 MKII is long in the tooth but the real question is whether Canon wants a Cinema line in that price range anyway or whether it will be happy with a EOS R doing its jack-of-all-trades thing.

    If they go above $3,000-$4,000, then they're risking C200 sales. IMO, it'd make more sense for them to just keep lowering the C200 price, as they had done with C100/300/500 units over their respective cycles.

    Then C500 MKII could fit into a $10,000-$13,000 range in a couple of years (preorders seem to be strong, the reviews have been good).

    With Sony occupying the $10,000 slot with FX-9, the room for Canon is in the $25,000 territory. Which is where an 8K camera would fit nicely. That should come around 2022. Which is, as IantheM noted, two years from now.
    Unless they execute at a much higher level and don't think within just the Canon bubble, then a $25k Canon isn't sounding very appealing.
    The C700/FF has been a resounding flop, it didnt make any headway into episodic TV or features where Canon intended it to. I don't think they
    listened to enough users of REDs and Arris about what they want in a crew serviced production camera, they just buried their heads in the sand
    and made it in a bubble, which is why it flopped.

    I must agree with Eric, the camera should have produced an image considerably better than the C300 MKII and in the end, it ended up looking
    just slightly better, plus it was too long and heavy for a lot of uses. I shot tests with it and it had some cool things I liked like the locking EF mount,
    the EVF is excellent, having DPAF on a relatively high end production camera was unique, built-in Prores wasn't bad. But users at that level aren't
    going to want to shell out for the Codex workflow, which is great but expensive for a non episodic, non feature user.

    If you look at it from that POV, the C500 MKII is actually a pretty well executed camera and I have a feeling it's going to do well. Not sure if it will
    do as well as the C300 MKII did at it's intro or in it's heyday, but there is a lot to like about it and $16K isn't really a bad price for what it offers. A little high
    but if you look at users at that level, $3-$4k isn't much. But the FX9, depending on the color science and other features at $5K less could steal Canon's thunder.
    Last edited by puredrifting; 09-07-2019 at 12:57 PM.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,905
    Default
    C700/FF was trying to encroach onto the Alexa territory without speaking Tcherman. A full frame 8K C900 - I already picked the name - for $25,000 would be far, far below Alexa or Monstro price-wise.

    It might help if Canon modded its 20-70 F2 for the cinematic purpose or, at least, provided some sort of a rocker zoom function for it. Nonetheless, a C500 MKII shape and weight + DPAF + 8K + reasonable price just might move some units.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Eric Coughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,023
    Default
    Except a lot of people prefer 6K or 4K over 8K even at the high end. In order for Canon to ever really compete at the high end, they'd need to come out with a new sensor with better image quality.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,148
    Default
    Exactly...and not just Canon. If others did the same (besides RED) 5-10 years ago even at 2K and the image-quality looked Hollywood-good then things may have been different.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,905
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Coughlin View Post
    Except a lot of people prefer 6K or 4K over 8K even at the high end. In order for Canon to ever really compete at the high end, they'd need to come out with a new sensor with better image quality.
    That too ... but ... $25,000 would be a "medium" range of the pro cameras, given that Alexa LF/Mini LF can run over $100,000 per shooting package. And then you begin to deliberate whether you want 8K for $25,000 or 4.5K for a $100,000 and if there's a finite end to the universe and so on ...


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81415161718192021 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •