Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Is that also why the ursa 12K forced arri to cut prices?

    JK. But I'm not sure arri is that vulnerable. Its user base is interested in IQ above all as well as compatibility with a pre-existing ecosystem of accessories that work with arri
    www.VideoAbe.com

    "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

    Comment


      When C300 came out, it became a staple on a lot of sets. And that was before the invention of the auto focus, which gives Canosonyc another edge in terms of production/workflow, even with a top focus puller.

      As to the image quality, I like the Alexa look as much as the next guy but a professional grader can massage the same out of a high bit rate Log, let alone Raw data. And, at some point, the differences between a downsampled 4K/6K/8K is more than the market needs anyway.

      PS. For the last year, Jared "Fro" Polin has been shooting his studio footage with R5 in 4K HQ and it looks as good as any Alexa. And much better the Camera Store/DP Review S1H. And, even if Alexa does look better to others, it's beyond the TV/monitor calibration for an average viewer. Looking great is more than good enough.

      Comment


        Originally posted by DLD View Post
        When C300 came out, it became a staple on a lot of sets. And that was before the invention of the auto focus, which gives Canosonyc another edge in terms of production/workflow, even with a top focus puller.
        Nah, because if they're using PL or large format cine lenses, they can't use PDAF anyway. I think there's a divergence of lens markets that would preclude the utility of Canon AF.

        As to the image quality, I like the Alexa look as much as the next guy but a professional grader can massage the same out of a high bit rate Log, let alone Raw data. And, at some point, the differences between a downsampled 4K/6K/8K is more than the market needs anyway.
        No, it's about dynamic range and color fidelity. Arri still has the best DR and the best color fidelity, especially at the edges of the exposure range.

        PS. For the last year, Jared "Fro" Polin has been shooting his studio footage with R5 in 4K HQ and it looks as good as any Alexa. And much better the Camera Store/DP Review S1H. And, even if Alexa does look better to others, it's beyond the TV/monitor calibration for an average viewer. Looking great is more than good enough.
        Polin was never shooting on Arri, so the camera he chooses is immaterial to the question of whether Arri users will begin using high-resolution Canon cameras

        EDIT: i think that canon 8K poses a much greater threat to RED. I've seen lots of RED users using EF lenses, and they obviously have a megapixel fetish
        Last edited by ahalpert; 08-20-2021, 07:26 AM.
        www.VideoAbe.com

        "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

        Comment


          A) Canon is working on a new generation of cine glass, similar to what Sony already did with their 16-35. It may not take the very top tier but it's good enough for a "TV quality" production. Just like Varicam LT was.

          B) There is enough DR in any dual gain sensor.

          C) Colors are malleable.

          D) The production companies and upper management are the one signing contracts on gear purchases and only a select group of directors and cinematographers has veto power over the gear on the set. And that group is getting smaller.

          E) All I said about Fro was that his studio footage shot on R5 looks gorgeous. And that will be good enough for 99.9999999999999% of the viewers.

          F) And I've been saying this about Red since I joined this site. ARRI is higher on the totem pole but are likely to face serious challenges from the top of the CanoSonycs, not in the $15,000-$25,000 range, but $25,000-$40,000.

          Comment


            While can’t say I understand all decisions camera companies make I’m amused at the opinions stated here. They seemed to be based on a very narrow view… I own camera x and I believe pricing and features should revolve around my specific needs.
            I often hear people over reacting to how a new camera will obsolete everything else. This seems to never be the case because as great a feature or new tech a camera might have, different segments in the industry have different needs. For example auto focus isn’t used in higher end cinema.

            Comment


              Canon R6 was delivered yesterday. Super swamped at work so didn't have any time to do much with it yet. I will say the cheap Viltrox adapter with my EF Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 worked flawlessly. Super fast stills AF and video AF works great. Something the Panasonic S adapters will never be able to do. Also bought a nifty fifty 50mm RF f1.8 Canon RF lens for $199. Are you listening Panasonic? Some of the RF zooms are around the same price as the L mount zooms but the point is Canon also provides more affordable options. Not to mention their so far 100% support of EF lenses.

              Will put it through a good workout this weekend but so far in my hand it feels like an amazing camera. Kind of reminds me of my GH4 in a way and feels like the natural progression from the GH4 in many ways. Except with amazing AF.

              Still waiting for a lens to match my Leica 25mm f1.4 on m43 but the 50mm f1.8 matches the FOV and thanks to the massively more sensitive sensor I think I'm good. Plus the Leica was never truly f1.4 in its light transmission. That was a bit of an exaggeration by marketing. Its actually much closer to f1.8 and not really 2/3 stops better. More like 1/2 or 1/3. My poor GH4 was painful at ISO 1600. The R6 can go up to ISO 12800 and still look better. So far it really is like the GH5 and GH5S had a baby who was bitten by a radioactive spider.

              I was concerned about the 20 MP sensor but I think it was the right balance between stills resolution and sensitivity. Besides 20 MP on a 3:2 sensor is over 5400 wide vs 5184 on the 4:3 GH5 sensor. Plus it beats the pants off of the 10MP stills from the GH5S. As nice as 32 MP was from the Canon M6 they were a bit too large. I think I will prefer the faster and easier to handle and store R6 stills.

              Going to pick up a Canon 70-300 EF lens for $200 as well to get me that little extra reach I had on APS-C or on the GH4 with the 14-140. Again are you listening Panasonic? Yeah it doesn't have OS and the AF is a bit slower but optically its pretty sound and thanks to the 8 stop IBIS on the R6 I'm not all that worried about OS for stills. For video on the R6 I can either use that lens or switch to APS-C mode or both. Eventually I will get a better super telephoto zoom like a 150-600 but for now this at least allows me to get the same reach I had before.



              With that said I'm still not ruling out a GH6. I will eventually need a second camera and right now I'm not sure I want to keep the GH4, P4k or M6 for that purpose. The P4k is great for video but will never be a second stills body or backup. The M6 can be a very good stills backup or tighter reach stills camera but the video is not going to be up to snuff compared to the R6. I would like to see it all now and if the GH6 is awesome get it to be my second hybrid camera. 2x extra reach when I need it in good light, good resolution stills and great video in good lighting or with the help of lights. Plus by sticking with EF lenses I can use them on both bodies. Ironically I'm likely going to keep the GH4. It doesn't have much resell value right now and its a killer webcam and at does good 4k video and decent resolution stills. If the R6 breaks or overheats at least I know with a light and some fast primes I will be good to go on the GH4 in a pinch. If the GH6 is not spectacular for the price then I might just get a G9 for a backup/second body.

              Comment


                Originally posted by DLD View Post
                A) Canon is working on a new generation of cine glass, similar to what Sony already did with their 16-35. It may not take the very top tier but it's good enough for a "TV quality" production. Just like Varicam LT was.

                B) There is enough DR in any dual gain sensor.

                C) Colors are malleable.

                D) The production companies and upper management are the one signing contracts on gear purchases and only a select group of directors and cinematographers has veto power over the gear on the set. And that group is getting smaller.

                E) All I said about Fro was that his studio footage shot on R5 looks gorgeous. And that will be good enough for 99.9999999999999% of the viewers.

                F) And I've been saying this about Red since I joined this site. ARRI is higher on the totem pole but are likely to face serious challenges from the top of the CanoSonycs, not in the $15,000-$25,000 range, but $25,000-$40,000.
                except for one important fact about the R5. It can only record 8k for like 2 minutes. Neat for a demo on YouTube but not very practical for a real production. With great care it could be used and external raw recording helps a ton now to the Ninja V+ but it may still run into limitations. I just can't see a high end production costing hundreds of thousands a day to sit back and wait a half an hour for the camera to cool down.

                As cool as the 8k is on the R5 its a bit ahead of its time. Thats why Panasonic will not do it yet. They tend to prefer stability and professional reliability.

                Comment


                  DLD... high-end production, even low-budget stuff, is really discerning about the technical capabilities of the equipment. the only reason venice gets love is because it cuts the mustard. if canon can cut the mustard, then fine.

                  i agree that anything shooting on a varicam lt is up for grabs. but anything shooting arri/monstro/venice won't be swayed unless you deliver a competitive product.

                  and yes, they care about the extra DR you can still get from the aforementioned cameras.

                  colors are not totally malleable. go shoot a scene with an 80 CRI LED and have fun grading it.

                  production companies want quality too. which includes IQ and reliability/compatibility with other tools... otherwise they could already be shooting on other stuff. the only compelling argument you're making here is that 8K will be a thing and they'll want to shoot on it. if Arri comes out with an 8K camera, then I see no advantage to canon whatsoever.

                  even if canon produces a $100K set of primes, it's still only one look. people choose different glass for different occasions. I'm not sure how much Canon lenses are used right now outside the corporate world.

                  look at what people used to shoot sundance: https://www.indiewire.com/2020/01/su...ns-1202204356/

                  many of those films were not even shot in 4K...why would they feel a compulsion to shoot in 8K. and most of these are low-budget films or they would already have distribution. anyone shooting for studios and streamers will have more options, not less

                  anything can look gorgeous in a studio setting...

                  VENICE is $42k body only. Arri MILF basic camera set is $58k. So, at those prices, you're not even talking about massive undercutting. <30%
                  www.VideoAbe.com

                  "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." -Harvey

                  Comment


                    DLD's been saying that about ARRI for years...just not happening because half of the decisions out there to use their cameras are by default, like catering.

                    It's not thought about. Especially saving $20K or what not for something a bit cheaper.

                    Too well-known, too good, too powerful until something really, really, really amazing comes along and changes life.

                    Comment


                      Because its never been just about resolution. If it were everything would have been replaced by the BMD 12k camera by now.

                      ARRi is used because it offers an aesthetic no other camera can match. Its organic and closer to film than any other digital camera. Its a camera that strives for beauty first and detail second. Specs are not always everything and productions can be hard on equipment. Reliability matters just as much as anything else.

                      RED is nice and kind of dominates Netflix production but its always had a more clinical look to me. I always greatly preferred the Varicam to Red. To me even full V-log is more like Arri log. Panasonic really did something right with the Varicam. Just too bad they had to limit their S series cameras with the L mount. There was a lot of potential there to be truly amazing DSLR form factor cinema cameras.

                      With that said A S1H with EF fully manual cine glass is pretty darn amazing even if its just 4k internal or 6k external. 8k is neat on the Canon R5 but not with all the compromises it comes with. To me its kind of one notch up from shooting raw time-lapse on a DSLR and calling it a raw video camera.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                        DLD's been saying that about ARRI for years...just not happening because half of the decisions out there to use their cameras are by default, like catering.
                        Actually, Red forced ARRI into both the Minis and the LF - the first one was due to ARRI losing sales in smaller size units; the other in the NETFLIX type streaming business that wanted 4K. A totally professional response by ARRI to the changing market conditions.

                        Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                        Too well-known, too good, too powerful until something really, really, really amazing comes along and changes life.
                        ARRI makes great product. The next generation Canon and Sony are likely to be great enough. In other words, if one can't tell with a naked eye, a $20,000 camera is as good as a $100,000 camera. The NAB is in October. Let's see what's announced and demoed there.

                        PS. Of course, many pros peed and pooped on digital for a long time - primarily because it wasn't as good as film. Which it wasn't on the image quality alone. But it was on workflow and lighting. Now, it's far better on lighting and even better on res (IMAX aside). And the workflow improvements are incredible.

                        Comment


                          RED didn't force ARRI to do anything; they would have made a 4K camera, and a smaller one, eventually.

                          They knew the Hollywood business that mattered to them better than anyone (not forum nerds), and knew they didn't have to rush one.

                          Comment


                            Shot ISO 25600 on the Canon R6 the other night just to see what it could do. Its insane how clean it is.

                            Couple of annoyances so far. Not as many scopes and you can't use zebras and focus peaking at the same time. Kind of lame for gun&gun where manual focus and exposure can change over time. Also its either fully automatic video or fully manual with the only option to automatically adjust exposure the ISO when in full manual. No ability to auto adjust aperture to compensate for changes in cloud cover. Lame. The same was true on the Canon M6 mk2 so I kind of expected that.

                            Coming from a P4k its tough to suddenly lose so many exposure tools and options.

                            c.log3 with the latest firmware is amazing compared to V-log L. Can't load luts on the R6 either but its video assist perfectly corrects the two log modes to make shooting by eye with log 100% easy and accurate. There is a potential for some noise in the shadows with c.log3 but its very manageable so far. Coming from a GH4 I find log to suddenly be easy to use and a no brainer. Not to mention Canon LUTs accurate to the different levels of c.log.

                            Whats interesting is even with c.log3 the R6 likely does about 12 stops of DR. After years of the GH5 getting criticized for 12 stops its funny to see Canon users get all excited about 12 stops. We apparently didn't really have it that bad after all. I am also amazed at just what tools we get out of the box with the GH5. Even my GH4 has more video tools than the R6 does right now and thats kind of sad. Does not hurt my desire to use the R6 at all but its just interesting how much value even a GH5 can still have.

                            Low light of course is absolutely no comparison. The R6 is in a totally different league. With that said I actually kind of miss the deeper DOF of m43 at times. Shooting f1.8 on FF means a head is never 100% in focus. I have to stop down a lot which then means raising the ISO more. Just something I have to get used to. Getting a deeper DOF when I do want it just seems harder now. With that said lenses tend to look better stopped down to f4 or f5.6 so overall maybe it will be a good thing. For portrait stills its totally fine having a super razor thin DOF because we only need to capture that single moment and it becomes more of a fantasy. Video is a bit different and I still kind of prefer m43 or s35mm for that. Again something I need to try to get used to. I guess I have used m43 for a really long time and to me thats kind of a norm. On the plus side the 4k video detail is insane and I likely could use the APS-C crop mode for video for really good results

                            If one only shoots video I still think the GH5S is a tremendous camera for this reason. Minus the awesome DPAF of course. If Panasonic could make the GH5S with IBIS and DPAF it would be a gold standard for video.

                            DPAF really is a game changer on the R6. I never imagined AF could be this good. It may actually focus better than I do manually. Even better than it was on the M6 MK2 which was already amazing.

                            Adapted some old Canon FD primes I have sitting around here. Kind of amazing finally seeing those lenses in their full FF capacity. They looked good on m43 but were always at a detail disadvantage since the glass isn't all that sharp for a crop sensor. They have suddenly taken on a whole new meaning which explains why its hard finding FD lenses out there anymore. The Canon FD 28mm f2.8 is stunning on the R6 wide open. Love that its finally a wide angle and optically using everything it provides.

                            Comment


                              FWIW, in a given class, Sony sensors have long been a notch or two above Canon's (or anyone else's for that matter, since this is a two horse race).

                              As to the various features, Canon has released several firmware updates, so maybe yours isn't the latest one.

                              PS. And, yes, Red forced ARRI into a Mini. And 4K too.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by DLD View Post
                                FWIW, in a given class, Sony sensors have long been a notch or two above Canon's (or anyone else's for that matter, since this is a two horse race).

                                As to the various features, Canon has released several firmware updates, so maybe yours isn't the latest one.

                                PS. And, yes, Red forced ARRI into a Mini. And 4K too.
                                Sony sensors may or may not have been a notch better in terms of DR but the 8bit recording limits that DR potential. In practice I don't think the log DR yielded as much as it could have. Maybe that is better now with the two cameras Sony has decided not to hobble with 8 bit only. I personally have never found 8bit Sony to have a significant DR advantage over 12 stops. Depends who you ask of course and how its measured. The A7S may have seemed to have an extra stop thanks to its lower noise floor but that all comes down to how one interprets noise and defines it as acceptable.

                                A lot of online reviews measure the DR potential of raw stills from the sensor and not the crippled 8bit video recording. Slog3 is rather dangerous and fragile to use on 8bit Sony and far from a professional reliable solution. Too much potential for artifacts. I know some video reviewers will make excuses for Sony and claim 10bit has no advantage over 8bit but they almost always use a very flawed method to come to that conclusion and really don't understand what's going on.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X