Canon R6 mk2

Thomas Smet said:
In my opinion Sony is getting a bit dull now. Not much to really get excited about. The A7S is getting a bit old and can only shoot 4k with no over sampling. The whole shooting by only moonlight craze is finally starting to come back down to reality that the sensor is not as sensitive as we thought in practical terms. The R6 easily holds its own in the realistic usable ISO range and has over sampling. The A7IV is just an average me to 4k camera to be honest. Nothing really stand out. Still the lame FF 4k 60p crop only limitations. Sony took forever to add 10bit as well. For years Sony fans said 10bit wasn't a big deal and a gimmick. Now suddenly its important. I always found it unacceptable that such a wide DR log format was being used on a 8bit video format.

Canon despite their flaws has some exciting features right now. The only FF 4k 60p over sampled option out there on the R6 and R6 mk2. The only FF 8k option out there and for years the only 8k DSLR out there. The R5C is the only 8k 60p option out there which is crazy. It took Canon awhile to get here but they are finally doing not only respectable 4k video but some standout 4k and higher video capabilities as well. On the external raw side the R6 mk2 provides the highest resolution at 60p besides the R5C and cinema cameras. On the APSC side the Canon R7 is a really hot camera right now. Even for photos it routinely beats out the older Canon FF RF mount cameras like the R and RP. It's a very impressive photo and video camera for a APSC option. Canon typically really hobbles its APSC option but this time they made the R7 really standout in a competitive market. The beauty off the R7 is it can use the same EF and Rf lenses as the R6 and R5 making it a great compliment to the system. Fuji is king when it comes to APSC but they have no FF options so one is stuck at APSC forever. Sony has good APSC and FF options but again rather stagnant in the industry the last couple of years. I really think Sony is starting to run out of gas. They only reason they achieved some of the marketshare that they did on the video side was because of Canon being slow to go mirrorless and having a few hiccups along the way. Like the Canon M mount and the laughable 4k video support on the R and RP. Now that Canon is in the same weight class as Sony I don't think Sony will be seen in the same innovative way as it was the past four-five years. I think this is why Sony really wanted to add 3rd party lens support. They really need it because besides that wide lens support right now there isn't a whole lot excitement going on. Seriously the most excitement I have seen on the Sony side has been Tamron lenses. I can't recall the last decent lens Sony themselves have made.

Sony needs to do a heck of a lot more than the A7IV to wow people now. I think many have moved on beyond the A7S series as well and will desire more than just 1:1 4k in the future. Not that there is anything wrong with it but the R6 at 20MP already struggled in the industry in terms of perception of being lower quality because of the lower MP. 12MP is going to really struggle to be taken seriously going forward. I just don't think there are enough video only people who insist on shooting. with absolutely no lights to justify keeping the model around forever. Plus the whole 1:1 sensitivity theory is not as sound as it once was. Many are now finding its actually better to capture more pixels and scale it down which hides a lot of noise. Plus despite how clean ISO 12,800 or 25,600 may look on a camera it's still a destructive impact on the image quality and should only be used in certain situations. Just because it's there doesn't mean it should be the norm. I rarely shoot over ISO 3,200 even on the R6 even though it's really clean. Just too much other damage taking place.

Fuji is really the only camera company wowing people right now. Canon in second place. Sony is just as boring as m43 right now is terms of a "holy crap I have to have that"
Click to expand...

You know I have a limit for reading long posts but I read it all. lol

In short, I am a Canon guy but I cannot agree with a lot of that above.

Normally I'd dissect in different ways but I'm too lazy right now...and the only thing I'll address is that Sony lens comment; that is an insane thought because Sony has made like 20 amazing lenses in the last 5 years. And many more affordable ones than the slow RF options Canon offers as their budget glass (only recently they added a few more decent, faster ones).

We have to keep our feelings/brand loyalty out of it and Sony is not dull. They have a lot of very interesting options and repeatedly beat Canon for years on best bang for buck cameras.

I have a R10 (R7's little bro), it's great.

Also, a7SIII's sensor is younger than the R5's and R6's recycled sensor (although processing/etc. presumably approves with each newer generation/model).
 
Thomas Smet said:
The A1 can also only do external 4.3k raw which is a crop vs the R5 at 1/2 the cost which can do 8k FF external raw. A1 is limited to UHD 8k at 7680 while the R5 and R5C support DCI 8k and 4k. The A1 may have a bit more DR but in almost every other spec is not providing as much as the R5 does for $3,600.
Click to expand...

Nobody gives a **** about 8K.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Thats also a $6,500 camera vs a $2,500 camera. In an industry where many already struggle to pay $2,500 for a camera it's unheard of to consider a $6,500 camera. It's not even remotely a consideration for 99% of those looking for a professional camera. .
Click to expand...

You are out of your mind, or maybe you just run with a really low-end crowd if you think $6500 is too much for a camera. Get real.
If an extra $4K is too much for a "professional", they are on the verge of working at Wafle House anyway. My advice to them is to quit now, and get started on their new career in the art of pancake making or burger flipping. The sooner the better.

$6500 is too much -- but they gotta have 8K RAW!!! Ridiculous priorities. It's no wonder so many people try, and fail, to make it in this business.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
Sony is just as boring as m43 right now is terms of a "holy crap I have to have that"
Click to expand...

That attitude says it all right there. Strip away everything I own except for my my 8 year old FS7 and I'll make more income that someone else will with their fancy new mirrorless camera. It's not about the camera and you don't need to be chasing the latest, hottest, model. That is a recipe for failure.

There's a sucker born every minute, and the manufacturers know how to get certain people all excited and think that their success just comes down to having the right camera. That's all it is. Just buy the hot new camera with the most resolution and dynamic range, and you're set for life until the next camera comes out 6 months later and you can blame your lack of income on the fact that you don't have it yet. Suckers.
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
You are out of your mind, or maybe you just run with a really low-end crowd if you think $6500 is too much for a camera. Get real.
If an extra $4K is too much for a "professional", they are on the verge of working at Wafle House anyway. My advice to them is to quit now, and get started on their new career in the art of pancake making or burger flipping. The sooner the better.

$6500 is too much -- but they gotta have 8K RAW!!! Ridiculous priorities. It's no wonder so many people try, and fail, to make it in this business.
Click to expand...

Some people do think $6,500 is too much. I'm not one of them but the reality is the majority of people that buy cameras for some level of video work will not buy anywhere close to a $6,500 camera. You need to accept that as a reality. While its fine for you to spend that much statistically that is not true of a lot of people. You are taking a rather arrogant position that only you matter and only your level of approach to camera purchases matter and everyone else should just give up.

Like it or not but your view is not the norm. Maybe that makes you superior and more profitable than others. I'm not about to turn this into a peeing contest of who earns more. I frankly don't care what you earn. The reality based on input from many different industries is that there is a threshold of how much people will spend. You said it yourself the camera doesn't matter as much which is precisely my point. If one can't earn a very lucrative living with a lot of the cameras we have now then a $6,500 camera isn't going to suddenly change that.

You pointed our a rather simple statement that the A1 is better than anything Canon provides and I'm just not going to agree with that because its not true. You are also comparing two very different price tier cameras which is rather ridiculous. I'm not saying at all the A1 isn't a great camera. I'm sure it is. I just don't think it's worth $6,500 is all. I know about a few dozen people that have bought a R5 and you may be the first I have ever known to buy a A1. Maybe that makes the others inferior to your might and skill. Maybe it makes them smarter since they can earn just as much money as you do. The cost of the camera we buy have zero reflection on how much we earn. I know Youtube personalities using a $1,500 camera that earn over a million a year. Buying a $100,000 camera isn't goign to chnage that at all for them. What they earn will be the same.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Nobody gives a **** about 8K.
Click to expand...

Yet the Sony A1 has 8k. I don't really care about 8k either but I find it interesting you preach about being superior to everyone else like you are some kind of God and yet say things like nobody cares about 8k. You don't get to make that call for others. You are not the gatekeeper of what cameras should be.

Part of what makes that A1 so special for you is the fact that it has a 8k over sampled sensor for a much better 4k delivery. So while you may not care about 8k as a delivery format you are benefitting from that sensor. Plus that sensor is only capable of 8k 30 readout. Meaning some trick like pixel binning is likely being used to get 4k 60p and 4k 120p off that sensor. Thats not over sampled 4k 60p. It's pixel binned with more potential more moire or aliasing. Just like the 4k 60p from the R5. It can only do over sampled 4k 60p or higher from a crop. The A1 uses a 4.3k pixel binned image for its 4k video. So my first statement about Canon providing the only FF over sampled full sensor 4k 60p or higher still stands.

So what specifically were you tryign to ask me about never hearing about the A1? About the 8k which you think doesn't matter or the over sampled 4k 60p which actually isn't true at all. Pixel binning is not over sampling.
 
NorBro said:
You know I have a limit for reading long posts but I read it all. lol

In short, I am a Canon guy but I cannot agree with a lot of that above.

Normally I'd dissect in different ways but I'm too lazy right now...and the only thing I'll address is that Sony lens comment; that is an insane thought because Sony has made like 20 amazing lenses in the last 5 years. And many more affordable ones than the slow RF options Canon offers as their budget glass (only recently they added a few more decent, faster ones).

We have to keep our feelings/brand loyalty out of it and Sony is not dull. They have a lot of very interesting options and repeatedly beat Canon for years on best bang for buck cameras.

I have a R10 (R7's little bro), it's great.

Also, a7SIII's sensor is younger than the R5's and R6's recycled sensor (although processing/etc. presumably approves with each newer generation/model).
Click to expand...

I'm not loyal to Canon at all. After leaving Panasonic I'm not loyal to anyone anymore. If Sony made something superior I would move very quickly. Pretty sure I can easily sell off Canon RF lenses if I need to.

I'm not saying they have not made any good lenses. I'm saying they haven't made anything recently that has wowed me. Maybe it has wowed you but the only lenses I have been really excited about for the Sony E mount have come from Tamron. Part of that is not wanting to buy the brand name expensive lenses for the same reason I don't want to buy the Canon RF f2.8 zooms. I still use Tamron f2.8 EF zooms on my R6.

I mainly just feel Sony has not made any wow cameras for some time. Yes better than what Canon had previously but I'm not sure thats true anymore. I was never a fan of the A7S concept. Same reason why I never liked the GH5S. Just didn't make sense as a hybrid camera. If one wants that level of sensor readout they should just get a cinema camera.

I don't have a problem with Sony at all. I was this close to buying Sony instead. I might still if they create a body that better fits my needs. I really like the FX3 and the FX30. If I had t switch today those would likely be the cameras I moved to. I would also likely buy a lot more 3rd party lenses vs paying Sony prices. Again I'm not saying they are not good. Just that nothing from Sony has wowed me for a long time. Nothing really wowed me from Canon either but they had the over sampled 4k60 thing and affordable 10bit recording. At the time the only Sony cameras with 10bit were the A7S and the A1. I really hope Sony does more. Canon needs some healthy competition. I'm also really glad Canon up its game so Sony has some healthy competition.

I may even move back to APSC. I like telephoto and FF rather sucks for telephoto. There is also such a thing as too shallow DOF. I don't like having to shoot at ISO 3200 or 6400 just to stop the lens down enough to get my subjects in focus. Kind of defeats the whole point really. Not everyone wants to see a face in a portion of a photo and everything else out of focus. People like to remember where they were and what they were doing. I'm not really sold on FF yet and I'm not sure I ever will. My choice is now the R7 or switch to Sony for the FX30 or go Fuji which does wow me.
 
If and when you have a chance (and are interested), show me/us some oversampled 4K/60p footage that you think looks nice.

I'd like to see if I can tell the difference on YouTube. I'll check myself from time to time but you mentioned specifically the oversampling 4K/60p like 11x so I want to see something you like.

I'm all for specs, but sometimes the results just do the talking for themselves without numbers and letters, and 4K/60p from a Pocket's MFT sensor looks better to me than 99% of Japan's tools.

___

If you move back to APSC and consider Sony and Sony lenses, they released two new nice wider lenses a couple of months ago:

11mm --> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._1_8_lens.html

15mm --> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...m_f_1_4_g.html
 
Thomas Smet said:
Having a beer instead.
Click to expand...
That's good.

I still haven't purchase a mirrorless after all these years. I'd like to either get the FX30 or A74. I do a number of behind the scenes videos interviews for a dance studio. It be nice to have something small enough to gimbal, film in existing light or give me shallow dof for interviews where the background isn't great. But I'm aware business wise it won't make me more money unless it gives me a better reel and I want to pursue more of that type of work.
 
That encounter here isn't that much different than others in other threads, I'd even say it's pretty mild, lol
 
As ive been struggling with jello on the r6 i wonder if the r7 is better - small sensors seem to have less jello - the trade in loss might be less

dashionably the same chip size as the arri 35 :)
 
morgan_moore said:
As ive been struggling with jello on the r6 i wonder if the r7 is better - small sensors seem to have less jello - the trade in loss might be less

dashionably the same chip size as the arri 35 :)
Click to expand...

The R6 mk2 has a rolling shutter speed almost twice as fast for video. R6 was around 30ms and the mk2 is now around 17ms for even 24p which is a very good value for a FF camera.

By comparison the Sony A7 IV is around 27ms and the Panasonic S5 is around 22ms.

Thats for the full sensor readout on all cameras. If rolling shutter is a concern the R6 mk2 is pretty darn good in the FF world. Smaller sensors tend to be faster if they are well made. While the R7 should be faster it's also a cheaper sensor and Canon likely didn't make it as fast as they could have. Plus its a 32MP sensor so a full readout is a ton of pixels.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top