Some get a very short male hdmi to female hdmi connector and clamp that to the camera saving the camera port from being overused and connection / disconnection is fast and easy.
Canon R6 mk2
- Thread starter Thomas Smet
- Start date
Some get a very short male hdmi to female hdmi connector and clamp that to the camera saving the camera port from being overused and connection / disconnection is fast and easy.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
For sure.
but when you lose vision is it..
monitor setting
camera setting
broken camera port
broken lead camera end
broken kead monitor end
broken monitor port??
..you get idea - the failure chain is already too long before adding hop leads
ive used hop leads to protect the ports but it is hard
but when you lose vision is it..
monitor setting
camera setting
broken camera port
broken lead camera end
broken kead monitor end
broken monitor port??
..you get idea - the failure chain is already too long before adding hop leads
ive used hop leads to protect the ports but it is hard
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Grug
Veteran
What these mirrorless cameras really need, is for the HDMI port to be mounted vertically, on top of the camera.
It's the only way to really keep it out of the way if you're shooting video with them.
I now have a bunch of right angle HDMI adapter, which I've paired with HDMI cable clamps, in order to get moderately safe cabling going for my FX3 (when it's being used as a B-cam).
It's the only way to really keep it out of the way if you're shooting video with them.
I now have a bunch of right angle HDMI adapter, which I've paired with HDMI cable clamps, in order to get moderately safe cabling going for my FX3 (when it's being used as a B-cam).
Bassman2003
Veteran
The reds, greens and whites look pretty different. The upper shot looks more expensive to me.
I am kind of happy I moved on from Canon. It seems most of the conversations around the company relate to how much they left out rather than being excited about what they put in. After owning the Sony's for a year, I can get the look I want out of them which the main thing I care about and was concerned with. I would have liked to stay in the Canon world but it just is not in the cards for me.
I am kind of happy I moved on from Canon. It seems most of the conversations around the company relate to how much they left out rather than being excited about what they put in. After owning the Sony's for a year, I can get the look I want out of them which the main thing I care about and was concerned with. I would have liked to stay in the Canon world but it just is not in the cards for me.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The top is the “expensive” c200 - my chum prefers the pop of the bottom one - I think i like the top
overall i think either could grade to the other and the r6 is not a toy
overall i think either could grade to the other and the r6 is not a toy
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I agree it's frustrating for some. I say this as one using Tamron f2.8 zooms so yeah I'm in the 3rd party lens camp. I just see EF as a current and perfectly supported solution for that right now. I was actually considering getting some of the more affordable RF AF lenses but I just didn't feel they handled;ed electronic controls las well. Even if it was accurate I heard they were loud and not the best options for video. I think Tamron and Sigma have matured greatly but I don't really trust any of the new players. Not yet at least. Full manual is fine but when it comes to electronic control I kind of want a major player that knows what they are doing.
I do feel like eventually we will get Tamron and Sigma RF lenses. I think we don't know the full story behind that one yet. Just a lot of speculation stemmed from slapping Viltrox and others on the wrist. Canon didn't go after Viltrox for just making RF electronic lenses but how Viltrox copied their IP and copied the code to make it work. As far as I know Canon never sued Tamron or Sigma for learning how to support the EF mount. I think under mutual agreements we could eventually see Sigma and Tamron lenses.
I keep my eye on the new players but right now they are just too new, too unknown and we don't know what level of support they will provide in the future in terms of new products or firmware updates. I had a Viltrox EF to m43 adapter and its electronic support was hit or miss compared to Meatbones. There firmware updates were rather sketchy as well. So right now I just don't trust they have the same level of support as Canon does. I don't even think they are as good on EF bodies with their EF options.
So I'm not really concerned about Canon and their position with companies like Viltrox. I'm only really concerned what happens with Sigma and Tamron. I think we have yet to learn how that will play out.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I linked t0 an adapter that works well clamped to the camera. Allows hot plugging HDMI cables all you want. Yes another point of failure but if the adapter is clamped into place it should rarely be an issue. I would personally advise against constantly removing micro HDMI. Just the act of constantly swapping could hurt that darn port. Best to add in an adapter and leave it be stable.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
the thing is this is not what i use my r6 for... I dont think.
I have c200, zcam, bmc micro fs7 .. all solid little cams with large hdmi and or sdi
the r6 is for bts, and im not sure what. that where is currently sits in my arsenal. i think.
on pro shoots? an unattended second angle, on the movi maybe (on a small shoot with no 2nd op)
-----
as for lens control. At the end of the fs7 I knew i would have to get into AF glass - canon or sony
I bet on canon. Id not expect any third party glass to keep up with updates.
i did buy an 18-35 1.8 stigma though as it seems too good to miss on the c200 but basically im in on canon own brand glass for the rest of my time!
I have c200, zcam, bmc micro fs7 .. all solid little cams with large hdmi and or sdi
the r6 is for bts, and im not sure what. that where is currently sits in my arsenal. i think.
on pro shoots? an unattended second angle, on the movi maybe (on a small shoot with no 2nd op)
-----
as for lens control. At the end of the fs7 I knew i would have to get into AF glass - canon or sony
I bet on canon. Id not expect any third party glass to keep up with updates.
i did buy an 18-35 1.8 stigma though as it seems too good to miss on the c200 but basically im in on canon own brand glass for the rest of my time!
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Technically they did with the R6 mk2 with the external 6k raw support. Should remove all processing and give a pretty pure video vs what it records internally. We shall see what that looks like in about a month when Atomos releases their update to support raw from the R6 mk2. I have seen raw comparisons between the C200 and R5 that were really impressive. Hoping the same will be true of an unprocessed raw from the R6 mk2. 6k 60p raw from a $2,500 will be very nice.
Its in a rather unique position as well.
External raw from Nikon FF is limited to 4k.
External raw from Panasonic FF is 5.9k but only for up to 30p. Higher frame rates are limited to a crop at 4.1k.
External raw from Sony FF is limited to 4k from the A7S or 4.3k from the Alpha 1.
Canon has the only current options for 60p raw at a higher than 4k full sensor resolution with no crop. The R5C at 8k60 or the new R6 mk2 at 6k60. The regular R5 has a s35mm crop for 5k60 raw which is still very nice.
Smaller sensor cameras have larger 60p raw but they are not FF. Sony FX30 at 4.3k and Fuji XH2S at 4.8k for APSC options. Even they do not manage 6k 60p external raw. The GH6 manages 5.7k up to 60p but thats m43 and I'm not sure I can ever go back to m43.
60p isn't for everyone but its nice to see a real 6k60 raw option out there now. Especially for FF. The R6 mk2 can still overheat with 60p after about 40 minutes but for those that would like 6k60p for slow motion thats more than enough.
NorBro
Major Contributor
It won't look like anything special and barely anyone bothers with external RAW. Everyone who may actually truly need RAW is using a real RAW camera and recording internally.
And those who don't are mostly satisfied with other internal high-quality formats.
I mean, it's cool to have and what not, but IMO external RAW recording is mostly a gimmick and only one business is trying to capitalize on it as much as possible until the patents run out in a few years which then everyone will go absolutely nuts with more internal RAW recording options.
Canon R3 shoots full-frame 6K/60p RAW internally.
And those who don't are mostly satisfied with other internal high-quality formats.
I mean, it's cool to have and what not, but IMO external RAW recording is mostly a gimmick and only one business is trying to capitalize on it as much as possible until the patents run out in a few years which then everyone will go absolutely nuts with more internal RAW recording options.
Canon R3 shoots full-frame 6K/60p RAW internally.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
YES! You hit the nail on the head. I agree completely.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Thank you, and I'll add that if it did provide some noticeable improvement in quality, like really noticeable where we could all see the difference immediately then it would be worth considering, but year-after-year, mirrorless-after-mirrorless (I've lost count how many now offer external ProRes RAW), nothing has changed.
Maybe eventually external recording on a stills camera that shoots video will be worth it, but it definitely isn't now, at least in its current form.
Maybe eventually external recording on a stills camera that shoots video will be worth it, but it definitely isn't now, at least in its current form.
Teddy_Dem
Well-known member
The funny thing about the "external RAW revolution" is that it arrived at just about the same time as we received internal 10-bit 4:2:2 codecs across the board from the major camera manufacturers. And I guess what most are realizing is that the 10-bit 4:2:2 is good enough for ~ 95% of what you would typically shoot with a mirrorless camera.
NorBro
Major Contributor
By 2020, RAW marketing didn't carry the same weight to me that it once did because everyone was creating their own proprietary, in-house formats and call it some kind of RAW.
Cinema RAW Light, Blackmagic RAW, ZRAW, KineRAW, ProRes RAW, N-RAW (Nikon), X-OCN?...
I always said it...it's REDCODE RAW or nothing, the best.
Cinema RAW Light, Blackmagic RAW, ZRAW, KineRAW, ProRes RAW, N-RAW (Nikon), X-OCN?...
I always said it...it's REDCODE RAW or nothing, the best.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
As this thread has been going on ive been learning my R6 a bit more.
I thought I would try an HDMI tail to get a monitor going (not just slag off everyone elses ideas!)
This reminded me that for the R6 using a monitor disables the screen (and therefore touch AF et al) unless one is recording externally.
My thinking therefore that 'the r6 does not support a monitor' is the best approach.
If you want a monitor, get a different cam (like the c200)
Im not sure if this idiocy continues to the r62
I thought I would try an HDMI tail to get a monitor going (not just slag off everyone elses ideas!)
This reminded me that for the R6 using a monitor disables the screen (and therefore touch AF et al) unless one is recording externally.
My thinking therefore that 'the r6 does not support a monitor' is the best approach.
If you want a monitor, get a different cam (like the c200)
Im not sure if this idiocy continues to the r62
Attachments
Clermond
Veteran
really?it works fine on the R5 and it’s the first time I hear this about the R6.
I can’t imagine that even with Canon’s cripple hammer.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
i dont think im wrong 