Canon R6 mk2

NorBro said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. All I know is I am about to have a FF 6k raw camera that works flawlessly in FCP.
 
morgan_moore said:
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
Click to expand...

Yeah that part does suck. When I use an external display its my Ninja V so it can record externally so problem solved I guess. To get around that issue however I set the joystick at the back of the R6 to move the AF point. I found this to be super useful in practice in run&gun situations. I let the camera do its AF magic but I move the point around the frame to focus on the subject I want it to focus on. I find it much easier when shooting through a loupe or using the screen to just keep a thumb on that joystick and move it around. Much more natural and I feel a lot more in control vs tapping on the screen to focus.

I use my R6 three ways.

1. As is with the joystick to move the focus point and a loupe attached to the camera LCD. I always use a loupe of some kind so tapping the screen for the focus point was never really an option for me anyway. I do occasionally use it but it's my least favorite way to focus. I also tend to not want to get my finger prints all over the LCD so I avoid having to touch it as much as humanly possible.
2. With the Ninja just used as a 5" HDR monitor. I use the joystick to move the focus point and don't worry about the camera LCD because I really don't need it anymore.
3. With the Ninja V recording either ProRes422 HQ or the add-on h265 codec I purchased for the Ninja V. Gives me unlimited record time past the 30 minute limit of the R6 and so far eliminates overheating for 4k 24p. I use a 5" loupe on the Ninja V and keep the camera LCD active for some exposure tools since I have to remove the loupe from the Ninja V to access the tools. I mainly just occasionally glance down to the camera LCD to check the meters, zebras or histogram.
 
I was a resolution whore up until I acquired an Alexa. Completely changed my mind and perspective. And although at times I think it can be soft on the wider ends, it's still a super computer with an incredible sensor and unmatched dynamic range and color as far as I'm concerned.

I want the external RAW to be a proven, meaningful difference-maker in cameras, but as an executive I wouldn't allow that for that price, not in a full-frame stills camera that shoots video under models like the R5 and R3.
 
Look I agree raw isn't as necessary as it once was. I actually rarely use it. It's just nice to have it as an option on a camera already capable of really good oversampled 4k 10bit 4:2:2 HEVC video. I only really record raw on my P4k because it's smaller than ProRes422 HQ. It's quickly converted to other formats to edit in FCP. I only use raw as raw for VFX type work.

I would do the same on the R6 mk2. Only use raw when I really want 4:4:4 and since thats typically in a studio or controlled environment it's not really a big deal to use the Ninja V. 95% of the time I will use the internal HEVC video. Especially now that it doesn't overheat and I no longer need to use the Ninja V to get longer record times. To me the external raw is an add on option so I don't have to buy a new cinema camera or keep my P4k around.
 
It's becoming clear that 8K video is the main feature to look for with newer cameras, it's too important to pass up, especially as it becomes more common and you would at least want to be able to offer it. At this point, if a new camera doesn't offer it, it's not even worth looking into in my book, even if there's 6K, as no matter how good the compression is or what codec is being used, the image quality of the RAW 3K video from a Magic Lantern-modified 5D Mark III still looks just as good if not better than newer cameras' 4K and, if upscaled, not too far away from 6K. Also, despite advances in low light and dynamic range, an older Sony A7R II would still cover most high megapixel camera stills needs despite not having a 10 bit video option.

The fact that Canon is backtracking to 4K and 6K and disabling or removing features from lower end cameras just to differentiate them from the R5 and R5C so early in the RF system's life shows that they're clearly not able to read the room in regards to their customers' needs. Despite their growing pains with their early RF cameras, once they got to the R5, all they needed was a S35 version of the R5 and a high end model and all offering 8K. After that, any revisions or video models would follow, as we saw with the R5 being rigged into the R5C. As it is, it's as if they're throwing paint at a canvas with varying features and options, some 4K, some 6K, and others 8K and all they had to do was focus and stay consistent. NorBro called it, this is what the first R6 should have been just as I've said the Sony A7S III should have more or less been the original A7S without the incremental upgrades that followed. Lastly, aside from the BM Pocket 6K, we also have to remember the Fuji XH2 with S35 8K RAW that comes in at $2,000 which can have a speed booster on top that still brings it slightly under the R6 Mark II's MSRP.
 
that is a very complex answer.

cameras need..

to switch on fast
have avigable menues
not have terrible jello
have functional connectivity
have two threads in the bottom
maybe have ND
maybe have 480fps


neither canon or sony is close
 
on the r6 1 screen (hdmi).. I can only see value in using n external monitor if you are a camera blogger who needs to record your settings.

as it happens the hdmi is not only pathetic.. it also stops the onboard screen from rotating.

the kind of design that got us laughed at in school
 
It's called product positioning. I.e., as of now, Canon decided that its $2,500 camera ought to have the following features. Its partners-competitors agreed and allowed Fuji to release a model with superior specs for less money but in APS-C. Within a few years, maybe even next year, Canon will have a full frame 8K hybrid in a $,2500-$3,000 range. But it won't in 2022.

And neither will its pseudo competition. Because it's how cartels work.

Next.
 
Zack Birlew said:
It's becoming clear that 8K video is the main feature to look for with newer cameras, it's too important to pass up, especially as it becomes more common and you would at least want to be able to offer it. At this point, if a new camera doesn't offer it, it's not even worth looking into in my book.
Click to expand...

Zack, could you elaborate a bit on this topic. Are you getting hired to shoot in 8K? How often? What kind of client? What are they doing with 8K video? Is the final deliverable in 8K? You seem to be a pretty strong proponent of 8K and I'd like to hear why.
 
The market is varied and people have many different needs. Canon has always been a company that charged a little more than their competitors for features. Kind of like Canon sees a higher value on its offerings. So they are often more expensive and/or devoid of cutting edge features unless you pay them more - mirrorless vs C-series camera. What they excel at is being late and more expensive but delivering rock solid functionality or reliability. So one could call it conservative or greedy or both.

With regards to 8k, it was my thought from the beginning that 8k was a mistake for the R5. The technical hurdle was too high for the company to clear and wound up messing up the entire camera launch. The market would have been completely happy with solid 10bit 4k that could record in professional lengths and not overheat. If so, I think the R5 would have gone down as one of the best releases ever. But they chose to 'miss the boat' so to speak and we are at where we are now. I think there will be professionals who work their entire career that never hit record on an 8k file. I just do not see it as a big thing. In many cases, 4k is still kind of overkill.

Its Canon. Do not expect them to change or alter course. If anything, they are predictable. The R5 acted just how they wanted it to in pushing folks to consider a higher model to get away from the prosumer mess they created. This is just from a video perspective and my opinion...
 
Canon knows what they are doing at all times. They had a 4K DSLR before Sony made their first mirrorless at a time when people still used fax machines.

The are late only on purpose - when they are - because it's not their turn to release anything worthy. The technology is always available and every single action that's made by Japan is discussed thoroughly.

Cameras are released on a delay so there is a future for them. You always release "pretty good" and never "the best" because then the money slows.

R5 was Canon's most successful camera...everything went according to plan (besides a bit too much backlash which was maybe an oversight of YouTube's power). The work was done on many levels including "motivating" people to buy other cameras and planting seeds in millions of heads that cameras may and do overheat when specs are too powerful.

Technically superior methodical executives, the best in their industry, who are buying as much time as possible.
 
Bassman2003 said:
.. With regards to 8k, it was my thought from the beginning that 8k was a mistake for the R5. The technical hurdle was too high for the company to clear and wound up messing up the entire camera launch. ..
Click to expand...

R5 was crippled by intent, not design. And, since their "competitors" didn't say anything about it, they all knew about way ahead of time.

Then a quick firmware upgrade and voila! Camera that was a 2020 hot potato is a 2022 masterpiece. And Fuji has a $2,000 8K camera already. Half a year later, it won't be the only one. It has to make some money first.
 
Bassman2003 said:
But they chose to 'miss the boat' so to speak and we are at where we are now. I think there will be professionals who work their entire career that never hit record on an 8k file. I just do not see it as a big thing. In many cases, 4k is still kind of overkill.
Click to expand...

No question in my mind that is exactly what they are thinking. My professional clients think like that as well. But 8K like HDR, drones and AI create niche opportunities, to separate from the pack. No one today shooting HD can claim they are delivering a high end product. That time is past. With each new K the expiration clock is ticking on the old. If your ambition is to do high end work, there is a danger in turning a blind eye to any of the modern advances available to the craft.
 
Yeah, and critically-thinking about it from the sales side, you want to sell these kind of cameras to YouTube, not "professionals".

I don't know what a professional is anymore. It's like, what is it, you know? Who is it?

Once upon a time a professional used a 30lb camera with a few hundred pixels on the shoulder, and now you have Gen Z running around doing work potentially for free like this really talented individual (one of hundreds).

Check out some of his other work too...great stuff and these YouTube shorts are dominating the world. And 99% of viewers would think this is "professional".

Very short-form, flashy content, which everyone does now (inspired mostly from TikTok). It's not just the filming but the style of the video which also provides a BTS look and a bit of a documentary feel (usually has a VO track). It's a new thing I'm seeing more and more.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1RPN8_NtkHo
 
When I said "professional clients," I was not holding out as deferential and reverent. My professional clients are the equivalent of chop shops, fast and cheap outsourced editors. One of them recently made national headlines for a bankruptcy filing leaving wedding clients and contractors in a lurch. I shoot for wedding couples and "professional clients" like these. YouTube content can be far more polished, but it's not all genuine either.

And what you said about documentary feel and voiceover track is very true. At this very minute I'm doing an edit for a bride and just finished another, both of whom were not happy with the product received from the chop shops, for polar opposite reasons. One bride wanted a documentary timeline and source soundtracks while the other wanted a random order of composited audio and video and dubbed-over pop music.
 
Most of YouTube is not genuine, lol.

Wedding demands are tough...personally, the older I became the less I was interested in meeting people's demands. The increased production value was also a contributing factor for a slow exit. That's kind of weird to say because the value is a good thing, but filming & editing became so creative and complex that people's expectations and demands changed with it. I was beyond capable of doing everything asked, but I didn't want to. lol

Even if every project didn't need a gimbal-slider-drone for everything, I knew in my heart that they really SHOULD have them because it would make them so much better, and I lost interest in the business because it was too much work and I wasn't in love with it.

I was more in love with having money make money, or my brain in other ways, not this kind of labor.

But I still do love using and testing cameras at the beach, for myself.
 
Just to expound a bit, the professional clients could not care less about 8K, 4k, HDR, in fact one of them specifically mandates HD only. The jobs I take from them are the gravy, bookings to fill the schedule.The jobs I shoot for couples and venues is the high end work, and although impossible to measure, 8K, 4K HDR offerings as well as other value adders like highlights, teasers, full documentaries, even raw footage are all opportunities to separate from both the Gen Z amateurs and the chop shops to the end users, some of whom really do care lot about all the aspects that go into the perceptions of quality, including the effort they see you putting into it as the working cameraman, the effort you put into communications and preparation. It all pays off. I most often receive large gratuities just because of the effort they see me putting into my craft. Cheaping out to save memory space, bandwidth, resolution, doesn't figure into it for me. You get back what you put in and you get reputation that carries forward.

And here's my anecdote, I play some golf. I once had a partner who was lining up the printing on the golf ball to the hole on the putting green. I asked him why he bothered, it seemed so inconsequential. He said, "Because it's there. Why ignore it?"
 
I think that would only apply if you'd like to persevere or you think that you should for various reasons.

Sometimes you just really want something else and it doesn't matter if you get through hell or not because what you're doing doesn't matter anymore.
 
NorBro said:
I think that would only apply if you'd like to persevere or you think that you should for various reasons.

Sometimes you just really want something else and it doesn't matter if you get through hell or not because what you're doing doesn't matter anymore.
Click to expand...

There's a sign on the wall
But she wants to be sure
'Cause you know, sometimes words have two meanings
Click to expand...

More Brit culture..Lol
I don't think Churchill was referring to burnout, but can we be sure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top