GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

[Thomas Smet]

I'm not so sure. This is intercompany issue, not intracompany like the articles you referenced. Samyang is Korean. They could probably sue if they could prove intentional crippling? And if it were a logic bomb, why not disable eye AF as well? That's rock solid on the Samyangs. I admit that I don't have a plausible explanation, but I'm not totally sold

you also see other behaviors that differ that I thought would have been decided by the camera. Such as AF transition speeds operating differently on different lenses. One lens might need a higher value to achieve the same speed of transition as a different lens

Its the whole system and multiple factors. Thats why I still consider DSLR AF still kind of hit or miss. DPAF is a massive improvement and makes it 100x better but its still not 100% perfect and yes the lens will make a difference. As will the copy of the lens. The type and brand of adapter will make a difference as well along with body, adapter and lens firmware. Its a hot ugly firmware juggling act.

 

[NorBro]

Yes but if you said to me that adapted EF was almost as good as native, I'd say that was no good

doing some accounting - weddings were only 22.8% of my revenue this year. Probably 45-50% is editing, so the majority of shooting revenue is other. Weddings are just the most common type of shoot I do (~45 this year)

But I think it's a pretty limited set of circumstances in which you can cope with an overheating camera. There's no producer there ideally, or better yet you are the producer. There's no time pressure for shooting b-roll. It's not an unstoppable event. You can interrupt the interview. If it's drama or a music video, the budget is low enough that camera interruptions are worth the extra quality you're getting from a very cheap camera.

When I was shopping, there wasn't clarity on a timer reset. But I wouldn't bank on that anyway. Some firmware update could disable it. I'd rather have strong and reliable fundamentals than a camera i have to bend over backwards to function. I don't think it can record 4k120 indefinitely anyway, which has been surprisingly useful to me

Actually reminded me of how some people back-in-the-day wouldn't update their Blackmagic cameras to the newer FW update that removed CinemaDNG. Or some with the X-T3 and the "new" AF.

But honestly, if one is using this kind of camera to work then I highly doubt anything they are doing is that extremely important.

I know it's important to them and they would rather not have a camera do that in front of their client, but it takes 5 seconds to pop the battery in and out, and I think most people can find that opportunity a few times in their day.

 

[DLD]

I'm not so sure. This is intercompany issue, not intracompany like the articles you referenced. Samyang is Korean. They could probably sue if they could prove intentional crippling? And if it were a logic bomb, why not disable eye AF as well? That's rock solid on the Samyangs. I admit that I don't have a plausible explanation, but I'm not totally sold ...

The performance range on (officially licensed) third party glass is from crap to G-master and, off the focus breathing affair, it seems obvious that Sony can play hardball with even its most esteemed suppliers in Sigma and Zeiss. And, when faced with this juggernaut, Samyang also has to play along in order to be allowed to manufacture for the most popular mount in the world. Its E-mount bread&butter are likely the affordable AF primes. It makes them more money than the manual glass that is going out of style in a hurry, so they got to roll with the punches and with the times.

 

[NorBro]

I remember seeing this bit about RF lenses, which I thought was a peculiar exchange:

https://www.canonrumors.com/samyang-appears-to-have-ceased-production-of-rf-mount-lenses/

 

[NorBro]

After just now taking a further look, I actually never noticed before how there are basically almost none third-party AF lenses for the RF mount. (A total of 5 on B&H from 4 different companies.)

Canon's got their mount locked down, ha.

 

[DLD]

This makes sense, as Canon's current RF-mount cameras are at the higher end at the market - R3, R5, R6, C70 - and that limits the number of units moved off stores' shelves. That, in turn, doesn't require much quantity above the already available glass from Canon itself. Plus, since there's a ton of the EF lenses around, the company would rather make some money off the EF-to-RF adapters as well.

If/when Canon releases a much rumored $800 full frame EOS RP, they may allow a few budget tiered products to come out at around the same time.

 

[Thomas Smet]

After just now taking a further look, I actually never noticed before how there are basically almost none third-party AF lenses for the RF mount. (A total of 5 on B&H from 4 different companies.)

Canon's got their mount locked down, ha.

yes they do. Not sure why and for how long users are going to be ok with that. I guess I didn't realize that until after I bought a R6. To be fair however its near perfect EF to RF adapter opens up a ton of 3rd party and older Canon options. There is little reason for a native 3rd party lens right now that would use the same overall design used for other mounts. The big addition to the Rf mount is its extra control ring that can be assigned what it controls and a bit more communicating. Most lenses from Tamron and sigma wouldn't have that in the designs since those likely wouldn't work for other mounts. So right now there is very little reason to have a 3rd party RF lens. Canon also has an adapter that does have that extra control ring so if one really wants it they can get that ability with a EF lens. That right there makes a native RF version almost pointless.

There is of course the ability to be a bit smaller and lighter which would be welcome. Tamron has been killing it on the Sony side recently. Would be nice to see some of those ported to RF even if they do not provide any extra control points or extra control ring.

I just hope Tamron and sigma keep putting out EF versions of their lenses so we can adapt them to RF for now. I do prefer to get EF if I can so they can be used on cinema cameras. RF is great but those lenses will likely only ever work on Canon RF mount bodies. Even on the Canon side for cinema cameras currently the C70 is the only option for RF. Every other existing cinema camera is EF mount so it still makes a lot of sense to keep getting EF lenses while we still can.

I also use a set of Canon FD primes on my R6. Really nice to finally have a FF camera to use those FF lenses on. For the first time ever I have vintage lenses that actually make sense in terms of FOV. I have a 50mm and a 28mm which have a whole new meaning now vs using them on m43. FD never really went ultrawide and fast so now 28mm is wide and 50mm is normal. Using them for a lot of VFX stuff now at f5.6 and they are doing exceptionally well. Funny how its so hard to find FD lenses now. When I first got a GH1 they were everywhere. Now its so hard to find a good FD lens since all the budding film makers snatched them up. There are services even converting them to cine lenses.

 

[NorBro]

If someone knows they will be sticking with Canon (or even possibly upgrading to RED in the future), I wouldn't recommend investing in EF lenses, especially for those who are just starting to build a collection.

More RF cinema cameras coming in 2022.

If anyone has no lenses and just would like one do-it-all for most situations, get this beauty even if you have to cry a bunch of times. :grin:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...f_2_8l_is.html

 

[Thomas Smet]

This makes sense, as Canon's current RF-mount cameras are at the higher end at the market - R3, R5, R6, C70 - and that limits the number of units moved off stores' shelves. That, in turn, doesn't require much quantity above the already available glass from Canon itself. Plus, since there's a ton of the EF lenses around, the company would rather make some money off the EF-to-RF adapters as well.

If/when Canon releases a much rumored $800 full frame EOS RP, they may allow a few budget tiered products to come out at around the same time.

Don't forget the RP and R which are more affordable and were out first. Also RF mount and users buying those bodies would likely want some affordable 3rd party lens options. If the GH6 sucks I will stick with the R6 and pick up a RP as a backup stills/4k video in a pinch camera. I need something to move to for a bit when the R6 needs to cool down. Might make more sense for me to just stick with RF.

The plan is however to get a GH6 and have the best of both worlds and invest more in EF glass while I can. Assuming the GH6 is worth it. I already have a Speedbooster I use on a P4k. I currently only own two RF lenses. the 50mm f1.8 and the 24-240. Bought the 50mm because it was super affordable and I wanted to see if the RF mount had any advantages. So far I don't think it has any AF advantages over my Tamron 70-200 but I haven't tested the speed side by side and don't have aEF body to determine if there is a real difference or if its just the lens itself. I bought the 24-240 because its a super versatile super zoom and thanks to the sensitivity of the 20 MP R6 sensor it does very well for a very slow lens. Fun little vacation lens that can really do it all.

I'm still undecided if I really need RF lenses or if sticking with EF is perfectly fine. I eventually plan on replacing my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 with a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 since I went FF from the APS-C Canon M6. I almost bought a Canon EF 85mm f1.8 the other day but I'm holding off purchasing for a few months after going nuts last year jumping from the GH4 to a P4k, then M6 mk2 then R6. I have to behave for awhile. When I start purchasing again I have to decide if I want a EF 85mm or go wit hither very nice RF lens which is kind of macro as well. I will miss my Olympus 60mm macro lens I just sold and need a replacement for the R6. Macro seems a bit lacking on the RF side right now. The 85mm RF however has a partial macro mode which might cover most use cases for me so I'm kind of considering it. Would prefer to go EF to use with the P4k as well if I can so I might just get a Canon 85mm EF and a EF macro. If I get a GH6 I'm pretty much ok with f2.8 zooms as f2.0 zooms for just about everything.

I currently don't see much advantage going with RF 24-70 and 70-200 lenses right now over the Tamron G2 EF options.

 

[Thomas Smet]

If someone knows they will be sticking with Canon (or even possibly upgrading to RED in the future), I wouldn't recommend investing in EF lenses, especially for those who are just starting to build a collection.

More RF cinema cameras coming in 2022.

If anyone has no lenses and just would like one do-it-all for most situations, get this beauty even if you have to cry a bunch of times. :grin:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...f_2_8l_is.html

I agree that may be true at some point but as right now EF lenses make more sense and they can be adapted perfectly to RF mount. So I'm not sure suggesting EF lenses is a bad choice. So far I have seen little advantage of RF over EF. I don't have a direct comparison but from I have heard from others I don't think the mounts themselves are largely all that different. The newer RF lenses may be more video centric finally but I don't think its the mount itself helping that. Pretty much any EF lens thats a workhorse on a Speedbooster will still be a workhorse on a RF body. New RF cinema cameras may be coming in 2022 but they may also be delayed or have a short supply initially. Plus RF is limited to Canon only glass right now and missing out on all the great Sigma and Tamron options. Canon is also not likely making cine glass as much as 3rd parties are. Not to mention anamorphic glass. EF is a solid option for a good few years yet and will likely always do well on a RF body. Eventually the mechanical components and glass will be far superior making the RF newer glass to greatly stand out but I'm not sure we are there just yet.

 

[NorBro]

Yeah, I think it's kind of mental for me.

Like if I'm owning this nice RF camera, I want a nice Canon RF lens on it, nothing else.

You also have access to all of the AF options in the menu with the higher-end RF glass where some options are inaccessible with third-party choices. It's not even all available with adapted EF glass. (You can test by cycling through the different modes and seeing what's disabled.)

That ring option you mentioned was something I unexpectedly fell in love with it when I set it to WB. Changing the Kelvin that quickly was awesome when moving from room to room or near and away from windows, etc.

Sometimes you just want 4000 instead of 4500 very quickly, etc. and it's great to do it in a blink.

 

[Zim]

If you want a GH6 and they release some, you better order fast, or pre order, I've noticed with B&H more stuff is back ordered or more on the way.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Yeah, I think it's kind of mental for me.

Like if I'm owning this nice RF camera, I want a nice Canon RF lens on it, nothing else.

You also have access to all of the AF options in the menu with the higher-end RF glass where some options are inaccessible with third-party choices. It's not even all available with adapted EF glass. (You can test by cycling through the different modes and seeing what's disabled.)

That ring option you mentioned was something I unexpectedly fell in love with it when I set it to WB. Changing the Kelvin that quickly was awesome when moving from room to room or near and away from windows, etc.

Sometimes you just want 4000 instead of 4500 very quickly, etc. and it's great to do it in a blink.

I haven't tried using it for white balance yet. Thats a good suggestion. I still find getting to the WB a bit cumbersome on this camera.

I may invest in more RF glass in the future. Really waiting to see what the GH6 does. If I get a GH6 and keep the P4k I will try to get more EF glass while I can. I may also just get the Tamron 24-70 G2 as my last EF lens since the native f2.8 zooms are super expensive on all mirrorless systems. I really like the 85mm RF option since it has macro and IS. That could be a very versatile portrait lens for $599. Might save me from having to buy a dedicated macro lens.

 

[Thomas Smet]

If you want a GH6 and they release some, you better order fast, or pre order, I've noticed with B&H more stuff is back ordered or more on the way.

Correct. We have to wait for the full GH6 specs to be released and then the actual camera. Realistically many may not see it in their hands until a few months or longer after that. Plus some may hold out for a sale of some kind or some detailed reviews to see if its worth it. It could be some time before many physically have a GH6 in their hands.

 

[NorBro]

I haven't tried using it for white balance yet. Thats a good suggestion. I still find getting to the WB a bit cumbersome on this camera.

I may invest in more RF glass in the future. Really waiting to see what the GH6 does. If I get a GH6 and keep the P4k I will try to get more EF glass while I can. I may also just get the Tamron 24-70 G2 as my last EF lens since the native f2.8 zooms are super expensive on all mirrorless systems. I really like the 85mm RF option since it has macro and IS. That could be a very versatile portrait lens for $599. Might save me from having to buy a dedicated macro lens.

The 35 and 85 were the lenses I used the most on the R6 the 10x or so I used that camera.

Using the 85mm wide-open brings out what a full-frame sensor is supposed to look like, and it's gorgeous.

Because as far as I'm concerned, if you're using mostly that slow 24-240mm (which I know it has its purpose even though it's considered to be one of the worst lenses in the RF lineup), you might as well stick with MFT (and it sounds like your camera/lens lineup is a little messy right now, haha).

 

[Thomas Smet]

The 35 and 85 were the lenses I used the most on the R6 the 10x or so I used that camera.

Using the 85mm wide-open brings out what a full-frame sensor is supposed to look like, and it's gorgeous.

Because as far as I'm concerned, if you're using mostly that slow 24-240mm (which I know it has its purpose even though it's considered to be one of the worst lenses in the RF lineup), you might as well stick with MFT (and it sounds like your camera/lens lineup is a little messy right now, haha).

I think the 24-240 really gets a bad reputation from snobbery. Super zooms are rarely spectacular but they do have their purpose. I mainly use it for family stuff and yes it is lightyears better than the 14-140 on the GH4 or P4k. No competition at all. I also find for video many of the flaws of the 24-240 go away. Its the corners that are horrible on the 24-240 and once you crop to 16x9 video the corners are mostly gone. Crop even more for APS-C and its a pretty solid lens which now has even more reach. The almost f8 concerned me but its much better wit hthe R6 sensor then I could have ever imagined. Better than ISO 6400 with Dual Native ISO on the P4k or GH5S.Its really just my family lens however and mostly used in good lighting. I also bought a flash that can adapt from 24mm to 200mm which covers most of that lens so when shooting stills its a very solid setup really. Its only really around 24mm where the corners are really bad anyway. Once you get to 35mm it cleans up very well.

I'm likely going to get the 85mm f2 RF next year. Like I said I think the Tamron G2 24-70 will likely be my last EF lens. On the P4k I prefer cinema lenses or the zooms anyway so I don't really need any other EF primes. Same for the GH6 if I get one. I will mostly likely use the typical pair of f2.8 zooms as f2.0 zooms and not use anything else. Unless I get a Sigma 18-35 which I'm not so sure I want anymore with a FF R6. Really nice lens but I don't really feel like I need it anymore with a FF sensor. Low light really isn't a cancer nat all anymore. The 50mm f1.8 I have is an insane beast and since the Leica 25mm f1.4 was my main goto lens for professional work on the m43 cameras the 50mm will likely become my main lens on the R6.

 

[NorBro]

I don't think it's snobbery; I think it's more "ignorance is bliss".

I used to think the same way and actually would say in my head, "I don't know what all of the fuss is about with these kit lenses...they look great!"

And they did look great but it's because I didn't know any better.

___

Years later I used better lenses, usually 2x-3x the price, and I saw the difference. The results weren't as dull and I saw the pixels come alive on screen, and the micro contrast, or whatever you want to call it, bring the images/video to life. Everything felt "fuller"...whatever that means.

If I didn't see that difference, I would have continued to think the kit lenses looked great because they did look great in my mind...but that's only because [as mentioned] I didn't know any better, any better in terms of image quality from other sources.

 

[NorBro]

I frequently use the lens comparison tool below to see what kind of lenses I may be interested in. It's of course not the only way I'd make up my mind, but it helps to quickly assess some lenses provided the integrity of the people's work is high (it is).

This is the cheap RF 50mm (mid-frame)...

Followed by the expensive RF 50mm (mid-frame)...

I know they are just charts, but the difference shows up in real life, too.

The expensive one is $2100 more, lol - so these results are a given...but it's just fun to see. (And you could probably stop down the cheap lens to f/4 to get similar results, but that's nothing new and the high price tag has always been about optimal performance as close to wide-open and as fast as possible.)

 

[Thomas Smet]

I don't think it's snobbery; I think it's more "ignorance is bliss".

I used to think the same way and actually would say in my head, "I don't know what all of the fuss is about with these kit lenses...they look great!"

And they did look great but it's because I didn't know any better.

___

Years later I used better lenses, usually 2x-3x the price, and I saw the difference. The results weren't as dull and I saw the pixels come alive on screen, and the micro contrast, or whatever you want to call it, bring the images/video to life. Everything felt "fuller"...whatever that means.

If I didn't see that difference, I would have continued to think the kit lenses looked great because they did look great in my mind...but that's only because [as mentioned] I didn't know any better, any better in terms of image quality from other sources.

You saying I don't know good lenses? I own a lot of good lenses. The Tamron 70-200 G2 is one of the best of its type. Yes I know very well some glass looks better than others. Apparently you missed the part where I said I use it for family stuff. Must be due to you thinking I'm writing too many words or something.

I would never use this lens for professional work. Its essentially what the Panasonic 14-140 was for me on m43. A nice to have lens for vacations where I didn't have to swap lenses constantly. Even then I do sometimes switch to my primes and the Tamron when I want to. My last vacation I did mostly use the Tamron 70-200 because it is a stunning lens and occasionally switched to the Tamron 17-50 when I couldn't get back far enough. A lot of the time was at a zoo where the Tamron really shined.

I also think the 24-240 is way beyond normal kit lens territory like we are used to on DSLR cameras of the past. The AF with DPAF is amazing. The OIS combined with the IBIS is amazing. Optically its good in the middle. Its just those corners that really suck at 24mm. I want to eventually get a good 24mm prime when Canon gets one for RF assuming its priced right. I would be ok with a 28mm as well. 35mm to me is too close to the 50mm I have. Might get it someday but I would rather have a 24mm and 85mm next and use the Tamron 70-200 for everything beyond that. The 24mm I may have to get EF for now.

 

[NorBro]

I would use the best lenses possible for family stuff...work isn't as important.

And, yeah, too many words, always.