Mirrorless Cameras (MILC) and Lenses

[Mercutio]

Hey if the eye detection on your camera is worth a crap, you might not.

Meanwhile Canon are up to this, whatever it really means. https://global.canon/en/ir/conference/pdf/housin2024ima-e.pdf

I think it means Canon really thinks there's a huge market for AR/VR video for some reason?

 

[LunarMist]

And when the eyes are not visible or the person moves away it will AF on the undesirables.
I'd be less concerned about a reasonable drop-in background than a person that appears to be tweaking around in the chair.

 

[Mercutio]

I don't have a nice enough Sony to tell what its contemporary subject detection does, but if I just leave my R6 in (human) eye detect mode and tell it which subject to follow, it defaults to eye then face then head then body. I can't think of a better order of operation for it.

 

[LunarMist]

I know you guys are always throwing technology at problems that can be solved in other ways, but I would be willing to bet that the AF will not be perfect for hours at a time nor will the background be completely blurred. I know several companies that require most people to use a dropout background on meetings for consistency and professionalism. Much of meetings is about presentations anyways in technical areas.

 

[ddrueding]

For me the only thing worse than a fake blurred background is bad audio (background noises, echo, levels, in that order). It communicates a lack of preparation and self-awareness that grates on me quite a bit.

 

[Mercutio]

Definitely concur about audio, but its pretty easy to do right for talking heads. As far as relying on subject AF, it's standard operating procedure for many Youtube creators and twitch streamers.

There's a Youtube Channel called Camera Conspiracies. The creator that runs that channel is extremely focused on modest consumer ILCs for video. He's usually very interested in the limitations of subject focus for blogging but also for wildlife videography. He doesn't really love anything, but he has said the DJI Osmo 3 is a lot cheaper than a full-fat ILC and seems to have subject focus for talking heads absolutely nailed.

Casey, the creator in question, spend a lot of time futzing about with camera autofocus systems and given dd's current needs, it might be worth a look at what he has to say on the matter.

 

[LunarMist]

There are probably several better options for under $3K.

 

[Mercutio]

Price-insensitive does seem to be dd's thing.

 

[LunarMist]

Price-insensitive does seem to be dd's thing.

He is averse to low prices.

 

[ddrueding]

I certainly don't mind spending some money, but I've been under the impression that there is no substitute for sensor size when it comes to DoF management or low-light capability. If there was just a webcam with full-frame, a fast zoom, and good autofocus I can save the money.

 

[LunarMist]

But it is not necessary. If a movie worth hundreds of millions is shot with a smaller senor, why do you need 24x36mm for a video conference? Even pro talent sometimes do demos on an iPhone for example.
Who are you conferencing with, the C levels of $10B+ companies in a fancy boardroom, your external or internal customers, government authorities, etc.?

 

[Mercutio]

Presumably dd wants to do other things with his camera besides videoconference. He has a kid. People usually like to take pictures of those, even if they aren't as fun as dancers or cats.

It is endlessly amazing to me that the lowest-quality images of my partner (born in 2000) over her entire life was shot with a DV camcorder.

 

[LunarMist]

I only photographed dancers once, during a dress rehearsal. It was not fun in any way. Fortunately I'm not a photographer.
I do like photographing the wild cats - lions, leopards, cheetahs, caracals, African wildcats, servals, jaguars, ocelots, pumas, bobcat, linux, etc. (Due to disease conditions I missed opportunities to visit wild cats in Asia.) Felis catus, not so much.

The lowest quality images would be the ones with the worst lighting, subject matter, and capture. I have excellent photos from the 20th century, often better than many in the first two decades of the 21st century. Video was most always crud until recently.
The problem nowadays is that everybody thinks that they are a photographer or videographer or director.

 

[Mercutio]

The problem nowadays is that everybody thinks that they are a photographer or videographer or director.

When I'm asked, I always tell people that I'm a guy with a camera, not a photographer. Nonetheless, I have spent money on off camera flash, V-flats and various sorts of lighting modifiers.

I more or less only take photos of people and I particularly like shooting performers. One of my favorite-ever experiences was getting to shoot a broadcast-grade drag show. I was just visiting friends, but one of those friends is a fixture at those sorts of nightclubs. I was able to get candid and stage photos with performers who had actually. I liked that more than shooting professional basketball (I don't have press credentials so being able to do that took an act of God but it turns out that I functionally know God for that purpose). or at the Ravinia outdoor music festival.

The most grateful performers (aside from strippers) tend to be comedians. Getting anything other than cell phone videos seems to be a big deal for them.

 

[LunarMist]

So you are shooting and giving the talent free images with limited usage rights or full usage rights? You are using a standard release form?

 

[Mercutio]

Payment depends on the individual, but I have a standard contract for my work. It says that both myself and models jointly own any media we create but I foreswear any public exhibition (i.e. I'm not posting them anywhere) or commercial interest. Mostly because I don't want to be bothered with it. I can use my ownership right to issue takedowns if I find unauthorized use in the wild, which actually does happen.

I only ask for payment from people I know are able to make a living from their content creation work, for a one-off shoot, or if there's more than incidental expenses involved in our plans. Two people pay me to edit video and nothing else.

I've gotten to take photos at concerts, but getting release rights from everyone involved in any big money entertainment industry is functionally impossible, but it's still fun.

 

[LunarMist]

For DD:

Logitech's Mevo Core is a Micro Four Thirds live-streaming camera

Today, Logitech announced the Mevo Core, a 4K-capable live-streaming camera built around a Micro Four Thirds sensor and lens mount.

www.dpreview.com

Mevo Core | 4K Wireless Streaming Camera

Mevo Core is an app controlled, 4k interchangeable lens video camera optimized for wireless Multi-camera streaming.

www.mevo.com

 

[Mercutio]

That's a legitimately interesting use for MFT, other than the $1000 price tag. You can get a pretty respectable Panasonic MFT camera for under $250.

 

[ddrueding]

That is interesting, thanks for thinking of me. $1k for 4/3 is pretty steep. I would hope for at least APS-C for that. But I do like the form factor and would go for it if it were cheaper or had a larger sensor.

 

[ddrueding]

In that form factor this also looks interesting.

Blackmagic Micro Studio Camera | Blackmagic Design

 

[Mercutio]

Blackmagic Cameras are beautiful if you are the opposite of LM in terms of photo/video capability. However, the newer ones are not small, which is usually the thing Micro Four Thirds is good at. I only ever use my Lumix if I'm worried something might happen to a camera. It gets taken to protests a lot.

I shot B roll for music video last fall with a full time videographer last fall. He couldn't say enough good things about his Pocket 6k.

 

[LunarMist]

They are great for aw lot of things as is some Red stuff, but not as a webcam.

 

[ddrueding]

I do know someone who uses a Red as a webcam......

 

[LunarMist]

It does not surprise me, but you act like that is a good thing.

 

[ddrueding]

Not good, but funny.

 

[LunarMist]

At first I thought I thought it was you.

 

[LunarMist]

R5 FW 2.0... was released.

 

[LunarMist]

There is now Topaz Photo AI 3.0.

 

[LunarMist]

The CanonRumors is out of operation as the main dude has left indefintely. It's not clear if he was . It's very strange that the previous guy also left under similar circumstances.

 

[Mercutio]

I saw that, but overall, I'm not sure how helpful CanonRumors has been since the last guy left anyway.

 

[LunarMist]

Where do you go for the info then?

 

[Mercutio]

Where do you go for the info then?

Right now I am not all that concerned about it until I decide I really want that $3000 camera lens.

Camera-related news still shows up on mainstream sites like Engadget and Ars Technica. Maybe I'll start paying more attention to PetaPixel or Youtube Photography guy Jared Polin, who are both relatively relatively system agnostic. I was in the habit of visiting CanonRumors every couple weeks, but since I'm not in the market for a new camera right now and I'm largely priced out of new RF lenses, it's not a big priority for me.

 

[LunarMist]

I just want a few days notice so that I can pre-order upon release, often at 0:00 UTC -5.
For many products if you don't pre-order you may lose months.

 

[Mercutio]

You can probably set up something like a Google Alert.

 

[LunarMist]

There is a site of https://www.canonwatch.com/ and of course DPR, but that Canon rumors was conveniently located.

 

[LunarMist]

Canon is so negligent and behind the times that they are just announcing that there will eventually be an R1 by the end of 2024. How lame.

Canon develops EOS R1 as first flagship model for EOS R SYSTEM, New image processing system further improves AF and image quality | Canon Global

TOKYO, May 15, 2024—Canon Inc. announced today that it is currently developing the EOS R1, a full-frame mirrorless camera, as the first flagship model for the EOS R SYSTEM equipped with an RF mount and is aiming for a 2024 release.

global.canon

 

[Mercutio]

My Google News feed told me that about the time I went to bed last night but there's no specs, so all we know right now is that some lucky stiffs with $7500 to spare will have a really nice Xmas present.

 

[LunarMist]

I did not see anything about price but that is not unreasonable. We were paying nearly $8K for the 1Ds II back in 2004, which would be roughly $13K today. Big tele lenses are much more expensive today though.

 

[ddrueding]

After looking at how little I could recoup on the used market by selling the Canon EF lenses I already have, I'm reconsidering selling them. My understanding of the situation is that, to make EF lenses work with a mirrorless body, I need to get either the EF-EOS R mount adapter and a Canon mirrorless body, or something like the metabones EF to E mount adapter and a Sony mirrorless body (or equivalent to some other system).

I'm sure Merc and Lunar have already considered such things as well. Any gotchas I should watch out for?

 

[Mercutio]

Nearly all the lenses I have are EF lenses. Most of my collection has been offered to me because a doctor friend has bought an RF equivalent. I just use EF adapters on all three of the mirrorless bodies in the house. The Canon EF-RF adapters cost like $75 and work perfectly; most of my lenses are Sigma Art or Sport series rather than first party Canon glass. I've found that the AF actually works better adapted to RF cameras than it ever did on my old 5D, not that this should surprise anyone.

As long as you're happy with the lenses you have, EF lenses are fine. The adapter adds a tiny amount of weight and a 1/2" of length to what you're carrying. If you DO feel like upgrading to an RF lens, it'll almost certainly be far lighter and physically smaller, but the showpiece lenses on RF, the 28-70/2 and 24-105/2.8, are massive regardless. The RF 70-200/2.8 is lust-inducing if you've ever had to haul an older one around though. It's the one lens I'd get to upgrade one I already have.

Canon RF bodies also have a focus assist that makes manual lenses a lot easier to deal with as well, if you ever felt like messing with an FD to RF adapter or the like.