Mirrorless Cameras (MILC) and Lenses

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,747
Location
USA
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

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,658
Location
I am omnipresent
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 can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,747
Location
USA
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

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,552
Location
Horsens, Denmark
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

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,658
Location
I am omnipresent
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.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,552
Location
Horsens, Denmark
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

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,747
Location
USA
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

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,658
Location
I am omnipresent
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 can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,747
Location
USA
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

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,658
Location
I am omnipresent
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

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,747
Location
USA
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

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,658
Location
I am omnipresent
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

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,747
Location
USA

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,658
Location
I am omnipresent
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

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,552
Location
Horsens, Denmark
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.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,658
Location
I am omnipresent
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

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,747
Location
USA
They are great for aw lot of things as is some Red stuff, but not as a webcam. :ROFLMAO:
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,747
Location
USA
It does not surprise me, but you act like that is a good thing. 🤔
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,658
Location
I am omnipresent
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 can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,747
Location
USA
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.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,747
Location
USA
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. :LOL:
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,658
Location
I am omnipresent
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 can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
16,747
Location
USA
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

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,552
Location
Horsens, Denmark
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

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,658
Location
I am omnipresent
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.
 
Top