Mirrorless Cameras (MILC) and Lenses

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
Of course, but why should they? Since the 1970s I've spent tons of money on gear that is often not up to par, including Nikon, Canon, Contax, Fuji, Olympus, and S*ny. I never used Pentax (well a 645 for only one weekend) or Minolta. I actually had no problems with Mamiya 6x7 gear, though it was quite limited.

To put it simply I feel about Canon 1.6x cropped gear the way you feel about WD hard drives. That's all.
 
Last edited:

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,170
Location
I am omnipresent
You're going to preorder the R5ii regardless.

My partner made over $400 in cash/venmo/cashapp in a couple hours this afternoon by shooting with my 120 - 300, editing on her tablet and printing glossy 4x6s off a Canon Selphy at a dog park / playground today. As a middle aged man, there's no way I can walk up to people and ask to take pictures of dogs or kids for money but she just paid for our hotel the on our next weekend trip. I'm not exactly mad about it but I can't say I'm not jealous. She also has a weird combination of jobs that add up to an income but they idea that she can just go stand around with a camera someplace and know that money will appear is kind of crazy.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
I was thinking of two R5 IIs, one R5 and one R7 for September as the environment is risky to gear and cost is very high. If not available, I'll only get one. Sometimes only 2-3 bodies is fine. For example, if cost is high, but risk is low, then I'd choose three bodies. If cost is low and risk is low then two bodies are usually fine, such as for landscapes. We don't know yet if the R5 II will be any better than the R5 at ISO 100 where ECFS is normally used.

The R5 is pretty good on birds, but sucky on mammals. Several of the controls and modes of the R5 are archaic compared to even the cheaper new bodies. There is also the stupidity of the new flash shoe, which makes the R5 shoe unusable in the future. It's better to have multiples of the same model so that you pick up one and it is the same as the other. Ideally you don't want one model body on a 500 or 600/4 and another on the 100-500 for example as it's easier to miss something. I've used multiple same bodies such as the 1Ds II, 1Ds III, 5D III, 1Dx, etc. There were several years when I used the 5D IV and 5DsR together, but often with a replicate of one or the other as a third body. In recent years I've done crazy stuff like using an R5 w/100-500 and an a7r5 with 200-600 together, but it's quite a pain.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,170
Location
I am omnipresent
Since LM hasn't shown up: The R5ii and R1 were announced today. The R5ii looks like it has had most of the nifty features of the R3 back-ported to it, like eye controlled autofocus, and it has a nifty AF mode to follow the ball for sports shooting. They've also added a face priority mode, so you can tune the autofocus to pick people out in crowd shots. You can even prioritize up to 10 people. It's the top of the line for Canon high-resolution sensors, but it's also $4,000 MSRP.

The R1 has less than half the resolution of the R5 and in a lot of ways seems like it's an R3ii. Canon is very much tuned in to what sports photographers want, and this camera is definitely doing them as many favors as it can. It has faster readout of the sensor and that's neat and all, but it looks to me like the R5ii is the better all rounder device.

I hope that those new AF tricks show up in the R6iii.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
It is $4300. So two, plus all new batteries and tax is around 9,500. That's too much without some better lenses and a higher res body also.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
I'm sure you meant to say that it is CHEAP and that is not surprising considering the mediocrity of such a computational lens.
Severely barrel distortion - Check
Severe CA - Check
Of course you can fix it in post or shoot a compressed format, right?
Everyone is all about the mediocrity at Canon. Some others do make optically good lenses. Word is that the engineers are not happy, but nobody cares.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
Canon is stating that they have a supply shortage of the new bodies and the old EL-1 flash. I'm not surprised about the flash since it was made in an unusal place and they may have chosen another vendor. I did pick up an EL-5, assuming that the R5 II would support it. The EL-5 is not as solidly made as the EL-1, but I rarely use it and only 20% of the cost on that super sale. The EL-1 has a slightly faster recyle (EL-5 is still faster than any prior Canon flash) and a fan for longer continous shooting. Both have horrible Wi-Fi and no optical trigger.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,170
Location
I am omnipresent
Severely barrel distortion - Check
Severe CA - Check
Of course you can fix it in post or shoot a compressed format, right?

I haven't looked at reviews yet, but I will say that lens corrections on import are the most dead simple processing digital darkroom software. I think even Darktable and RawTherapee support that.

I'm just surprised that Canon released an RF 1.4 prime that cost less than $2000.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
Look at the price of the G-matter 35/1.4. That fancy glass in the Canon EF version is long gone. Meanwhile there is a quite cheaply Nikkor 35/1.4 that is lower grade than their f/1.8. o_O The MILS lenses have gone mad.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
The R5 II is still unsurprisingly confused. They are out in small numbers for the PROs so must be in some level of production amassing for launch. I may have two from different sources; one is loco, but they will not hold very long. The other who knows if maybe I'm on the 2nd allocation. I also have another on rental, but that is iffy since I'm not high priority. I really don't want to buy two new unreliable bodies at the last minute.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,170
Location
I am omnipresent
Apparently it's still possible that we'll get an R6iii, but it's also going to be stuck on the same 24MP sensor as the R6ii. Nonetheless, I am being strongly urged to purchase it.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
Of course there will be an R6 III eventually. Other than being faster like the R5 II vs. R5, I'm not sure what it will bring. For videos what is the R6 II not doing for you?
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,170
Location
I am omnipresent
I have an R6, not an R6ii. And that camera is actually fine, but my partner has many, MANY more opportunities to photograph concerts (e.g. Lollapalooza last weekend; she can get a media pass), but feels bad about taking my camera. She wants me to update so she can get the old one off me.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
If by partner, you mean girlfriend, then that's not a camera problem. :LOL:
Canon has been so slow to produce anything significantly new in R bodies that I think one of you should just buy an R6 II.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
They are shipping everywhere now. LP-E6P are more difficult to get.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
There are batteries now also. I have to do some testing on the body, but the control differences are going to be a hassle if you don't have a similar, newer body. In case you are not on the Adode plans, DPP was updated. DXO and others will probably take a while.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,170
Location
I am omnipresent
Speaking of batteries, I wound up needing to buy an LP-E6NH while I was in NOLA because one of my OEM Canon ones wasn't charging and appears to have crapped out. I couldn't get a real one overnighted and none the local shops had them in stock, but the knock off I could get overnight has a USB-C port in it for charging, which is so goddamned useful I almost can't stand it. I think I paid $65 for a pair of them and while I think they might have slightly lower overall endurance, being able to charge one with the portable battery that's already in my bag is a huge win for convenience.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
Pretty much all of them have a mediocre to crappy BMS. I have not-so-cheap USB-C Canon and S*ny batteries with the idea of being able to charge an extra S*ny battery in a small boat from a power bank. After substantial testing of the Canon, I decided that the higher impedance and less accurate reporting of SoC were not worthwhile. The R5 USB C geriatric pack goes into a degraded speed mode much more quickly compared to the Canon LP-E6NH that maintains full power longer. I ran the profile of a 2.5 YO Canon compared to a new USB-C battery pack.

SmallRig_vs_LPE6NH.png

The new LP-E6P supplies even more current than the older LP-E6 series batteries, so I suspect that the older, wimpier geriatrics will be struggling.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
The R5 II suffers from multiple layers of stupidity. It's like the AMD 9000 series of cameras. :LOL:
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
If the R6 III is like the R5 II you will need all new batteries. The generiacs trigger an 80 error and then shut down. The LP-E6NH registers as low when it is at 50% (blinking red). For some reason the cartouche only allowed me to buy two P batteries. I will run a profile on the P, but my wiring for that setup is rather wimpy and may not show much delta.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
I doubt it. The "consumer" R bodies don't use LP-E6x, they use the LP-E17. The LP-E6P is all that Canon will be making in the future, but the cost is the same as the NH. I expect that all future Canon bodies that use LP-E6x will be looking for P batteries. However, somebody will probably hack the codes and make cheaply knockoff batteries. It's curious if both the BM and cells are different. The P batteries worked up to 7.98A as compared to the NH and EL batts that are done at <4A. The voltages on the EL are higher until it cuts out.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
The R1 was for the "Olympics" market. The R5 II is the jack of all trades, master of nothingness. Canon is seriously behind the curves with only the R5 II and the archaic-sensored 32MP R7 being over 24MP (I'm not even counting the obsolete RP stocks). It makes little sense that there are inadequate component supplies to build the R5 II. I suppose they may have a crapload of old R5s in the warehouse to get rid of, but not for 6 months.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,170
Location
I am omnipresent
MotionCam works extremely well for people with high end Android devices. It allows your phone camera to output video in editing-friendly codecs like ProRes. A big reason why I never messed with my phones before in terms of their capabilities as cameras is that they don't work the same way as my normal editing workflows, so for example it's been a PITA to color grade phone video to match anything else. It's $27 and as I understand it, you really want something that has a Qualcomm Snapdragon 1 of some sort to make best use of it, but it lets me treat my phone like all the other cameras I have and that's very worthwhile to me.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
It's a cheap no brainer for whatever you are doing - B rolls?

Meanwhile, it is necessary now with the new Canon flashes to have a $170 flash cord or the $120 camera-powered wireless that sits in the newer shoes and disconnects from the flashes at random. There is also the ST-E3 at $300 that also has the crappy Wi-Fi.
I'm probably going to use the cord to one EL-5 and then that can a secondary flash. Maybe I should have just kept the EL-1 that is now OOS forever due to Myanmar. I only need a few feet for macro or tele use, so it's not like the problems of event/location use.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
22,170
Location
I am omnipresent
It's a cheap no brainer for whatever you are doing - B rolls?

Extra camera coverage. My phone is water resistant. I can use it in fresh water so long as I don't dunk it. The action cams are kind of obnoxious for just turning off when I'm shooting for no reason I can tell, so hopefully reliability enhancements as well. Plus phone gimbals are very affordable.

RE flashes: You are making a compelling case not to update to a newer body.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
There might be a compelling case not to buy a newer Canon flash. The R5 II is like the R7 and I think the R6 II. It has the traditional contacts in additions to the newer multi-function ones, so the older flashes or generic flashes work. The only Canon flashes that work with older cameras like the R5 and R6 are the mostly discontinued, AA-powered flashes or the $1100 EL-1. My point is that the $400 (200-300 on sale) EL-5 is less of a bargain than you think when being used off camera, assuming that you already have older versions of TTL flash cords or speedlite transmitters. As of now I see Canon EL-1, EL-5, EL-10, EL-100 and the 430EX III-RT listed as new. The EL-5 and EL-10 only have the multi-function shoe. I suspect that the 430EX III-RT will probably be discontinued soon enough as the EL-10 is close enough in specs.

Do you do studio work with strobes or flashes?
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,716
Location
Horsens, Denmark
I'm not in the business, but I'd have thought that with the advent of powerful, efficient, LED lights, that strobes would be phased out? I certainly prefer having all the appropriate lights on while composing the shot.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,384
Location
USA
A flash is much brighter for a short duration. For example even a basic shoe-mount flash has about 60Ws of energy that can be delivered in about 1/1000th of a second. If you assume a sync speed of 1/250th it is like having a 15,000W light on for that 1/250th. Even if an LED is twice as efficient you would need huge lights for the same intensity and when you consider 200/400/800/1600/3200Ws strobes it is nearly impossible to get that much light from LEDs over a short duration.

Obviously flash/strobes are not used as much since cameras/processing are better at high ISO, video is more prevalent, and many markets have lower standards and budget, but there are plenty of applications. Indoors you use modeling lights and outdoors mostly just review the images.
 
Top