• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I abandoned Canon long ago, leaving my beloved 200-400 f/4 lens in the closet, a lens I had personally shelled out $12,000 for. The Canon 1Dx that I drowned in the ocean was the only camera I truly loved, but it wasn’t good at video.

      So I went Sony for video and Nikon for stills and honesty, I lost that lovin’ feeling.

      Then I started YouTubing and live streaming for ADVrider and have to up my game. I discovered YouTubers are wild about the Canon EOS R, mainly because the Canon 15-35 IS lens is SO GREAT! Perfect for YouTubers. Also: 24-70 f/2.0. Unheard of.

      What they lack In the R is in-body image stabilization and great video specs (10 bit, 8K full crop, 4K with great slo mo). That’s apparently what they get with the R5.

      It blew my mind enough I bought the 15-35. I have no camera to mount it on. It just sits on my table as beautiful decoration with me hoping the R5 rumors are true.

      Canon has a virtual press announcement on Monday from their pro video division. Will it be about the R5? Anyone watching?

      In the meantime, my new lens paperweight is quite lovely.

    • Does being the legendary founder of SmugMug, Digital Grin and now owner of Flickr come with the benefit of getting every camera to test and/or for free?

    • It did when I was there! Andy Williams and i wrote the first review of Adobe Lightroom 1.0 when they were the underdogs and Apple was using their marketing might for their competitor, Aperture.

      And I did one of the fist reviews for the Canon 5D MKII, the camera that changed everything, as I expect the R5 to do.

    • Well I’m watching the conference live and Glenn was right, it’s a super-deep dive for serious TV and film pros. But. There has been an image so far that includes the R5. And they mentioned the new mount.

    • Canon just confirmed a few more rumors and it seems impossible to believe. It just crushes anything else out there. 8K 30fps RAW video, recorded internally. 4K at 120 fps. Dual-pixel autofocus. They didn't mention price or shipping date. I cannot wait. I'm so in.

    • I think that in part is why it wont be as groundbreaking as the 5D mkII was for video, if Sony has a sensor capable of outputting 8k then in a few months you have Nikon and Panasonic likely with their own cameras in this class and that quickly becomes the norm. Even if they don't this year it wouldn't be long, and the other features like IBIS and a 45MP resolution already exist on the other cameras.

      And while 8k is impressive it's just an improvement on the resolution VS the 5D mkII which opened up a whole new world of shallow depth of field video at an affordable <3k price point changing the kinda visuals that were possible without spending HUGE sums of money. Not only that it was high enough quality that TV shows and even some blockbusters were at least partially filmed with it, with its' affordable price it was absolutely game changing. This wasn't a short term thing either, it took Nikon about 3.5 years to come out with the D800 which finally was a capable video camera in this class.

      You also got a stills camera which had more resolution than anything close to its' price range other than the Sony A900 and this is back when almost everything was Canon/Nikon making the 5D mkII as the high resolution camera most people would go for. And just like with video they had that position in the market as theirs until the D800 came out.

    • I agree that other manufacturers will respond. I have a painful history of bouncing between brands as they leapfrog each other. I still love my Nikon D850, but...I feel Canon is doing something remarkable this time that we haven’t seen in decades, perfect for the times.

      The first thing is, with the 5D MKII, Canon revolutionized the body but not the lenses. This time we’re getting lenses that only they have, which are revolutionary. A 15-35 f/2.8 with 5 stops of IS? It’s perfect for the times because you can walk with hand outstretched, filming yourself vlog style without a gimble and have it look good. YouTubers are nuts about this lens and it’s something I do now.

      With the R5, the lens IS and body IS work in harmony to produce 7 stops of stabilization. Oh my God.

      A 24-70 f/2.0? We’ve never had that and it is sharp. An 85mm f/1.2 with two optional lens elements to create a new look to the bokeh? I never imagined that could be a thing the way it’s designed.

      The second thing is, the 5D MKII it brought beautiful video to SLRs, but not approved as broadcast quality for, say, Netflix. You still had to use a broadcast camera. But this camera finally achieves that in an SLR body, and it does things that you can’t with a broadcast camera (like filming with outstretched arm sans gimble).

      Btw, Jared Polin did a great review of the 15-35 you might like. I learned some things about shooting environmental portraits from this and getting the lines right that I should have known long ago.

    • Based on what you've written and what I've seen online I'm pretty sure this will be a great camera & system (I really want some of those lenses, especially the 70-200!!!) but it really seems more like an evolution on multiple fronts of existing capabilities already out there. That can make for a much more useful tool, but it just doesn't seem to get to that revolutionary level of the 5D mkII which personally was one of those big moments for gear:

      I was in art school when that camera came out and we had some pretty nice dedicated video cameras at the time but they were completely blown away by the 5D mkII. Before that IIRC the nice camcorders under 3k which could shoot 1080P were 3CCD Camcorders that had super zoom lenses so while the Canon EOS lenses themselves weren't revolutionary for photography having access to them on a 35mm sized sensor for video was. Anything remotely close to that kinda control of the depth of field just wasn't possible without spending huge amounts of money. It's hard to understate what it meant in terms of the huge improvement of quality of what you could create on your own and those ~4 years they owned that market.

      And man shooting ultra wide is a whole different can of worms, in my work I need to do it usually angled up and sometimes with my subjects off to the side which means all sorts of distortion that I need to deal with in post or try. I basically jumped in head first I think 2-3ish years ago now? And I've had to learn a few new skills both in shooting and post plus change up my gear a bit.

      But as someone who shoots with a Tokina 16-28 F2.8 from what I'm seeing in that video for most people that work with this sort of lens like the Canon looks to be again evolutionary VS revolutionary. The biggest thing to me would be the ability to use filters and for some the conversation can stop there because they need that and this gives it to them. Otherwise the slightly wider zoom range and 100g lighter weight are both benefits as is the IS (but other models out now have that, though not as good as the Canon's). I have no complaints with my current IQ or AF but improvements are always welcome especially if you have a 45MP sensor (I use 24's). But other than a situation which required a filter which isn't often for me this wouldn't get me the shot VS the older ones especially since I usually have to deal with motion, it just might improve it a little bit over what's out there now VS whole new shooting possibilities. The same goes for 8 stops of IS, that'll open up what you can do but as you go out further on that front and need completely still subjects it makes it great for those specific use cases but those niches are getting more and more specific.

      This general theme continues with the 24-70 F2.0 though it does offer a bit more compared to current lenses with its' range/aperture. But the jump from F2.8 to F2 isn't anything like the jump for affordable video back in 2008. It's giving you more in a single lens but between the Sigma 24-35, 24-70 F2.8's and the various primes which fall into this range so most shots are possible, what you're getting is a more versatile lens with the Canon but nothing totally new like in 2008. Now that versatility can make it a 1 lens solution for some videographers which I don't want to minimize as it can be a game changer for them but it is a different kinda leap.

      Since I shoot wide to ultra wide in very very low light I have my own very niche needs in cameras so I totally get seeing X as a game changer for your work, the way I'm viewing it is more how is this changing things on a larger scale?

      I also did a bit of digging and Netflix's first shows came out ~5 years after the 5D mkII so that's not the fairest benchmark for the camera, but back when it came out you had House as the big splash for Canon's marketing (and if you watch the later seasons they REALLY used that shallow depth of field) along with movies like Elysium, Thor, and even more recent ones like Mad Max Fury Road used the mkII.

      I think the big thing is we're just at a point now where amazing gear is available from pretty much any manufacturer, and what was once absolutely revolutionary is now standard. So now the big thing is to get that extra bit of performance out of a specific niche. It's just getting harder and harder to make that splash and other manufacturers are usually there to compete with them much faster which is all great for us consumers. It was just what a year ago where the Canon mirrorless bodies were missing some big things VS Nikon/Sony and with this camera they look to be catching up and 1 uping them on video, and I'm sure they'll have their response in a few months, and on and on it goes and we keep winning with better gear to use.

    • Wow, dude, you are a fount of knowledge. I remember now how revolutionary it was to shoot full-frame with Canon’s f/1.2 lenses. I didn’t know it was used in all those movies. I agree most of this stuff is evolutionary by comparison.

      Something new to me, however, as we’re talking new lenses, is the 85mm diffuse focus lens. What do you think of it? I can’t decide which 85mm to buy.

    • Thanks man, and for that Canon 85 I'd have to say the non-DS for me but that's all down to the 1.3 stops of light you lose when wide open basically making it a F2 in terms of low light photography. And since I shoot manually almost all the time it would really throw me off since each 1/3 of a stop click from f1.2-3.2 wouldn't correspond to one for the shutter speed or ISO. A live histogram like you can have with a mirrorless body would help to offset this but that is one more thing to keep track of instead of your subject.

      Watching that video I'm also wondering how specialized an effect this is. If you shoot a lot of photos with lights behind someone like their main comparisons the DS would be the way to go. The only other direct comparison shot is around 40 seconds in but here it has bright white flours which while not as intense can still be a decent light source compared to the rest of the scene. I really wish they would have done the scene at 4:19 with both lenses so you could see how they each render other types of scenes. With that big of an unknown I gotta give the cop out answer of saying that if I didn't have the issues with the light loss and was torn between the 2 I'd have to rent both and to see how they complemented my work.

    • That's amazing but I couldn't make sense of when it's actually available. BHphotovideo and Lens Rentals are saying soon, but I haven't found a date, price or place to pre-order the camera for purchase. Lens Rentals is saying their rental price is placeholder and may change.

      I tell you one thing: I am committed to being a YouTuber and I am completely sold on this being the best YouTuber camera, by far. I am so committed I am buying expensive lenses that are sitting in my closet waiting for it.

      I'm also immersed in the other stuff you have to do as a YouTuber. I bought a $1,000 Sennheiser microphone, an amplifier and sophisticated sound processor, and a recorder capable of XLR inputs and 96khz, 24-bit sound recording. I also bought a $1,200 studio light. This is getting serious.

    • Yes, I couldn't find hard dates either with a quick look around.

      Wow, I wish I could really get into shooting video - the EOS R and the 90D are both pretty fair video shooters - but I just can't seem to spend the time and energy in editing.

      Even though I do enjoy editing still images.

      You must be making higher quality youtube videos than many I see up there - I don't think they are all using hi fidelity sound and studio quality lights - indeed, many seem to record them on their phone or a GoPRo and just go with those. But what do I know, I just go there when I want to know how to do a specific thing or repair something.

    • I think the great YouTube channels that break through and get the views more often than not have become very sophisticated with their equipment — especially over the last few years.

      For example, in product reviews the biggest channel is Marques Brownlee's. He shoots with a RED and cinema lenses. Who would have thought a 26-year-old former ultimate frisbee player would rise to become one of YouTube's biggest stars and master light, sound and video like he has?

      Check this out. BTW, you and I? We NEED this lens!

    • I started following mkb and he has a full studio setup to shoot videos.

      He recently installed a couple of servers to store and archive his videos , think it ran to 140 tb !

      He, along with iJistine, shoot in 4K and it seems that is the quality expected now.

      New tv’s have YouTube as an app and who would want to watch a video on a 65” shot in 720?

      I’m fascinated by the whole YouTuber scene. Please keep updating as you get up to speed.

    • I saw that probe lens reported about a year ago, and kinda thought "huh" as a still shooter, but mkb's video demonstrated its usefullness very well. Great video. The movement really makes it's usefullness apparent.

      I had never heard of Laowa a year year ago or so. Then last fall before I went to Scotland I was looking for a wide angle lens for my EOS R and found the Laowa Venus 15mmm f2.0 Zero D lens for the native Canon R mount and grabbed it. I was quite impressed by it - small, sharp, light, fast, and makes really great sun stars. It is a totally mechanical lens, but at 15mm you only have to focus it once in the morning and you're good all day, and with LCD viewfinder it is really easy to see what is in focus with the fringing added by the R body. I am a fan of Laowa now. I have my eye on a couple lenses they make for the Canon M body, one is a 9mm zeroD wide angle lens.

      Here is an image of the Old Man of Storr at 15mm to show the DOF from where I am standing to the horizon shot with the Venus 15mm - you will have to click on this image to see it and when you do you will see the people further down the slope that are not apparent in this small image here. I think that will help understand the scale of this image then.

    • Looks like announcement July 2nd, shipping end of July. For the YouTube episode I’m working on, I’m shooting with the 50mm f/1.4 and it’s perfect, so I’m gonna get the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and hopefully that will be perfection+ when the camera comes.

    • OK, I've got doubts over a f1.2 lens.

      I can't see a use for it in anything I do. I've got a Sigma 35mm F1.4 and rarely step it down that far any more.

      What am I missing?

      The DOF wide open is so shallow for 'normal' people portraits if the eyes are in focus the ears probably aren't.

      If it's a bike or machinery shot at anything more than a 90 degree side-on angle part of it will be soft at 1.4.

      Even the Z 50mm f1.8 I need to go to F2.8 of better to get a whole bike sharp at a standard 45 degree portrait. It's about right for people portraiture wide open though - all depending on focal distance of course.

      Very long exposures? Enlighten moi?

    • I wish I had a 35 f1.2 because that's a focal length I usually do longer length portraits with. I can get a similar effect at least in terms of subject speration with my longer primes but then there's a much longer working distance needed which sometimes isn't available.

      Another use case would be available light indoor shots of small groups. If they lined up that would work, or for candids you could focus on one person and while the others wouldn't be in focus it still would give a good feel of the overall event. And if you could get a very emotive pose from that person in focus it still can be a strong shot.

      Beyond those there's my performance and concert work which is all available light and would benefit in many circumstances from the larger aperture.

    • That’s a very good question, Dave. I’ve been debating with myself for a month because I could buy the 24-70 f/2.0, saying that’s cinematic enough. Then I’d get bonus focal lengths.

      The application is live streaming for ADV — and YouTubing for a food channel I’m starting with my daughter. Most YouTubers I admire are using the 15-35 f/2.8 and calling it cinematic enough. While they’re filming they can just reach out to the camera with a hand and change the zoom level.

      It does look pretty good but when I backed off with a longer lens and wider aperture, I got rave comments for my ADV streams.

      In my kitchen for the food stuff with Anne, there’s a bay window in the background. It looks lovely all blurred out plus I don’t mind looking a little softer around the edges myself. I held off the lens decision until I got to look at it with the Nikon and 50mm f/1.4. When I showed it to Anne and Toni they went nuts over it.

      I can’t do it justice this time of day because direct sun on the bay window, but here’s an iPhone snap for now;