At $16,000 for the camera body only, the Canon C500 Mark II is an impressive 6K camera that meets the needs of independent filmmakers and videographers alike. What happens if you can't afford a B camera at the same level as the C500 Mark II? Can the Canon EOS R keep up and deliver with its 4K footage?
Coming to you from Gene Nagata of Second Light Creative and Potato Jet is a hands-on comparison of the Canon EOS R and how its capabilities fare against its much bigger video-centric family member, the Canon EOS C500 Mark II. Nagata asks a pertinent question for any director or videographer that is looking to maximize their capabilities while keeping their pocketbook in check. That question is: "Can a much lower-cost B camera also create video that can be seamlessly edited together with its much more expensive A camera?"
Nagata, who's previous clients include big-name companies like PayPal, Oakley, and Intel, clearly likes the idea of having a very portable and easy second camera to set up in addition to a main camera that checks all the boxes. For some brands and clients, you're really just looking for a quick second angle to jump to that will drive more interest in the video that you're creating for them. These extra options can be invaluable when cutting together a project, especially when the client is on a tight budget. The possibility of them affording the daily rental fee on a second camera like the EOS R is sometimes much more likely than a shoot with dual C500 Mark II cameras.
In this video, we get to see how the EOS R holds its ground or doesn't. Nagata gives us a great rundown on the sharpness that's available from each of these cameras and the dynamic range and shadow detail that they each can capture, comparatively.
If you're creating video for clients, what do you think of the capabilities of the EOS R? Would you use Canon's first mirrorless full-frame camera for a secondary angle in your work, or would you pick something else from the cinema lineup?
(I just save 17 mn of your time)
At least, we have a real comparison showing how better investment you should do if video is your real business.
All the other guys claiming they are doing pro-grade wedding movies are just doing a nice job, but could really give far better results with proper videocamera instead of toying around with a photocamera...
But hey, pro videographer have to use the same body for still and movie at the same time ! (but I am still wondering how you can take video footage and shoot stills at the same time or with the best efficiency).
I will be trashed to death because I am absolutly not convinced by video skills of a wedding pro grade photographer only using photocameras instead of proper videocam gear. Sorry, but good enough is not the best the guys should achieve, the best is what is expected! from the still photos POV and the movie POV, and sorry, but nicely animated slideshow is not a proper movie. But go figure, I maybe asking too much.