Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

As for videographers, I somehow doubt that their equipment is ever lighter than that of us photographers - they also have gimbals, microphones, cages, follow-focuses, lights, monopods, tripods, external recorders...

Yeeeees, absolutely, follow focuses to the average wedding, microphones, external recorders :ROFLMAO:
It's pretty clear you never shot the average wedding, either as a photographer or a videographer, nor you have ever merely observed the average videographer rig at a wedding.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I agree but I am happy to adapt from EF as I don't see any advantage of R mount if there is no AF :)
Me too, it's the same crowd that seemingly bashes legacy EF gear at every opportunity and then swoons over the latest Chinese Manual focus prime....that isn't much sharper then the EF versions they were previously bashing. I can't think of anything more challenging that manually focussing a 85mm f1.2 for a head shot with an EVF. Ironically, in that context, I'd be better off with a 5DmkII fitted with a fine focus screen. It's a very weird world that we currently live in!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Yeeeees, absolutely, follow focuses to the average wedding, microphones, external recorders :ROFLMAO:
It's pretty clear you never shot the average wedding, either as a photographer or a videographer, nor you have ever merely observed the average videographer rig at a wedding.
No, I've never watched the videographers at the average wedding, and why would I when I have all the wise people here to explain everything to me.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
No, I've never watched the videographers at the average wedding, and why would I when I have all the wise people here to explain everything to me.
Somehow, I imagined based on what you wrote in your previous comments, it was not average wedding videographers you were talking about. Meanwhile, some people aren't successful or well liked enough to have experienced an impressive wedding.
 
Upvote 0
So be smart, don't try guessing at things you don't know just because you have a keyboard and a broadband ;)
It seems to me that you were the one guessing that @Brikna was referring to average weddings and if that guess fit your agenda, so much the better. Judging from both your and @Brikna 's previous comments that I remember, the two of you simply tend to work at different price points.
 
Upvote 0
Yeeeees, absolutely, follow focuses to the average wedding, microphones, external recorders :ROFLMAO:
It's pretty clear you never shot the average wedding, either as a photographer or a videographer, nor you have ever merely observed the average videographer rig at a wedding.
My average photo setup during most of the time of an average wedding (I am present for 12-14 hours at an average wedding) consists of; R5 (730 g), L-bracket for R5 (100 g), EF-EOS R adapter (130 g), EF 24-70 2.8L II USM (800 g), 430EX III (400 g), total about 2160 grams .

The average video setup of my wife, who is the videographer for half of our gigs, for most of the time of an average wedding (she is also present for 12-14 hours at an average wedding) consists of: R6 Mark II (670g), EF-EOS R adapter (130g), EF 16-35 4L IS USM (615g), DJI RSC2 (1318g), tripod for RSC2 (228g), accessory handle for RSC2 (160g), Rode VideoMicro (42g), total about 3163 grams.

My colleague, who is a videographer on the other half of our gigs, shoots with a very similar setup as my wife, but he has a slightly lighter camera and a slightly heavier gimbal, so the weight is still there somewhere.

Sometimes my setup becomes more heavy, about 700 g when I shoot with EF 70-200 2.8L IS II USM...

Basically, I've never met a photographer who shoots about 40 weddings a year (which means he should be in pretty good shape), and I've heard him complain so much about the weight of the equipment and that it's a problem for him to hold the camera in front of his eyes about 3 minutes.

Let's face it, any weight savings is welcome, but weight alone is not the only decisive factor when choosing equipment, at least I don't think it should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
It seems to me that you were the one guessing that @Brikna was referring to average weddings and if that guess fit your agenda, so much the better. Judging from both your and @Brikna 's previous comments that I remember, the two of you simply tend to work at different price points.
My price range is actually very low because I work in a relatively poor country and mostly in the poorest part of that country. ;) But life is good here, regardless of the fact that our clients' budgets are tight. Life is not about money, I console myself. ;):)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
My price range is actually very low because I work in a relatively poor country and mostly in the poorest part of that country. ;) But life is good here, regardless of the fact that our clients' budgets are tight. Life is not about money, I console myself. ;):)
It's truly not about money. Maybe the two countries have different priorities? I don't know.

Just out of curiosity, does your wife make and the colleague videos in autofocus or manual?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
My average photo setup during most of the time of an average wedding (I am present for 12-14 hours at an average wedding) consists of; R5 (730 g), L-bracket for R5 (100 g), EF-EOS R adapter (130 g), EF 24-70 2.8L II USM (800 g), 430EX III (400 g), total about 2160 grams .

The average video setup of my wife, who is the videographer for half of our gigs, for most of the time of an average wedding (she is also present for 12-14 hours at an average wedding) consists of: R6 Mark II (670g), EF-EOS R adapter (130g), EF 16-35 4L IS USM (615g), DJI RSC2 (1318g), tripod for RSC2 (228g), accessory handle for RSC2 (160g), Rode VideoMicro (42g), total about 3163 grams.

My colleague, who is a videographer on the other half of our gigs, shoots with a very similar setup as my wife, but he has a slightly lighter camera and a slightly heavier gimbal, so the weight is still there somewhere.

Sometimes my setup becomes more heavy, about 700 g when I shoot with EF 70-200 2.8L IS II USM...

Basically, I've never met a photographer who shoots about 40 weddings a year (which means he should be in pretty good shape), and I've heard him complain so much about the weight of the equipment and that it's a problem for him to hold the camera in front of his eyes about 3 minutes.

Let's face it, any weight savings is welcome, but weight alone is not the only decisive factor when choosing equipment, at least I don't think it should be.

I don't have a "personal videographer"; if B&G ask me for suggestion, I give them couple of names I know, otherwise I work with the one they have already chosen. Consider that 50% of my weddings doesn't include a videographer; as EricN said, we probably work in different price levels, and there's nothing bad about it, and also in different countries/scenarios, here in Italy the marriages are at their lowest point, and B&G tend to save as much as they can (again, on average; I've been in "garden weddings" in a 5/6k/day location, and I've been in villas for 20/25k/day, with all in between), and before saving on pictures, they save on the video, because the pictures they're printing in a photobook, but the video they would basically 99% just put it on social media, and so they just rely on guest's videos to celebrate the day.

When I work with a video guy, 50% works handheld with just camera and switching between a 24-70 and a 24/28/35 bright prime, while 50% may have a couple of camera, gimbals, etc. Extra lighting is rare enough, and actually I really don't like it, as they often ruin the natural atmosphere of the location.
Drones I would say less then 10% of time (but sometimes a guest/close relative would bring one), audio capture is pretty rare (even if I had to do it myself once, when I was asked to set up a fixed camera on a tripod just to record the ceremony, and so I mic'd the groom with a lavalier and a Zoom H1n in his pocket, because I didn't trust the Rode Wireless Go if I couldn't monitor the audio in real time).
Follow focus, heavy tripods, and "cinema" stuff, never seen any, nor as a professional, nor as a guest when I wasn't working.

Brand wise (still talking video) I see 80% Sony, rarely Pana or Fuji, even more rarely Canon; actually when I saw Canon, it was mostly M system, usually a M50 with a bright prime or two.

Canon is still, in stills, the most used camera, but not by much, would say 40% Canon, 30% for both Sony and Nikon, with a tendency of more Sony and less CaNikon; so who already was working, in photography, with CaNikon, mostly went on with it, but who entered directly in the world of videography, almost exclusively starts with a Sony.

Again, it's what I see in my country (and in my country area, which is the richest part of the country) and in the places I work in; of course any other area/country will differ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
This is an amateurish attempt to answer the question of whether an APSC system has a ‘brightness’ advantage over a FF system. To do this, let’s consider the case of capturing the same composition using a FF lens (say, 70-200mm F4) on an APSC and a FF body. We can then ask the question of whether at a specific F-stop, the APSC could get more light compared to the FF shot (adjusted to have the equivalent Focal Length and F-stop).

To set up the comparison, consider using 100mm with f5 on an apsc body vs 160mm with f8 on a FF body (canon’s crop factor is 1.6, so this set up will provide the same composition for the same subject distance). Below is a summary of these and other operating assumptions:

Same lens: say, 70-200mm F4
Equivalent composition, same subject distance, identical light intensity (all spectrum)
Same shutter speed of S and same Light Intensity of L (ISO can be changed to achieve the same exposure) – this is for a ‘fair’ comparison.
All light entering camera falls uniformly onto the image circle – this is inaccurate but a decent simplifying assumption.

The table below tabulates the various parameters as well as the total ‘amount’ (can think of this as the total number of photons across different frequencies) of light reaching the respective sensors.

Focal LengthF-stop / DiameterAperture AreaAmount of light entering bodySensor area / image circle*
APSC Body100mmF5 / 20mm0.00126L x S x 0.00126 = T23%
FF Body160mmF8 / 20mm0.00126L x S x 0.00126 = T59%

*The FF lens has an image circle with a minimum radius of 21.6mm (canon’s ff sensor size is 36x24mm). It means that the sensor covers an area approximately 59% of the image circle whereas an APSC sensor would cover 23% of this an FF image circle.


Based on the scenario above, the APSC body, when using a FF lens, would actually receive ‘less’ light than an FF body, so it does not quite have the ‘brightness’ advantage.

What about using an APSC lens? This is hard to compare accurately with a FF lens without the optical details of the lenses. However, an APSC lens would have a smaller image circle, and, in general, is likely to have smaller lens elements, which broadly translate into a reduced ability to ‘collect’ light. If we ignore this, and assume that the amount of light collected is simply dependent on the aperture size and shutter speed, and all of it falls uniformly across the image circle, then the total amount of light reaching the APSC sensor would also be about 59% of that reaching its image circle. All else being the same (mostly not quite true), then there is still no real ‘brightness’ advantage for an APSC body, even with an APSC lens operating ideally.

Having said all this, it ultimately depends on personal preferences with how the image looks. As long as one is happy with it, then use the system that best meet one's preferences. For me, I use APSC to save weight and cost. However, with the RF mount, the weight 'disadvantage' of FF is reduced considerably. There is still the pricing, of course, so one good lens at a time and mix in with EF lenses work for me.
I applaud the effort, though recent history suggests it’s futile. For some people, their own opinions ring so loudly in their ears, they are unable to hear the facts showing their opinions to be incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I don't have a "personal videographer"; if B&G ask me for suggestion, I give them couple of names I know, otherwise I work with the one they have already chosen. Consider that 50% of my weddings doesn't include a videographer; as EricN said, we probably work in different price levels, and there's nothing bad about it, and also in different countries/scenarios, here in Italy the marriages are at their lowest point, and B&G tend to save as much as they can (again, on average; I've been in "garden weddings" in a 5/6k/day location, and I've been in villas for 20/25k/day, with all in between), and before saving on pictures, they save on the video, because the pictures they're printing in a photobook, but the video they would basically 99% just put it on social media, and so they just rely on guest's videos to celebrate the day.

When I work with a video guy, 50% works handheld with just camera and switching between a 24-70 and a 24/28/35 bright prime, while 50% may have a couple of camera, gimbals, etc. Extra lighting is rare enough, and actually I really don't like it, as they often ruin the natural atmosphere of the location.
Drones I would say less then 10% of time (but sometimes a guest/close relative would bring one), audio capture is pretty rare (even if I had to do it myself once, when I was asked to set up a fixed camera on a tripod just to record the ceremony, and so I mic'd the groom with a lavalier and a Zoom H1n in his pocket, because I didn't trust the Rode Wireless Go if I couldn't monitor the audio in real time).
Follow focus, heavy tripods, and "cinema" stuff, never seen any, nor as a professional, nor as a guest when I wasn't working.

Brand wise (still talking video) I see 80% Sony, rarely Pana or Fuji, even more rarely Canon; actually when I saw Canon, it was mostly M system, usually a M50 with a bright prime or two.

Canon is still, in stills, the most used camera, but not by much, would say 40% Canon, 30% for both Sony and Nikon, with a tendency of more Sony and less CaNikon; so who already was working, in photography, with CaNikon, mostly went on with it, but who entered directly in the world of videography, almost exclusively starts with a Sony.

Again, it's what I see in my country (and in my country area, which is the richest part of the country) and in the places I work in; of course any other area/country will differ.
Here, where I live and work, the tendency of newlyweds is that in 90% of cases they also want a video, and most often they want to find such a solution (photo + video) in one place. This situation is changing very slowly.

What I see in my area is that sometimes people change systems thinking that they will have better photos or video that way, but I have not seen such a change yet.

Even less often I notice that someone has become a better photographer and that his/her photos are better because he/she switched from EF to native RF mount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Here, where I live and work, the tendency of newlyweds is that in 90% of cases they also want a video, and most often they want to find such a solution (photo + video) in one place. This situation is changing very slowly.

What I see in my area is that sometimes people change systems thinking that they will have better photos or video that way, but I have not seen such a change yet.

Even less often I notice that someone has become a better photographer and that his/her photos are better because he/she switched from EF to native RF mount.

Let's just say that, while I live and work in the richest part of Italy (Milan), weddings are becoming rarer, and people has not much interest in "bragging" the money they spent for the ceremony.

If I would work in south of Italy, like Naples or Palermo, the money people's family have are less, much less, but there's still the tradition of marriage, and especially they have the mentality to show off, so they would burn through all bank accounts, even asking for loans, just to be able to afford a Pharaonic ceremony to stun their guests, and none of them would renounce to the wedding video, that's for sure, I would say for them video is even more important than pictures.

So it's really depending on areas; I live where money are, but I would earn more in places where money are less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0