^ Curious how you're handling video exposure given the lack of drop-in filter option for a variable ND, for example? These look very sharp and I'm assuming your shutter speed is fairly high. How does that translate to video where high shutter speeds tend to result in a less 'fluid' appearance to anything in motion. If shooting 8K raw video, is there a point to shooting stills? I guess raw stills would have higher bit depth if there was a need for wider dynamic range...
rscheffler wrote:
^ Curious how you're handling video exposure given the lack of drop-in filter option for a variable ND, for example? These look very sharp and I'm assuming your shutter speed is fairly high. How does that translate to video where high shutter speeds tend to result in a less 'fluid' appearance to anything in motion. If shooting 8K raw video, is there a point to shooting stills? I guess raw stills would have higher bit depth if there was a need for wider dynamic range...
I bought the Kase Wolverine 112mm Pro ND Stack Cap Kit Magnetic Shockproof Tempered Optical Glass Filter Includes Magnetic CPL ND8 ND64 ND1000 Lens Cap & Case 112. So far it works pretty well. The only issue is the filter ring can screw lower into the lens making it difficult to get the filter off. You can easily put if where you need to but need to pay attention. I wish it had a stop.
rscheffler wrote:
^ Curious how you're handling video exposure given the lack of drop-in filter option for a variable ND, for example? These look very sharp and I'm assuming your shutter speed is fairly high. How does that translate to video where high shutter speeds tend to result in a less 'fluid' appearance to anything in motion. If shooting 8K raw video, is there a point to shooting stills? I guess raw stills would have higher bit depth if there was a need for wider dynamic range...
I mostly have 3 use cases:
Video only, then I try to stick to the 180 rule as video motion is an important factor, I still take some grabs and you can get some really good panning shots and sometime to maximize I shoot 8k 50fpt but 360 rule so I have 25 1/50 blur but I have more frames or do some slow-motion.
Photo only, I normally use ES 20fps instead of RAW video just because the AF is more reactive especially in case that first acquisition is key. Tracking works well in video too.
The only exception is remote camera as then I use 8k RAW with high shutter speed. I start a bit before the action happens via Raveneye + phone so no surprises like camera did not trigger etc… Only for ice hockey netcam I still use pocket wizards as 3 x 20min is too long.
Photo and Video use case that I’m doing more and more, like the above example, here you need to decide what to compromise and for most of the cases, as I do mostly actions/sports, I compromise video motion for sharp pictures. In this space I tend to intercut also gopros and even phones all shoot at high shutter speed for stabilization. Most of the athletes that I cover they don’t even notice if is a high shutter speed or not… but they notice when I lose AF focus 😉
Depending on the lens and motion it works quite well to add motion blur in post with Resolve, as an example the above horse show jumping works well by putting motion blur in post.
Regarding ND I tried a few vND on the 200-400 filter adapter and could not find one that fits so I used normal ND but changing ND on the adapter is a pita so honestly a front vND is the best solution for me that I do with all my other lenses. Unfortunately, I could not find yet a 112mm vND.
As Rob is suggesting the Kase Wolverine 112mm Magnetic seems the best solution at the moment.
An alternative could be also the Kase Clip-in filter for Canon R5/R6 with the disadvantage that if you change camera you may need to buy new filters.
action99 wrote:
Regarding ND I tried a few vND on the 200-400 filter adapter and could not find one that fits so I used normal ND but changing ND on the adapter is a pita so honestly a front vND is the best solution for me that I do with all my other lenses. Unfortunately, I could not find yet a 112mm vND.
With the 200-400 adapted to R, wouldn't you just use Canon's EF-RF drop in filter adapter with their vND? Or did you mean adjusting it via the small wheel is a PITA? It seems to me this ability to use filters in the adapter is one of the few remaining advantages of continuing to use certain EF lenses on the R system (lenses that are otherwise difficult to filter conventionally).
Also, now that you've had the 100-300 a few weeks, what are the improvements you've experienced in your work compared to using the 200-400?
With the 200-400 adapted to R, wouldn't you just use Canon's EF-RF drop in filter adapter with their vND? Or did you mean adjusting it via the small wheel is a PITA? It seems to me this ability to use filters in the adapter is one of the few remaining advantages of continuing to use certain EF lenses on the R system (lenses that are otherwise difficult to filter conventionally).
Also, now that you've had the 100-300 a few weeks, what are the improvements you've experienced in your work compared to using the 200-400?
I was using the lens filter adapter of 200-400 when I was filming with 1Dx II and III. When I did acquire a R5 I also brought the vND adapter and is better than the lens adapter but not the holly grail, the small wheel is very un precise and you cannot really see where you stand in the vND, if you want to go to zero ND you need to buy the clear filter and changing between the two I found it cumbersome especially on gimbals or handheld… unscrewing a front filter is quicker… I now moved to all RFs so I sold it, but tbh I did not use it a lot as I ended up using front vND filter more.
Regarding 100-300 vs 200-400, the biggest advantage for me is that is a more usable range for the type of sports that I cover the most: Icehockey and horse showjumping. For icehockey I was using both 70-200, 200-400 but when I moved to R5 with 45mpix (cropping ability) I did not use much 200-400 for it. 100-300 for icehockey is almost perfect (we don’t) have plexi hole here…. a 100-300 with switchable 1.4 would be even better. For horse show jumping when indoor and smaller fields 100mm is more useful than 400mm, on large fields (international level) like the one that I will be covering in the next 3 days I simply mount the 1.4x. For other sports that I cover freeride ski, alpine ski, mtb, motorsport the 100-500 is my preferred lens… but I will see if the 100-300 will take over for some of these sports.
The weight is much better. The cap and hood is better. The zoom ring is better, with the 200-400 I had to use a follow focus on the zoom ring for zooming while filming and is a huge pita, from my early test with 100-300 I can do directly with my hand on the ring. I wish Canon zoom would have PZ functionality…
At the moment I cover mostly horse showjumping so sorry for a bit of repeat subject, in a month pre season ice hockey starts and I should be also covering some MTB... so more examples to come.
Image quality and AF speed on a R5/R5c with 1.4x to me is basically the same as bare lens.
With 2x AF is probably a tad slower in initial acquisition but keeper rate was the same as the 1.4x, image quality is still very good but at 1-1 pixel you could see that is a tad softer than whiteout TC, a tiny bit of CA is visible, overall it seems to me sharper at 600mm F5.6 than 100-500 at 7.1.
Thx all for posting the 2x at 600mm/5.6 samples. Due to a torn/frayed rotator cuff, I really need to downsize from my 500mm/1.4x + 100-500 set-up. I just lugged both to Patagonia and eventually had to carry only 1 of 2 of the rigs up/down the unpacked hills. My fav images were the 700mm ‘course and I’m hoping that this could replace both lenese next year. So, please keep them coming
I guess raw stills would have higher bit depth if there was a need for wider dynamic range...
