Review: Canon RF 5.2mm f/2.8L Dual Fisheye 3D VR
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
There are much more relevant reviews on YouTube where the Canon VR solution is compared to other current and popular VR solutions.
To save people time watching videos by people they don’t like, the Canon lens is very well rated when compared to other manufacturers from cheaper to over $20,000. But if you are a VR content creator you already know that.
To save people time watching videos by people they don’t like, the Canon lens is very well rated when compared to other manufacturers from cheaper to over $20,000. But if you are a VR content creator you already know that.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thankfully its not a lens for me.
I've not much experience with Occulus etc .
I found it disorientating and headache inducing.
I think I prefer the real world to a virtual world.
I'm sure there will be much cheaper generic lens like this in the future.
There are plenty of industries good and bad that will make use of these type of lens.
In the future I think alot of people will live in virtual worlds rather than face the real world.
The Matrix seemed a mind blowing concept when it first came out in 1999.
Computer games are already immersive, I'm sure they will feel real in the near future.
I've not much experience with Occulus etc .
I found it disorientating and headache inducing.
I think I prefer the real world to a virtual world.
I'm sure there will be much cheaper generic lens like this in the future.
There are plenty of industries good and bad that will make use of these type of lens.
In the future I think alot of people will live in virtual worlds rather than face the real world.
The Matrix seemed a mind blowing concept when it first came out in 1999.
Computer games are already immersive, I'm sure they will feel real in the near future.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Good luck with that. I believe subscription models are the future, especially for sophisticated software services like this. I also suspect that a purchased software license would cost more than the lens and be outdated within a few months for this fast changing technology.
Upvote
0
Just because subs are 'the way of the future' doesn't mean us, as consumers, need to be ok with it. Just look at Toyota's Remote Start fiasco that just happened on a 'new' released 'feature'. They got so much flak for it they had to do damage control. If you're not aware of what happened... the basically introduced one of their new vehicles with an odd 'feature'. Basically, the jist of the issue is when the owner pressed remote start on key fob, it sends a direct signal to the car, which then the car hits the net to see if you have an active service, then it will issue the command back to the car, which will then start the car. There was no way for the fob to start the car w/o a sub. It's a cash grab that none of us has to be ok with... why if I have the fob in hand does it need to check that I have an active service when it's talking to the car directly. We have to collectively take a stand on this type of crap and vote no with our wallet and/or feedback.
Sorry, but I expect to be able to use the camera+lens (that comes in over $6000 for the pair) to at least perform its basic functions out-of-the box. The sub is a blatant cash grab.
It would be the same as not being able to open or edit a RAW CR3 without a Canon sub to 'decode' it. There is a line that I will firmly stand behind based on principle alone. It's also the same reason I refuse to support any adobe products. There are other alternatives I use that can do just as good as a job, but on those if I want to skip a year and keep the version I have, I can.
Also, as I mentioned in the second half of my comment. One of the reviewers already talked about there being a non-sub way of converting videos. Just waiting on more info. If this gives an output quality that looks/performs at least as good as Canon's solution, then I may be interested... else it's a hard pass on principle alone.
Upvote
0
I agree, Canon should at least make a basic free version that lets you convert the files in a playable format and basic editing tools for consumers. Then the more advanced editing tools and updates can be on subscription for professionals.
For a hobbyist who only wants to use this lens every few months or so the subscription will be a pain to cancel and renew when you want to use it. But for professionals who will be using this regularly the subscription wouldn't be a problem.
If future versions of DPP were subscription only then I would just stick to the old version, but future cameras and lenses wouldn't have a choice and would need to use the newer version that may force a subscription, hopefully they don't go in this direction with DPP.
Upvote
0
already posted it here:
Upvote
0
I've always wanted a VR recording platform. Back in the day, I was so so close to buying the GoPro Max 360, Insta360, or Garmin VIRB devices. But luckily my early adopter personality walked off the ledge and didn't buy any of them. The videos were just too crude (the resolution like 5.7K sounded impressive until you realize that you had to split the resolution up and the final result would look blocky.
Sigh, the window passed for the hobbyist in me.
I can imagine the porn industry would love it (though VR porn is weird, the girls look like they're 50 ft tall giants). If I was an action sports person (surfer, skydiver, skater, etc.), this would be amazing. If this tech came out when I was 20... sigh...
Sigh, the window passed for the hobbyist in me.
I can imagine the porn industry would love it (though VR porn is weird, the girls look like they're 50 ft tall giants). If I was an action sports person (surfer, skydiver, skater, etc.), this would be amazing. If this tech came out when I was 20... sigh...
Upvote
0
$6,000 is such a high entry price for this tech. I had a Vuze XR, but the image quality wasn't great. I feel like somebody ought to be able to put out a great device with two 1" sensors and decent optics for around $500 - $1000.
Upvote
0
But many people have R5’s so the $2,000 entry price for unmatched resolution even from $20,000 competitors makes it a steal. heck even if you don’t already have an R5 it is a steal if that is the space you are working in.
Upvote
0
The real problem is that for VR video, the R5 is purely incapable of producing high quality VR180 video. 8K 30fps is useless for VR video, and 4K is available in other cheaper solutions. Hopefully they fix this issue by giving the R5c 6K at 60fps (120 fps preferable).
Upvote
0
Not going by the samples I have seen nor the reviews comparing different VR capture devices.
Upvote
0
So... I checked on the sub pricing/limitations. Thought I would share for those interested.
EOS VR Utility 31 days $4.99
EOS VR Utility 365 days $49.99
EOS VR Plugin 31 days $4.99
EOS VR Plugin 365 days $49.99
New subs get first 90 days free
No sub is limited to 2-minute exports
I actually thought it was going to be more than this... and with no trial or limited use.
Still, I would have rather seen them charge an extra 100$ on the lens to fund their program than to see a sub. I'm still waiting to see what other options will come up, but at least 2 min would be enough to do a walk around of an object.
Plan info can be found here... https://sas.image.canon/store/plan , the 2 min exports info is mentioned in the utility.
EOS VR Utility 31 days $4.99
EOS VR Utility 365 days $49.99
EOS VR Plugin 31 days $4.99
EOS VR Plugin 365 days $49.99
New subs get first 90 days free
No sub is limited to 2-minute exports
I actually thought it was going to be more than this... and with no trial or limited use.
Still, I would have rather seen them charge an extra 100$ on the lens to fund their program than to see a sub. I'm still waiting to see what other options will come up, but at least 2 min would be enough to do a walk around of an object.
Plan info can be found here... https://sas.image.canon/store/plan , the 2 min exports info is mentioned in the utility.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
I agree that's reasonable, but I have to also point out that Canon is charging almost half the cost of the entire Photoshop program and about a quarter of the cost of Premiere Pro, the industry leading video editing software program, for one single plug-in. Worth pointing that out for those on this forum who constantly whine about the cost of Adobe.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
