All Activity

"my mood tanks and it bleeds into the set" is a great way to express what I was thinking. I might have to steal your wording! I've had cameras I've loved to use and ones I always felt like I was struggling against, and it's definitely something that can be difficult to quantify. I suspect it's that we each have a range of priorities and preferences, and after getting used to the equipment and learning how it impacts the whole pipeline from planning through delivery and perhaps even into repeat business, the feeling we get is perhaps representative of how well it aligns with our individual preferences. It's easy to compare specs and pixel pee images, but there are lots of things that can be a complete PITA that don't show up on the brochures or technical tests. When reading your original post it felt like you want to go with the C50 and are trying to talk yourself into it / justify it. One thing that I think is underrated is the idea of the quiet workhorse. A camera that is a professional tool, does what you need without fuss, and doesn't have a lot of fanfare. For me that was the GH5 (although the colour science and AF weren't great) and now the GH7. These sorts of cameras don't grab headlines, but the fact that they're quiet workhorses rather than outlandish divas means you're able to move past the tech and concentrate on what you're shooting and the quality of the work. Canon have a very solid reputation in this regard - there's a reason they ruled the doc space for decades. One other thought.. if you don't have one already, consider buying a nice matte box. It'll help to stabilise the rig and will also make you look more impressive to clients!

This one gets on my moobs also as does, “tell me what content you want me to make”. The latter reads to me as, “OK, I have been through everything I can think of and also copied everything everyone else has done in this genre and now I am stuck and desperate for more material. Please help”. I have been recently unsubscribing from so many YouTube channels as part of my on-going “I unsubscribe from this world of fuckwittery” lifestyle choice.

Do I think large camera companies are out of touch? Dunno/maybe… I think most companies and people are full stop. Or at least reactive rather than proactive ie, really only act when they need to rather than choose to. Are camera companies specifically focused on the higher end of the market and have prices for such kit gone up? Yes I think so. Mainly thank phones and social media for that ‘gift’. Does any of it have any bearing on me? Nope, not really… As a business user, the cost is not that big a deal to me and if my annual tool budget cost of my turnover goes from 5 to 6%, it’s no big deal. Until fairly recently, for my specific use case, I did buy and sell far more than I would have liked and ‘suffered’ the mockery and sometimes outright abuse of various so called colleagues, in that regard (not that I really cared or it made any difference and I am still here whilst most of them are not so…) partly out of need, partly out of want. In recent times though, it’s come down to pure want that is the deciding factor. Last year for sure was pure want over need. This year I am not making a single significant change other than I’ve moved a few pieces around, bought a new relatively cheap lens last year and will be picking up a new drone this Spring as my 5 year old one flies a bit wonky after several, err…‘incidents’. I still muse over stuff from time to time and there’s a couple of things I might jump on if they ever appear but as those things do not currently exist as anything but pure speculation at best, I’m not that bothered.

Every time I’m watching a YouTube video and they say “Let me know down below in the comments” I just think “Oh no you poor bastard”. The problem is of course that they have to appeal to people to do that to get the algorithm to work for them and give their content a chance to get noticed. YouTube actually make you open yourself up for trolling to even attempt to make yourself relevant in their “who gives a shit about quality?” mindset. It’s exactly the same with the other clown and his blue tick programme being a deliberate incitement to gain money by hateposting, rage baiting and outright lying to farm replies for cash and cause division. Absolute shithouse behaviour. Particularly as it also seems to be an effective template to become US President.

Yes, but the point is that they are high. People in the US make more per capita and because of our broken system, we also need to spend more in order to receive health care, have a place to live, buy food, etc. You are severely delusional about the amount of disposable income of the average consumer in the US. Average rent in the US is about $1,800. That's more than half of the post-tax income of most people and with the rest, they need to buy groceries (average about $500/month/person), transit (varies wildly, but you probably need a car unless living in a bigger city where your rent will be higher), health care (insurance ain't cheap), and... you're now out of money. This is also why the average US citizen is $63,000 in debt. I've been fortunate enough to make a better-than median income and I was able to pay off my house years ago. That's why I can afford more fun stuff now. A wall of text with no paragraph breaks (seriously, that was barely readable, break it up man) does not fix those problems. The point is that for most US residents, including most of my friends/acquaintances, they never lived in a tower of gold - they lived and live paycheck to paycheck, just hoping that they don't get sick and ruined financially. 15 years ago? Maybe not. 6 years ago? Yes, in almost every meaningful way. Let's compare the results per dollar for an EOS R5 (used price around $1,800) and an EOS R5 Mark II (used price around $3,600). Reductive and stupid. To start a new company from scratch, you'd need to burn a shitload of investor money and be able to make no profits for several years before the first model comes to market - assuming that the major players don't lock you out by buying all the inventory from your suppliers, etc. The profit margin on camera gear is big. This is also why Black Magic, Kinefinity, Z-Cam, and a few others have been shaking up the industry for a while - offering a bigger feature set for less money and driving the bigger manufacturers to offer more/better features in their cameras to stay competitive.

Maybe the problem here is more about the targeted advertising, social media sites and generally the web showing ads based on the data that they've collected on your interests, basically always suggesting something you might be interested in buying, than the products themselves? Before the internet, and even in the early years of the web, people were shown generic ads for things such as diapers, books, cleaning equipment, clothes, cars, etc. rather than ads targeted to very niche users, to each user their own portfolio of potential wants and desires. In the past we would be annoyed by ads but ignore them because they were largely not relevant to us most of the time. Today the ads are so precisely targeted that they're harder to ignore. I personally think this data collection and targeted advertisement should be made illegal because it leads to people buying things they don't need and can't afford, and a sense of misery if they don't buy. Young people growing up with the smartphone and social media have increased rates of mental problems. Generally, commercial interests of big companies seem to override the needs of regular people in the decisions made by politicians, leading to a society where people are less happy than before, even though we have more "things" than we had before.

Health care costs in the US are high because of a private insurance-based system (where a large part of the money goes to the insurance company which doesn't actually do anything to improve your health). Health care costs in Europe are about one half of the US costs per person. In my country, large incomes from salaries are taxed heavily to provide free education and low-cost health care to everyone. This also means smaller income differences between people than in the US and as a result there is not as much of market for extremely expensive houses etc. In the US in many highly populated regions, such as NYC, or LA, the costs of housing are very high because many people with a lot of money want to live there. In my country, when people are not doing as well economically, housing prices go down even in the most desired regions, compensating to some extent for the loss in purchasing power. In the US, many people are so rich that they can afford to pay anything the market asks for, and this results in a situation where the "ordinary person" can't afford to live in those areas (which are often the most job-rich as well). This has nothing at all to do with decisions made by the camera companies. When smartphones replaced cameras in the hands of the majority, camera companies lost most of their income and sales volume, and they have had to refocus on the higher-end market since the low-end market disappeared to a large part. The reason those entry-level cameras were so inexpensive 10-15 years ago was because of orders of magnitude greater sales volumes. In addition, the customer wants ever higher specs and better performance, and as sensor resolution has increased, the lenses need to be optically better corrected to avoid showing obvious defects or limitations in image quality when the image is viewed using those high-resolution sensors and displays. This makes the lenses more expensive as the higher quality is more difficult to manufacture. Energy prices have gone up because of wars and lens manufacturing is very energy-intensive. The AI boom has increased the demand for semiconductors and thus the camera companies need to pay more to compete for access to the production capacity for chips. Customers now want cameras designed for video as well as stills, again this means the manufacturers have had to develop expensive processors and sensors to achieve the fast readout and high resolution, and lenses need to focus silently and be corrected for focus breathing and parfocality. Customers will, of course, at the end, have to pay for this development and increased manufacturing costs. Camera companies are not especially profitable today. There is not much that they can do about that. You can always get back to using older equipment as these are available for a fraction of their cost when new. Compare the results you get for dollar using a modern camera with one made 15 years ago, do you still think the new items cost more to achieve the same results? They do not. For similar capabilities that were sold 1-2 decades ago, you can get that equipment really cheaply today. If you feel the camera companies are ripping people off, start your own company and make products more affordable if you can. To make life more affordable for the ordinary person in the US, it would be far easier to make a publicly funded health care system and tax the billionaires, stop funding the military-industrial complex, fire the corrupt government, stop building golden ballrooms, and so on. These things are why life is appearing unaffordable to many people in the US. The rest of the world is used to things like cameras being expensive and don't complain so much since the fall hasn't been from a high tower made of gold and marble.

@kye Thanks for the thoughtful take, two solid points. On the first one: I don’t really have emotional attachment to camera bodies anymore. They’re just tools that either help me get the shot or get in the way. Lenses are the emotional part for me (the rendering, the character, the way they feel when I look through them), but the body is basically a computer with a mount and some buttons. That said, ergonomics and UI matter hugely. If I’m constantly fighting menus, fumbling controls under pressure, or the grip feels wrong after 20 minutes, my mood tanks and it bleeds into the set. I’ve shot with cameras that technically should be fine but never clicked with my hands or brain. The day always feels harder and the results flatter. So if the C50’s cine OS with shutter angle, proper exposure tools and XLR top handle let me stay in flow instead of menu-diving or second-guessing, that’s worth a lot more than specs on paper. Reliability is primal too. A body that fails on set (AF hunting in low light, overheating mid-interview, battery dying unexpectedly, corrupted file, flicker issues, or weird grading artifacts) is a disaster, especially solo. I’ve had shoots go sideways because of exactly that. So even if a camera is technically capable, if it can’t be trusted in the field for hours, it’s not a tool, it’s a liability. On stabilization: I’m with you. I’m not chasing perfectly locked-down gimbal shots or overcooked EIS. I actually like natural camera movement, it feels alive and human. The stuff that kills the vibe for me is the micro-jitters and tiny breathing shakes on small-body cameras. Those little floating tremors look nervous and amateurish. Big intentional camera motion (shoulder rig sway, handheld energy) can be beautiful and add to the scene, but those small unintentional artifacts from inadequate stabilization are just distracting. That’s why Gyroflow plus shooting with EIS off (or Standard only when needed) feels like the sweet spot. I get to keep the organic handheld character I like, but I can surgically remove the annoying micro-shake in post without turning everything into a locked-down special effect. If a shot is so dynamic that even that isn’t enough, I’ll reach for a gimbal or shoulder rig anyway. But for 80 to 90 percent of the lifestyle, interview and observational stuff I’m shooting, I’ll be on sticks with handheld B-roll. Appreciate the nudge. It’s always good to be reminded that mood, flow and reliability matter more than specs.

@kye I don’t disagree with the basic market argument, and I’m not suggesting cameras are a necessity or a right. What I was pointing to is less about entitlement and more about cultural tone. Markets can function correctly and still feel disconnected from the lived reality of a lot of people right now. Also i’m not arguing companies shouldn’t sell high end gear, only questioning whether the pace and intensity of constant releases and marketing still feels aligned with the broader moment we’re in. This is an observation about fatigue and context, not about price controls or obligations.

I think you've been looking at the camera industry too long. We operate in a marketplace where people offer goods and services and if people want to purchase them they do, and if not, they don't. There are reasons why Governments might incentivise or subsidise various industries or products or behaviours, but I don't think any of these apply to cameras. The only other situation that is an exception is if something starts to become a necessity, like clean water or reliable electricity supply, and more recently now internet access is getting into this territory. When this happens then efforts might need to be made to ensure that these things are accessible. I very much doubt anyone is arguing that high-end mirrorless cameras are a human right, in which case they should just be traded like all goods, where they're subject to the laws of demand and supply. You can't get your house painted for $50 because paint and labour costs more than that. You can't buy a car for $9 because no-one has worked out how to make them for anything remotely like that price. You can't buy a super-car for $10000 because the market has valued them significantly above that.

Two thoughts from me. If you close your eyes and imagine each scenario, how do each of them make you feel? What is never really talked about is that if you feel like you're having to argue or strong-arm your equipment then you'll be in a bad mood, which isn't conducive to a happy set, getting good creative outputs, or just enjoying your life. I think people dismiss this, but if you're directing the talent then this can really matter - people can tell if you're in a good mood or distracted or frustrated etc and people tend to take things personally so your frustrations with the rig can just as easily be interpreted by others that you're not happy with their efforts. The odd little image technical niggle here or there won't make nearly as much difference as enjoying what you do vs not. When it comes to IBIS vs Giroflow vs EIS etc, it's worth questioning if more stabilisation is better. For the "very dynamic handheld shots" having a bit more camera motion might even be a good thing if it is the right kind of motion. Big budget productions have chosen to run with shoulder-mounted large camera rigs and the camera shake was pleasing and added to the energy of the scene. Small amounts of camera shake can be aesthetically awful if they're the artefacts from inadequate OIS + IBIS + EIS stabilisation, whereas much more significant amounts of camera shake can be aesthetically benign if coming from a heavier rig without IBIS or OIS. If more stabilisation is better, maybe it would be better overall to have a physical solution that can be used for those shots? Even if there aren't good options for those things, maybe the results would be better if those shots were just avoided somehow? In todays age of social media and shorts etc, having large camera moves that are completely stable is basically a special effect, and maybe there are other special effects that can be done in post that are just as effective but are much easier to shoot?

Good to hear you got a solution that works for your (very challenging) shooting requirements - that's what truly matters! Low-light is now the current limitation for the high-end MFT line-up. The GH7 sacrifices having a dual-base-ISO in favour of having the dual-readouts and the DR boost that architecture gives. I shoot uncontrolled external locations in available light, which means low-light performance is a consideration for me too, but the GH7s performance is enough for my needs. I suspect the low-light capabilities of MFT would be described as "Very Good to Excellent", but the latest FF cameras now have low-light capabilities that would be described as "Absolutely Incredible" and so MFT lags by comparison. You can't cheat the laws of physics! It wasn't that long ago that cameras weren't really usable above ISO 1600 or 3200, so things have advanced very quickly. Suggesting that you "need" to shooting weddings at ISO 25,600 would have been considered a joke and saying you were serious would have started arguments and gotten you banned as a troll! Personally I think the "if todays cameras can't do it then you don't need it" is a silly perspective, because it implies that there aren't any new situations or circumstances that are worth recording, and obviously that's just plain ridiculous. I wonder how the GH7 compares to the original A7S. The difference might be smaller than you'd think.

I think I may not have explained myself clearly, so I want to reset what I was actually getting at. This isn’t about whether people need new cameras, or whether older cameras are still capable. I agree they are. It’s also not about blaming any one company or getting political. What I’m really reacting to is the disconnect in tone. Right now, a lot of people are dealing with very real financial pressure in day to day life. Food, housing, healthcare, basic stability. Against that backdrop, the pace and intensity of constant product releases and marketing across the camera industry (and other industries) feels a bit detached from how many people are actually living. I’m not saying companies should stop innovating, and I’m not saying people are wrong for buying new gear if they can afford it. I’m just questioning whether the relentless “next thing, next thing, next thing” approach still matches the moment we’re in. Even for those of us who aren’t buying, it can create a kind of fatigue just being surrounded by it, especially when most modern cameras are already more than capable for professional work. So the question I was trying to raise is less “should anyone upgrade?” and more “does this constant push still make sense culturally and economically right now?” That’s all I was aiming to explore.

Good convo so far, I shoot on Lumix FF, Fuji XH2S and stills on Canon. Have had a lot of Sony's in the past (actually think the FX30 is a fantastic overlooks body if you don't need super High ISO) Bought a ZR on a whim, - to my taste- the H265 is unusable, and the RED code files are massive. There are way too many quality of life issues (like extracting the CFB card once there is a cage on the body) that really ruin it for me! For what you have listed I think the C50 is great or look for a used FX3, still a solid camera today.

Depending on which source, we're the third, fifth, or sixth highest. But that also comes with highest prices for a lot of things including health care. My after-insurance cost for a dental check-up, two cavities filled, and a crown was over $2,000. To have a skilled laborer (like a plumber or electrician) come to your house will usually cost $300+ for all but the most basic things. The trend started before the current president and is applicable to every country. In general, fewer cameras are being released in the $2,000 range than are released in the $3000+ range - and far fewer still under $1,000. Even if the median salary is $40,000 (according to the SSA), after state+federal taxes, that'll come to under $3,000/month - barely enough to cover rent, food, and insurance. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html

US has the third highest median wages (PPP) of all countries in the world (only Luxembourg and Switzerland are ahead in this metric). I think it's remarkable that Americans would complain about prices when those prices are much less within reach to people living in almost all other countries in the world, and even make it a point how supposedly THEY are feeling strained. That said, camera and lens prices in the US have increased because the US government has increased/created tariffs which the customers have to, in the end, pay in the form of increased prices. Yes, manufacturers also feel this in reduced sales and because of this many of them probably have gone into the red (making a loss), but there is not much they can do apart from concentrating on other parts of the worldwide market and trying to make up for the reduced US sales by trying to sell products elsewhere. The tariffs affect low and middle classes more than the upper class because they are flat taxes without progression. The US government is using the tariffs to increase relative taxation of the majority of the population to fund tax breaks to billionaires. This is not the camera companies' fault. It's the people who voted in the latest elections who selected these politicians into office. If you have working cameras and lenses, keep using them until they stop working, then have them repaired, until there are no more parts and the repairs are unsuccessful, and only then consider the purchase of new equipment. Now, of course, marketing will try to get you to buy new stuff. Stop following internet gear forums and concentrate on your work and art.

I hear you, they are great lenses, especially L series and it was actually hard selling them.. but if I go back to Canon it will be the affordable RF STM series (mostly have IS) and who knows maybe I'll venture back to EF for the more exotic ones like tilt shift etc. Sure it is. Just wishful thinking they put the A9iii GS sensor. Gotcha, I'm trying to test it out but it looks like the C50 test footage mxf files I got don't have the meta data in them 😞

Pity about the EF stuff. I'm planning to keep mine for as long as possible and I'm still adding more on occasion. Adapts to everything, autofocus feels native on RF bodies. Plus most of the lenses were designed before it was assumed that the camera would fix defects with a profile. The M mount glass will look brilliant on any system you mentioned, though. Isn't the FX3's RS only like 8ms already? Usually that's enough even for fast action to look good. Just keep in mind that gyroflow-style solutions usually require fast shutter speeds.

I think there are a few things at play. We're in a place where cameras from 2019 (and maybe a bit earlier) are still totally great and usable. The Z-Cam E2-F6 was released in 2019. The EOS R5 was released in 2020. The A7s III was also released in 2020, as was the OG Red Komodo. You can go pick up any of those cameras right now and make great-looking content with more than enough resolution/quality to be played and look good in any theater. Because of that, there's not a huge reason for everybody to upgrade. If I look at upgrading my R5 to the R5 II, I see nothing that would be worth me spending $1500-2000 for it (assuming I sold for standard used price and bought for standard used price). What am I getting? A bit less overheating, slightly better DR, and more 8K frame rates that I won't use a lot? For $2,000? 🤷‍♂️ Assuming that most enthusiasts have purchased a new camera within the last 5-6 years, they have a camera that's good enough to produce professional results, either in still photos or video. I can sort of see what manufacturers would focus on high-end gear with big margin instead of chasing a share of the shrinking low/mid-range market. But! The good news is that if you're in the category of a person who bought a decent camera in the last 5 years, there's no need to get stressed by the hype around new models. Watch people going for corporate gigs and the like these days and you're apt to see most of them carrying a 5-year old FX3 or FX6.

Also it needs to be warp stabilizer; any of the stabilization algorithms in Davinci resolve don’t do as well and end up making the result worse. Warp stabilizer set to substance warp is quite good however. I actually am currently paying for just after efffects alone and have some scripts that let me quickly render a single clip in Davinci resolve, apply warp stabilizer in AE, render and import quickly back to Davinci.

I completely understand. What I can say is for some reason solid handheld technique + Canon IBIS + Canon DIS + ADOBE warp stabilizer is very consistent and stable. Worth a try. But I do get it, gyroflow is great too and uses real motion data. I’ve done a ton of filming on canon bodies though and this technique works really well. It’s not 100% perfect but I’d call it 95% perfect with a bit of tweaking.

Greetings Fellow Creatives, This week's brand new free-to-use-with-attribution music tracks are: "SNOWY PUZZLER_v001" (LoFi) You can listen to it here: https://soundimage.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Snowy-Puzzler_v001_LoFi.ogg We also have: "LIGHT PUZZLES 10" (LoFi) "ARCTIC PUZZLER" (LoFi) You can freely download them all from the Puzzle Music 7 page on my site: https://soundimage.org/puzzle-music-7/ OTHER (HOPEFULLY) HELPFUL LINKS: https://soundimage.org/attribution-info/ https://soundimage.org/ogg-game-music-mega-pack/ https://soundimage.org/ogg-music-packs-2/ https://soundimage.org/custom-work/ As always, enjoy, please stay safe and keep being creative. 🙂

Interesting, I'm usually not a fan of post stabilisation as it often crops a lot and you get weirdness depending on the shot. Gyroflow seems so much smarter thanks to gyro data. Of course IBIS on the R6 mk3 would actually be enough in most case scenarios so sure I agree IBIS is a plus vs no IBIS on C50, however I feel GF somewhat alleviates the lack of IBIS, and I'm gaining a whole lotta reliability with the C50 fan etc. The top handle on the C50 is really really nice and helps keeping the cam steady, especially with body contact point. I was actually all set on the R6 mk3 as it checks just about every box on a hybrid.. and then I tried the C50 and it immediately reminded me of my C100/C200 days, except in a so much lighter package with so many more specs. Now the C50 feels like the 5D mk3 after I upgraded to the C100. Still great but photo centric body and UI. I still have about a week to make my mind so keep the feedback coming!

Sadly sold the G9II. I realized I need good high ISO performance, and seems PDAF is disabled at real high ISOs. I scored a canon r6 for $929 and other than the overheating it’s great. And I can live wijt the overheating for how I shoot. IBIS can genuinely compete with LUMIX by having DIS on standard and using adobe’s warp stabilizer, somehow warp stabilizer absolutely thrives at stabilizing the type of leftover shakiness and artifacts of canon’s IBIS + DIS combo. Very consistently stable without warpy artifacts. Great high ISO performance. Lovely image in CLOG3. I did like the G9II. Its image was great. Best Ibis I’ve ever used. Very comfortable. Just realized I need better high ISO performance. Yes I could have gotten a super fast zoom like the sigma 18-35 1.8/speedbooster or Panasonic 10-25mm 1.7. But sometimes I REALLY need to push things at weddings or concerts, shooting at ISOs like 25,600. That’s beyond what the Gh7/G9II can handle.

This does require a good technique ofc meaning good crouched heel toe walk, holding the camera a bit loose and even using a neck strap helps. But when I shoot this way with canon IBIS + DIS Standard and then use warp stabilizer, the results are excellent and very consistent.