All Activity

Fair points, but I think you’re overstating the certainty here. None of us actually know if Canon is switching bit depth between FF and S35 on the C50. Canon hasn’t published that detail, so it’s speculation. What we do know is Canon are claiming higher DR in S35 mode, so whether that comes from pipeline tweaks, bit depth, or something else, the end result is what matters to shooters. Also, the CVP review actually concludes the opposite of “no improvements”: they specifically say the C50 has better DR, better AF, C-Log2, the XLR top handle, and a range of new photo/video features the R5C doesn’t have. For me, the 7K open gate, C-Log2, higher dual base ISO range, dual format recording, cine-oriented form factor, and XLR top handle are what seal the deal over the R5C. Neither are perfect cameras, but the C50 checks enough boxes for me to seriously consider it.

Nikon’s Japan site showing official release date there of 24th of October. That tax inclusive price of ¥299,200 is taking the value for money to another level really isn’t it 😂

I was simply agreeing with ND64's statement that the C50 most likely has 12-bit video readout in standard FF 16x9. There is a connection between electronic shutter limitations and video readout speed, although the S35 sensor crop can allow for higher bit depth or higher readout speeds. Moreover, cropping into S35 will not reduce noise. It will have the oppositive effect. The sensor is also not dual gain like the one in the Panasonic S1II and doesn't offer any of those features. The only way you are getting more DR out of a sensor crop is to switch to a higher bit depth (13 or 14 bit). If you compare the C50 with the R5C, which has 12-bit video readout, you see almost identical latitude (4 stops over and 3 stops under) as demonstrated in the CVP review: I will admit that the C50 has a beautifully sleek design, and may be worth picking up for the open-gate mode alone, but I don't see much in the way of image improvements over the R5C that I already own. I guess it is a camera made for those who don't have an R5C or those who may need another compact body. In that case, however, I would rather go with a camera that has IBIS, high ISO performance for low light, and greater DR in highlights and shadows. These are qualities I miss in the R5C and that have apparently not been addressed in the C50.

I misread the press release as it says full details will be released in October rather than the actual product being released in October so I’m guessing confirmation won’t come until then about that.

Yeah I was looking at the images posted back when I first mentioned the XLR inputs. It was obviously the XLR2D, but it clearly wasn't the analog one since it didn't have the battery pack underneath. I wonder if Tascam is updating it to have dual ADC and 32 bit float, or if it's the one they already have for Canon and Fuji?

Thanks again for all the great, in-depth recommendations in this thread. Like @IronFilm suggested, MFT seems to be more sensible choice given I already have some MFT glass and, working solo, I need to travel as light as possible. I've been looking for used GH5s, but am wondering now what would be the pros and cons of going for the BM P4K instead? And as my main camera (used for tight shots), is the GH7 still the best choice these days?

No indication C50 can do this either but they should definitely consider it if not already. I also hear they are releasing a bunch of "stylised" LUTs including day-to-night for the C50. As for open gate, if the R5C (or even the R5 II) sensor could actually handle full-height 3:2 video readout, Canon would have probably leaned on that already.. either through firmware or at launch. Instead, they built a brand-new lower MP sensor for the C50. That tells me the older 45MP architecture just isn’t optimized for it (whether it’s readout speed, heat, or the processing pipeline). So while open gate on the R5C would be fantastic, the fact Canon didn’t already enable it when they had the chance is probably the clearest sign it’s not coming. Also for product segment reasons. But you never know..

Yes, great feature and AFAIK the R5C can't do it. My question is whether there is a technical limitation that would stop Canon from adding open gate on the R5C in a FW update?

Huh? It's not moving the goal posts to assert that the fact that some 35mm lenses expose character, but not all - and it's also not moving the goal posts to point out that the same statements are true if you use an S35 lens on FF or a S16 lens on M43. I don't need to maintain a belief that I'm right when I am, in fact, right. In fact, I was the one who brought up Fraser's quote and said that it was based and that indeed, for the lenses that he was using, he was getting more character on a larger sensor. Which of us does that apply to, again? Physician, heal thyself. Terms with no actual definition are useless for discussion or debate. The true idiots are the ones who say that the music ain't old-timey enough. 😉 That is technically true, yes, but as ND64 pointed out, radically impractical if you're shooting wide open. But you can very easily achieve the same look with S35 and many people do it by using a simple focal reducer. And if you don't insist on shooting at T1.2 for maximum toneh all day long, you can also get a similar look on M43, even more so if using a focal reducer. If you're shooting a 50mm at f/4 on your FF camera and shooting a 25mm at f/2 on your MFT camera, they'll look pretty similar - with the main differences relating to the character of the specific lens in use. But the FOV and DOF will be similar enough for it not to matter much - and the gradients/falloff/etc will probably look better on whichever camera is capturing at higher resolution, not the one with the bigger sensor, also assuming that the scene is well-lit since the smaller sensor will probably start to get noisy sooner.

Good, I'm glad we agree. Sorry if I misunderstood you to be arguing with me instead of agreeing with me. Good. I was mostly responding to the comment about "true" open gate. I just prefer to use the ratios for clarity. Yes. For shooting landscape/wildlife, I tend to prefer sharp modern glass, but for portraits/video, I like vintage stuff and for my vintage lenses that work on GF, sometimes the ragged outer edges of the image circle are really nice. I already said that Fraser's comment was based. Agreed that people can choose whatever hammer they want - and I've also said that I'd consider renting the Eterna for a project if it made sense. I'm not, in any way, saying that people shouldn't buy or use it. I'm more suggesting that it's overpriced and that I think most people who are looking in that price range are going to choose an FX9, V-Raptor XE, or UC 12K LF - and that with a somewhat bigger budget, the UC 17K 65 also becomes an option. Fuji would have a lot more sales (and still plenty of profit margin) if they dropped the Eterna at $9-11k. Still plenty of competition in that price range, but then they're undercutting the 41mm wide sensor of the raptor. Since the XE was announced almost in tandem, I am guessing that Fuji's pricing was determined before that announcement. Suspect it will drop a lot after a little while, but at $16k, Fuji also have to be careful not to anger early adopters by dropping the price too soon. Maybe 1 year.

This right here… Don’t waste your time trying to have a normal debate. Instead of admitting you were right about exposing more lens character at the edges with MF sensors he moves the goal posts and still says you’re wrong because “not ALL FF lenses look good on MF” You obviously never said that or claimed that but it’s a tactic people use to find ways to “correct you” after making a valid point. eatstoomuchjam won’t ever admit the might not know something and always needs to maintain the belief that he’s right. Either self esteem issues or simple EGO. It’s the same tired argument with the “MF Look” or something being “Cinematic”. Terms many of us understand and use but these idiots want to argue on an internet forum about how these aren’t a thing. Yet they’re on a full frame camera talking about how “technically” you could achieve the same look with Super 16. I’ve given up with most of the characters here, big waste of time.

Exactly why/how I am shooting the S1RII; 7.2k 30p 3:2 open gate and *horror* no VND and allowing the shutter to go into even the thousands, because 1/60th is too slow for most stills. If there is any chance of banding such as LED’s, 1/50th here in the EU fixes that. Having said that, not pulled any stills yet, but based on shooting 6k 30p @ 1-50th I know it’s going to be better.

Something else no one seems to mention: the 7K 3:2 Open Gate mode should allow high-resolution stills extraction at a photo friendly aspect ratio. I’ve always struggled doing this in 16:9 or 17:9. In practice, it would be amazing to custom-set a button to grab frames while shooting video (FX2 apparently adds this feature). On the R5C, you can do it during playback, but I don't think live?

I'd say 60p video at 16:9 and the 40 fps max stills burst aren’t directly related. The camera drops to 7K 30 fps in 3:2, and stills use a separate pipeline with buffer/processing limits, so max burst is capped by the stills system, not video frame rate. That said, the difference in DR between FF and S35 mode could also come from the readout: fewer pixels in S35 can reduce noise, though it’s also possible Canon is doing something in the background we don’t fully know. Either way, it’s a clever and welcome addition to the camera!

Depth of field wise 35 mm full frame has more options (on the shallow side). However, the "look" has other characteristics including tonal and color quality and richness. If the MF sensor is used at base ISO and given as much light as it can hold, the SNR, tonal range, color sensitivity etc. are better than the MFT. Since most of these sensors and cameras were mainly developed for stills, these characteristics may or may not translate into video image quality. Also shooting at base ISO for stationary subjects is always possible when shooting stills (using a tripod) but because of shutter speed requirements for video, and the ability to process consecutive images and merge information from them to improve SNR, things get more complicated for video. If similar interframe/dual-gain-output strategies are used across formats, if there is enough light, and if the processing power is adequate and read time can be minimized then the MF image should be superior at base ISO. However, these things are very implementation-specific and so video image quality differences between formats do not always mirror still image quality differences.

Tascam handle will be available in October. Details here https://www.tascam.eu/en/messg-2025-09_ca-xlr2d-n

This is getting tedious, you’re over-correcting things I never claimed. I didn’t say FF magically changes lens physics, just that for equivalent framing it naturally gives shallower DOF compared to S35, which is why focal reducers even exist in the first place. You basically repeated that back to me, so we actually agree there. Same with open gate: yes, 17:9 is technically “open gate” on many cinema sensors, but when filmmakers talk about open gate they often mean 3:2 / 4:3 full-height readouts because those give more latitude for aspect ratios and anamorphic use. That’s all I was pointing out. As for “character,” I never said every FF lens suddenly blooms with quirks on 44×33, just that bigger sensors can reveal parts of the image circle not usually seen, which some DPs (like Fraser) like to exploit. Whether that looks beautiful or boring depends on the lens and the shooter’s taste. No need to nitpick every word.. we’re actually saying a lot of the same things. At the end of the day, people are going to pick whatever tool makes sense for their workflow, budget, or taste. I never claimed MF was a magic bullet, just that it offers options and aesthetics some shooters care about. You prefer the practicality of the Raptor, others might be drawn to the Eterna 55. Both views can be true.

Phil Holland comment

True in this case. But the S35 5K crop mode may offer 14-bit readout as it has higher DR (according to Canon): https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/eos-c50?srsltid=AfmBOopS72Y9u5DIhecahYb7DGeR8xunJqjUY9e2K9yJhO7Jj3sJKvw_

I've posted a bunch of times saying that the GH7 is a great camera. There's not much to discuss with a camera that's been on the market for a wihle, though. Kye posts frame grabs from he shot alone with his GH7 that I think look a lot nicer than what Chris and Jordan did with an entire crew and an Eterna. I already said, though, that I have other reasons for liking my GFX 100 II. I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm just saying the truth, based on 20+ years of shooting with cameras ranging from a 16mm bolex / Pentax Auto 110 to a Gundlach 8x20 inch camera and having done tons of side-by-side comparisons. What you see as ego is just experience and impatience. Anyway, have a good one and enjoy your Eterna if you buy one. Depending on the lens, sure. 😀 The GF 55/1.7 is enormous for a 55mm lens, but the 63/2.8 and 50/3.5 are both pretty small/light. But yes, the two fastest first-party lenses for GF are f/1.7 primes (55 and 80) and the 110/2 is the next fastest. Otherwise, there's not a single first-party lens for the system faster than f/2.8 and only two there (the 45 and 63). Though to be fair, in classic medium format terms, some of the fastest lenses ever made were f/1.8 and only covered 6x4.5 (Pentax or Mamiya system IIRC) and the I think the fastest that covered a 6x6 or larger was a Pentax 105mm f/2.4 (which is a monster of a lens) - unless Hasselblad made something faster. But most 6x6 and larger lenses were f/4 or slower.

Not trying to jump into your apparently long discussion, but EXACT look of Full Frame can be achieved on M43, but you need faster lens, and once you go that fast, the lens becomes so big and heavy that the size advantage of the M43 format loses its relevance at that point. But the difference between 44mm wide sensor and 36mm wide sensor is far less than FF and M43. Its basically f/1.2 vs. f/1.4. And at the same time, lens makers of the two systems went opposite direction. FF lenses are now bigger and faster than 44mm MF lenses, cause FF systems want to differentiate themselves from low end cameras, even at the expense of size/weight, while MF systems want to break the collective mindset that MF=Bulky/Inconvenient.

Funny I’m not seeing any of your posts about the wonders of the GH7 but lots here on the Eterna. Funny that you would waste your time here when you could be getting the same EXACT look out of M43 and save a lot of money. After seeing your further posts below and remembering our previous exchanges I’m going to decline your invitation for further discourse. Your ego and style of cherry picking various “truths” makes it an exercise in futility.

10-1 not to be mistaken for 10-20

Sure, but you can accomplish a similar thing by using S35 lenses on FF. Or S16 lenses on M43. You pointed to a bunch of other incorrect things too like DOF equivalence as well. And again, 16/17:9 is "true" open gate on many cinema cameras. But it's also not true that every lens made for FF has extra character when you use it on 44x33mm. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L covers the entire GFX sensor and has minimal character all the way to the edges. The tiny Canon 40/2.8 pancake similarly has minimal character while covering 44x33 pretty well. Fraser wanted to use specific vintage lenses that had more character near the edges of the image circle. Certain FF lenses, yes. And the eterna 55 doesn't use the high MP of the 44x33 sensor for anything. Just like the GFX 100 II, your options to use the full sensor width are 4K with decent RS and mediocre DR (up to 60fps), 4K with strong RS and good DR (up to 30fps? Not sure of the max, but less than 60), 4K open gate with decent RS and mediocre DR (this differs from GFX 100 II), and 5.8k 2.35:1 with strong RS and mediocre DR. 8K goes to a crop really similar to full frame on a 24x36mm sensor and also has strong RS and mediocre DR. I haven't, at any point, said that the Eterna isn't a completely invalid camera with no uses. What I am saying is: 1) There is no intrinsic "medium format look" 2) For a vast majority of use cases, the less expensive V-Raptor XE with a 41mm wide sensor, good DR, and a global shutter will likely be chosen over this one by higher-end owner-operators (those who don't just buy an FX9 (cheaper yet) or C400 (even cheaper) - which, realistically, is most of them). If you prefer the Eterna, you're not wrong. You're welcome to use any tool that you like. I might rent it myself if a project came along where it made sense. I just think that the number of sales that aren't to rental shops will be really low.

Somehow I missed this promo short film, its kinda brilliant in how it showcases a lot of the features in a pretty creative narrative, really liking the overall image from this new sensor: