Leaderboard

@Djangoif you go c50 + gyroflow route then invest in the RSMB motion blur plugin. It’s the most realistic and dependable motion blur plugin I’ve owned and does a nice job adding back in convincing motion blur when you need to crank your shutter for gyroflow.

Quick follow-up after spending more time with the R6 Mark III at the shop. The R6 Mark III is pulling ahead strongly. IBIS is very effective and reliable for handheld shooting, and the EVF proved extremely useful, especially in bright exterior conditions where the small 3" LCD on the C50 felt noticeably inadequate for precise framing and focus. Flash sync and mechanical shutter add useful flexibility for occasional stills. It delivers most of the key video features I liked on the C50 (7K open-gate, LUT support, S&Q) but with better overall hybrid handling and a lower entry price since I’m starting fresh on RF lenses either way. The R6 Mark III menu feels more comfortable to read overall (the C50's cine UI isn't well adapted to the small 3" display, text and icons can be hard to parse quickly). Switching between photo and video modes is instantaneous, and the mode dial with independent custom settings (C1/C2/C3) is much handier for fast-paced environments where I need to jump between setups without diving into sub-menus. Overall this makes the UI feel better suited to quick, dynamic shooting. Downsides: consumer body look (a cage + handle will address that), no XLR top handle, no dedicated digital zoom rockers like the C50. I’ll miss some of the C50’s cine-specific features and the built-in fan for absolute thermal reliability, but tests show the R6 Mark III has fairly good thermal performance in real-world use. I’m now leaning strongly toward the R6 Mark III. At roughly €1000 less than the C50, it packs a mean punch for the solo run&gun content I’ll be shooting. The open gate capability for multi-ratio work and stills extraction, combined with solid IBIS, the EVF, and overall usability, feels like the best balance. Price to feature ratio is hard to beat in the current hybrid market. I still need to do more comparative tests as this is too important an investment to wing it and I still low-key want the C50. Thanks again for all the input, it’s helped narrow things down a bit.

I walked out of testing yesterday completely sold on the Canon R6 Mark III as the reliable hybrid for pro stills and video jobs. Solid AF, dependable IBIS, a proper EVF for tough lighting and that familiar Canon workflow I already know inside out. Seemed like the safe, no surprises choice. Then I spent the afternoon shooting with the Nikon ZR and Canon EOS C50 side by side, and the shift happened faster than I expected. The ZR surprised me with how compact and genuinely portable it feels. Easy to carry all day without fatigue, and the build quality gives that premium, confidence inspiring solidity. The large bright 4" flip-out screen is a real advantage for quick solo framing and monitoring, especially on location shoots where you need to stay discreet and move fast. Handheld footage stays smooth thanks to strong IBIS, colors and dynamic range deliver right away, and the RED integration could bring noticeable client appeal for higher-end branded or narrative pieces. Adapting my existing Sony Batis lenses works seamlessly too, so no immediate lens spend to get productive. The C50 brings serious post-production flexibility with 7K open gate, which is hard to ignore if heavy cropping, vertical deliverables, or aggressive grading are regular parts of the job. It is a proper cinema camera with useful pro connections. Still, the smaller screen and lack of EVF makes composing on the move feel more constrained, and the lack of IBIS means EIS or gyroflow post time. So yesterday I was set on the R6 III. Today I find myself quietly checking ZR deals while weighing whether the everyday portability, big screen usability, and RED workflow edge tip the balance over the open gate capability of the C50 (and the balanced hybrid strengths of the R6 III). Not decided yet. Need a few more real client-style tests to see which one actually streamlines deliverables without adding friction.

The dynamic range is only crap in the world of luxury peepers. For whom pixel peeping got a bit out of control and if they loose 0.02 stops of dynamic range due to a fast sensor readout they will huff and puff and buy something different. Nuts!

Economics aside, GAS is real and it’s gotten out of hand. The constant hype from camera bros on YouTube and social drives it. Every few months there’s a new “GAME CHANGER” video, clickbait thumbnail, sponsored “first look”, and comment sections full of upgrade questions and system switches. It creates endless FOMO where current gear suddenly feels obsolete, while most “must-have” updates are marginal and don’t matter for real work. Manufacturers love this however this cycle has the opposite effect on me: I keep waiting. Something new is always around the corner, so I drag my feet and keep changing my mind .. That being said there are game changers from time to time, and for me open gate is that kind of benefit for my workflow I’ve been waiting for and it’s why I’m going back to Canon. I’ve seen a lot of Sony users claim it’s not important, and anamorphic shills overblow it’s relevance but truth is for me it makes sense when doing multi-platform content. Extracting high-res stills from video takes is another practical bonus that adds real value instead of just another spec bump. That’s what matters to me, not another 0.5-stop DR , marginal AF tweaks, extra IBIS stops, or RAW flavour of the month. Cameras have been more than good for a while now and all the feature creep and size reduction brings other issues like overheating when reliability should remain a priority..

We might be surprised at how many people out there are in the hobby for, more or less, that reason. On the other hand, being truly creative at cinema and storytelling is rather elusive. That's my experience anyway. Good stories are hard to do. But, playing with tech is a gateway into this creative realm. Honing craft is part of the larger process, right? With craft, you don't need to be creative, so much as tenacious. One can be good and clean at the craft without being all that remarkable with the other stuff. Anyway, run around with Birders if you want to see the extremes between creativity and tech hoarding. Capturing "Birds In Flight" is a big goal, and for many of them (affluent retirees) they'll buy kits that are valued at 10's of thousands of dollars -- yet they struggle to understand how to make it deliver images that tell a compelling story. They latch onto tech to mitigate their creative shortcomings... this kind of thing is not really a harsh criticism, as it's definitely something I'm guilty of.

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.