Leaderboard

There is indeed a wealth of super high quality material, instantly accessible and either for free or with very reasonably priced subscriptions. And every subject whether it be something historical, classic cars, wood turning, whatever floats your boat, is available. But it is probably less than 5% of the material and channels out there which are just dross and soapboxes for talentless hustlers. And now, increasing AI slop. We just have to be more selective as consumers.

@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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

The rumour mill suggests both of these might indeed be coming this April. There have been smoke signals over the Dolomite mountains…

Thanks for the honest take and rig photo. I can see how ZR probably isn’t ideal once you build it out like that. I’m also a bit skeptical about the cinema positioning. Nikon pushes R3D hard, which is great for high-end grading, but H.265 should be solid and dependable at this level, not an afterthought. Hopefully some of this improves via firmware. Better bitrates, cleaner encoding, more mature UI. The FX3 launched pretty bare and evolved a lot over time, so there’s precedent. For me, the appeal of the ZR is the ultra-compact body with that big screen. I wouldn’t want to over-rig it. On bigger sets with serious monitoring needs, I'd say something more modular like the C50 makes more sense. I've decided to rent the C50 to see if it really meets my needs in client situations. Wish I could do the same with ZR but it isn't available for rental around here. Really appreciate you sharing the unfiltered experience. It helps a lot.

I apologize for the delay, before I expand, I have to say Kye in a note above said it best. In general I don't find -For me and what I shoot- the ZR get's out of the way and just works, I'm not brand new to Nikon yet find the menu diving a bit of a pain, I also can't understand why I can't assign some common used settings to the first quick menu. Getting a card out once you rigged your camera is a nightmare, have to move the whole thing off and pull off anything on the base to access the card. See below on set's like this it's a bit of a mess and you then have to spend time and make sure your camera is back to the right place! Another challenge is the tragic H265, I shot a small table top for Sephora the other day and couple of mini clips ended up at 293 GIGs, would have shot it on H265 if it was fine, absolutely no need for red code in a perfectly lit set. I normally shoot on cameras that just do what they need to do and that's all there is to it, we don't even really think much about the camera during the shoot, for my experience so far the ZR isn't that camera! Again this is just me, I'm sure there are people who love using the ZR and that's excellent 🙂 Edit: spelling!

Lately I’ve been thinking about how fast new cameras and lenses come out, and it made me wonder, do these companies actually realize a large portion of the world (especially here in the U.S.) is feeling some real financial strain right now? Between rising living costs, inflation still lingering in daily budgets, and shoppers saying they plan to cut spending because things are less affordable, people in many income brackets are tightening their belts rather than splurging. At the same time, camera gear prices keep going up, with manufacturers leaning heavily into higher end products and even having to increase prices due to tariffs and costs and used gear demand is surging, which suggests many photographers are turning away from new purchases and toward more affordable options. Meanwhile the constant cycle of marketing, hype, and new products can get overwhelming. It starts to feel less like “new tech we need” and more like noise pushing us to buy things even if budgets are tight. I’m curious, do you think camera companies are aware of this, or does it not matter to them because their target audience is high end buyers? And has the constant churn of new gear given you a kind of “second hand fatigue” not necessarily because you want nothing new, but because it feels relentless and disconnected from what most people can realistically afford?

While I enjoy following the latest camera releases, there would literally be zero ROI on us switching systems anytime in the next 5 years.

Yeah 100%. We stayed in the Lumix eco system for years using Canon lenses, and it worked. 3 years ago we finally bit the bullet and dropped like 15 grand into upgrading to Sony bodies and Sigma E mount lenses. That being said, we probably won't do a camera upgrade until these die on us, they more than accomplish anything we need from them. At this point, if we need another body, we can always pick up a used FX30 for like $1200 and it fits in perfectly with our FX6 and A7IVs.

Anyone know where he went? It would seem his "Gear Doesn't Matter" doesn't exist anymore.

What we're seeing with AI is what we see with human intelligence, in that it can be either the best of humanity or the most evil of humanity, and there's a similar spread of ethics on YouTube as well! On one hand the inevitable consequence of a free and open platform with no editorial oversight, no unifying force in terms of values, just a bunch of people doing what they do - some grifters, some artists, some enthusiasts, some engineers, some marketing, some desperate for money, others more interested in creating and less interested in what other people think. I'm kinda upset Mr Burling won't be around any more as he was definitely in the latter camp of YouTubers who had credibility and an artist's vision. I find a lot of the animation folk are the same... that field seems to attract people who are in it for the pure love of it rather than grifters just in it for the ego and the money. In photography and filmmaking the balance is more close to the middle, 50-50. What I like about YouTube and social media in general is you can seek out the niche pockets of creativity and that it sits on what is now a big mainstream TV platform. A mainstream TV platform in the 'old days' would never have had the sheer amount of one-man-band content on it that YouTube has now. So there's a lot to be grateful for with it as well as the other more negative side of it which is sometimes difficult to ignore. It's a net gain overall though isn't it? I will reconsider my own absence from YouTube soon and get some stuff out there.

There isn’t really, unless it’s the Pixiiie camera.

Never subscribed but he was an early victim of my ‘do not recommend this channel’ button pressing on YouTube. Another Content for Content Sake ‘Creatior’ 🥱

Fair points for sure.

I find it incredible that people talk about switching bodies / systems all the time without really considering the wider ecosystem of lenses and accessories. Hell, I've stayed within the MFT system and whenever I get a new MFT body there are still all these extras that I end up being surprised about and inflate the price by 10-15%. If I was re-buying lenses then it would double/triple/quadruple the cost. I have no idea what the economics of lenses are, but I wouldn't be surprised if the camera body is now a loss-leader and the lenses where all the profit is.

Well, we've gotten drastically better pixels, but because everyone has been screaming incoherently about wanting sharper images the manufacturers took the higher performance and kept the same overall image performance but made the pixels smaller so there's more of them. Everyone said they wanted a camera that could match the 2.5K Alexa, but because there were more people screaming for resolution than screaming for quality the industry took it's improvements and gave us mediocre 4K cameras, then more improvements and we got good but not great 5K downsampling cameras, then more improvements and we got quite good 6K cameras, and since then the flagship bodies have given us 8K / 12K / 17K cameras with pixels that are close to rivalling the 2.5K Alexa. So ARRI released the Alexa 35, and now there's a 4K ARRI camera that absolutely smashes the 8K / 12K / 17K flagship cameras. It's a complete myth that cameras aren't getting better. They're getting better by leaps and bounds, but almost all those gains have been "spent" on smaller pixels / higher resolution. If that hadn't been the case, you'd probably have had every other feature you've ever wanted by now.

How about Matti Haapoja’s “epic fpv sea transition” video that was just an artlist AI ad disguised as a helpful video. The same bro who was gonna “take a break from YouTube and really get back to his creative roots for a year” now shilling Higgsfield AI whilst reviewing yet another lens in a sea of perfectly imperfect but still perfect lenses that are all the same and can be made to look however you want because there’s no bad gear anymore just the potential to either acquire or lack skill.

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!

My own tried and tested formula for determining if prices are getting out of hand is how much of an, erm, “rounding error” occurs when relaying the price I’ve paid for something to the wife. When it comes to cameras, it would be a base level of 10%. If I bought a new camera nowadays it would more likely be in the 20-25% area. The area where my perception of price escalation is most piqued though is in the price of first party lenses as much as it is cameras.

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 points. The way I see it is there's a toxic feedback loop of consumerism, hype, marketing, and release cycles. The skepticism and criticisms around this is justified, but the forgotten ingredient in this whole picture is us - the people paying attention. Without us, the whole thing falls flat. I would suggest the uncomfortable truth is that the people caught up in the drama of it are either making money from it (manufacturers, dealers, influencers, etc) or are desperately trying to buy their way into making nicer images. I will be the first to admit I did this. I tried to buy gorgeous images by swallowing the myth that Canon colour science was the answer, then that 4K was the answer, then that shallow DOF was the answer. The truth was that even if someone handed me an Alexa LF I'd still have made awful looking images. Sure, there are people making great work and want to upgrade their equipment from time to time and dip into the chaos briefly, but once they've made their decision and bought something that works for them, they tune out again. These people are spending their time on lighting tutorials, getting better at pre-production and planning, learning how to improve their edits, etc. They're not watching reviews and talking online about the colour subsampling of the 120p modes of the latest 12 cameras that are rumoured to come out in the next 17 minutes. My advice to you is this - if you feel like this then take a break from the industry and try and remember why you got into this in the first place. I'll bet it wasn't because you found a deep love for reading spec sheets!

"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!

@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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Thank you for letting us know! I'm glad you're well! I do wish the content stayed up, as it was still useful, but I understand your reasoning. At the end of the day, it was YOUR content and you could do what you wanted with it! I hope that you check in from time to time and thank you for all your input over the years! And congrats on the family!

Great to hear from you! It makes much more sense now we know why you brought the channel to a close and also chose to delete it eventually. All I can say is that I'll miss it. And I hope you find the passion to return one day to the tube. Having read that I understand completely and found the same challenges myself too, everyone can see that I struggle to get excited about the gear sometimes, whereas in the earlier "DSLR revolution" era, I'd be updating EOSHD 5 times a day sometimes more. It is difficult when a passion becomes work, when enthusiasm becomes repetition, when an audience goes toxic or when a big US tech companies enshitifies the platform you're posting such valuable creativity on. I mean, look what they did to Vimeo, it's a difficult pill to swallow and I've always struggled with my enthusiasm for YouTube as a platform as well and there's very little in way of alternatives. I'm just glad you're well and enjoying your R5... You're right in that it still holds up as near the peak even 5 years later, and the overheating drama is far behind it after Canon decided to undo the damage caused by their fake timers and cripple hammer decisions.

Hello, I hope everyone is well! Even though I’m not really active on camera forums anymore, I frequently read the EOSHD blog and every now and then the forum, so I saw the thread and thought I would respond. Because it wasn’t ”poof gone”, it was announced on the channel over a year ago and mentioned in the last three videos. Before going into why, super flattered that this thread exist. I mean that. So here are some thoughts on the matter and why I took it down. Hobby vs Work YouTube was never my job, just a hobby. So was video making and photography, in the beginning. When starting the channel I was working as a producer after a couple of years as a radio/TV reporter. So I started the channel to keep my practical skills fresh. And to keep up with the development, which was huge at the time. The DSLR revolution, Blackmagic, cheaper editors etc. Fast forward a couple of years and I started making more videos at work again. At the same time I pretty much lost all interest in doing it as a hobby. And actually canceled the channel. Winston Churchill was definitely right in saying that work and hobbies should not be too similar. But what I had discovered was a passion for still photography, which I had pretty much no experience with. So I started making videos again. That’s why my videos became very repetitive and short. I didn’t care about that part, I just wanted to display my stills work and get feedback, talk to the community, experiment with cameras and develop. After a few years I became a good enough photographer that my new employer noticed and just like that I was shooting stills professionally all the time. And I still do (I work in marketing and PR). It’s a huge bonus in my field and if you are good at it you will never be out of work. So photography also became less and less of a hobby. Instead I found other hobbies. They where things that for example got me out into nature, so photography tagged a long a while, as a secondary activity. But eventually it faded. It was also nice to do things and not share it with people. I know I probably could have a very successful channel by making videos about my current hobbies, and even make some money. But I never really wanted a channel for the sake of a channel. And always had a full time job. The fact is that at no point would I had been able to live of my channel, not even at the peak. Even with sponsors it was never more that a regular salary (in my field and country). But as long as it was a hobby and I was glad to do it, it was a welcome addition to finance camera gear. Time At the same time as my channel started to feel less fun and other hobbies started taking my time, I started a family. So.. you get the idea: full time job + family + 2-3 hobbies = no YouTube. Upkeep So why take it down, why not leave it for the community? I did.. at first. Like some of you pointed out, the YouTube crowd in the photography/video space is generally nice and positive. That is my experience as well. Early on I learned that a good way of keeping the trolls away was to be present. Respond and engage. Trolls are usually idiots or cowards, so they don’t like getting push back. But once I stopped making videos, views and comments obviously went down. But the trolls started coming back. Not so much after me, and I don’t care about that. But agains the community. The people commenting started being nasty towards each other. I felt a responsibility to moderate, which was annoying. That’s when the thought about simply removing it started to grow. It wasn’t an impuls. It was an internal debate that went on for months. And the issue grew much much larger than a couple of trolls. I started thinking about five years ahead, 10 years, 30 years.. This post is already way too long so I won’t go into all of it. But I think you get the idea when I say: Privacy or when the content no longer reflects the creator. Digital minimalism, control over one’s narrative, inactive or outdated content. Risk of misuse of content due to me not checking the terms updates. Closure. So there is a looong ramble :) To keep in spirit of the forum I can charge my current gear for pro work :) For the longest time I used the EOS-R for 75% of all my work and the R5 (rental) for the rest. It wasn’t mine but my employer told me to buy whatever I wanted. Paired it with a 28, 35 and 70-200. 70/30 stills/video. The R5 is peak camera imo. Today is a little different. I started working for a new company about a year ago and again was told to buy what I needed. I would have bought the R5 without hesitation if it wasn’t for the Sigma 35-150/2-2.8.. I just had to have it. So I ordered the Nikon Z6iii. It’s not as good overall as the R5 for me and what I like in a tool camera. But it’s 90% there. And coupled with that lens it’s becomes on par. //MB

It really surprises me how many of these fuckers pose and smile for the camera. They're absolutely insane. It's absolutely insane. This world is absolutely insane.