Andrew Reid

I don't mind that some people like the EOS R. I agree with them it gets a shot and a job done. No argument there. All that matters to me is my own needs and mine are different. I need to switch back and forth between stills and video on one body, so to be thrown off by 1.8x the focal length between 4K and a RAW still is not going to fit the workflow. To drop to 1080p seems poor value for money, and to use a Speed Booster would necessitate a second body or an adapter swap when going from 4K to a RAW still. If you are composing a shot in video mode and hit record, bang - 1.8x crop - your composition is going to be completely different. Different deal breakers for different people!

Yes we are talking Fuji GFX prices for those new Canon R mount lenses. The 63mm F2.8 is incredible on the 50S. Actually it is a lot lighter than the EOS R 50mm F1.2L and a bit more compact. It's a big investment in lenses that can only be used on one system. At least with EF, you can sell everything else and use it on pretty much any camera system. How many times is your shot -6ev under exposed that you need that kind of low-light AF?

Yes sure Mattias C100 ii is a workhorse, trusted, familiar and reliable. I am more interested in auteur filmmaking and cinematography, where you'd go to great lengths to bring a Russian LOMO anamorphic into service for the hell of it... Beautiful artistic reasons over efficiency. Slowly crafting something rather than delivering for a client and getting paid. It's different mindset. Here the camera isn't just a gear in the job machine. For same artistic reasons you may want full frame, which rules out C100 II. For same artistic reasons you may not want to shoot 1.8x crop from a $3000 full frame lens and might consider the $3000 better spent on glass for a Nikon Z7. As well as the artistic side, where the EOS R fails to excite me, it fails to excite me equally as much on the technical side. It's just old chips. Old sensor. Not exactly an X-T3 or Z7. I have a blog to write about innovative camera technology. Not much to say about the EOS R on that front but the lenses are good.

Yes but you are talking from a bit of an outsider perspective, that of a stills shooter not interested in video! The rest of us want to shoot video, and clearly Fujifilm offers a more ergonomic and higher spec body for less money with the X-T3 and X-H1. While Nikon Z7 is superior in the specs and ergonomics department as well. For instance, being able to instantly toggle between stills/movie mode on the lever, rather than having to press M and enter a sub-menu and then press info and then use the d-pad to select the mode. The mode dial and live-view lever on previous Canons worked well. Why go backwards? Meanwhile others have caught up with autofocus. Jordan Drake at DPR is saying the EOS R actually has a major bug. It keeps confirming focus on the subject and then front-focussing. The M.fn bar is a disaster as well. Too sensitive, so it keeps adjusting settings invisibly every time you handle the camera or place it down. Trust me on this mate. Canon have lost some of their best staff to competitors. At Photokina the actual user feedback after getting their hands on the EOS R was lukewarm to say the least from Canon's own loyal fanbase and it failed to deliver a buzz. I don't really understand what you see in this thing. It's not a 6D Mark II (just works) ergonomically, it's not a high-spec body or robust, it's not competitive for video and the stills aren't better than a 5D Mark IV or really much better than a 6D Mark II either, so unless you want to drop over $5000 on the only two nice native lenses wouldn't you be better off with an X-T3 and some Fuji glass?

Are any of these tests showing the difference between the Pocket 4K and GH5S? Are any showing the actual benefits of RAW vs H.265? It's all just eye candy. I want to know what the actual image quality is relative to the competition (X-T3, GH5S, Z7, Magic Lantern and A7 III).

Funny, I also had my hands on the EOS R at Photokina and could have sworn it felt like a cheap $500 mirrorless camera with poor ergonomics and really dated video mode, but then I don't have 700,000 hungry Canon viewers on my YouTube channel to feed.

2012 called. It wants the last few posts back!

As long as the DJI and Blackmagic employees do it under their own (real) names and logos, I'm fine with it. Pretending to be customers, not so much.

A new year, a new day. Sales looking strong at the Canon store!

Me too!

I think it would be against UK and US law as well not to mark it as sponsored content. If these posters / companies own up now and come out of the closet, I'll consider the matter closed. If not, there will be hell to pay.

I wouldn't say the GH5S is not "all-in" for video. Seems balls deep in video to me. Well, it's great it does RAW and ProRes, but the GH5 and X-T3 have a longer list of video focused features in total. The GH5 including some very major features like an EVF, anamorphic mode and IBIS. I don't see what is wrong with 10bit 4:2:2 either, maybe I am missing something. It is time for this Pocket 4K hype to get a reality check. Probably as soon for most people as they open the box.

Yeah WHAT A GREAT CAMERA! A total steal at just $2400!

You're not using your PC outside!

It's like the Speed Booster never existed isn't it? Sigma 18-35mm F1.8? F2.8 full frame zoom on Speed Booster? And now there is the upcoming F1.7 Panasonic zoom! Hang on is that the sensational fast aperture telephoto for Micro Four Thirds?!?! I thought Micro Four Thirds was just saddled with slow telephoto lenses!

I guess Sigma are ok for now making Nikon F mount lenses which work on the Z flawlessly through the FTZ adapter. But Canon and Nikon should be more like Panasonic and Sony and share the mount, that's for sure.

This thread and quite a few others have some really bad taste comments in it which lower the tone of the forum, not just a bit but a lot. And it is almost always you involved @jonpais I will have to decide Jon whether you are still welcome or whether it would be better for the community if you used a different place. You have no idea how tired I am of it. Final warning.

It's been noticed in the back-end of the site that some new users are joining in order to future the agendas of PR and marketing at some companies. It's a tricky area for me to deal with, but I'll get some advice on how to better detect it and prevent it from happening in the future. Whilst I know it is happening, the evidence as to what exact company is responsible for which posts isn't solid enough yet to go naming them. But rest assured if I do find out, they will be named and shamed on the front page of EOSHD.

If Fujifilm can be doing so well with both APS-C and medium format at the same time I am sure Micro Four Thirds can survive full frame, it has done since the start. I once chose the GH1 over the 5D Mark II remember! And I will never part with some of the more unique c-mount lenses, micro four thirds lenses and anamorphic glass - the anamorphic on full frame is, shall we say, more challenging.

It's $500!

Yep.

Let's keep it to the X-T3 with the footage please Jon.

Original file is available to download on Vimeo (click the video title above). Want the absolute best cheap low-end camera for 4K shooting? You're looking at it. I think the E-M10 III at $500 might just be the best value for money 4K camera now available, but it's easy to lose sight of that. With the recent price race to the top, I'm starting to wonder how monied you have to be. A certain "DSLR video" blog currently features an Alpa cage on a Hasselblad H6D 100C! Anyone got a spare $40,000? Read the full article

If you get yours this month, have an X-T3 on standby if you plan to shoot paid work on it.