David Bowgett

Even if the licencing fees argument were true, it would actually make Canon look worse, not better. Because if Pentax, who have a far smaller share of the market and whose video quality has consistently been an absolute joke since the day they added it, are willing to shell out the fees to enable their DSLRs to support 24p, what possible excuse could Canon have for not doing the same?

Given the sensor resolution (6960x4649) they're most likely doing a 2:1 pixel bin, which would give a horizontal resolution of 3.48k.

Okay, seriously, how is it that in the week when Sony and Canon are releasing new mirrorless APS-C mirrorless bodies, Canon is the one who (24p shenanigans aside) is offering more meaningful upgrades over its predecessor, and also has a more reasonable price point?

Oh, yes, absolutely! Anyone who really needs 24p can probably afford to shell out for a second-hand 550D, maybe even a 60D if they really feel like splashing the cash. Or they could buy, you know, literally any camera from any of the other DSLR/mirrorless manufacturers out there.

Normally I'd agree with this, but given the bizarrely arbitrary feature cuts that Canon seem to have been inflicting on their latest DSLRs, I can understand why people are so concerned. 24p is important because it's a universal frame rate. A large volume of stock footage on my and doubtless other producers' hard drives is encoded at that frame rate, and if I'm working with someone else who's shooting footage in a 60hz region, I can be reasonably sure that my footage (shot in a 50hz region) will match up with theirs. If a camera only operates at one of 25p/50p or 30p/60p, filming with it becomes harder at best, and downright impossible at worst.

Looks like we might finally be getting a Canon DSLR without a 4K crop, since the smallprint mentions the field of view narrowing in 1080p120 mode, but not 4K. Guessing it'll be done via pixel binning though, as I can't imagine Canon of all people managing to produce a sensor that can reliably overscan an effective 7K image without melting.

Nikon I can see being bought out by Sony and probably run as a sub-brand at some point, as they have strengths that would compliment each other quite nicely. Canon... well, you honestly have to wonder if they'd be better off dropping their camera line and becoming a third-party lens manufacturer, as the latter have honestly been a hell of a lot more impressive than the former.

The main problem with this camera is the price - were it priced equivalently to Panasonic's 1" cameras it would absolutely blow the doors off them, and even if they priced it the same as the LX100 II, then the headphone jack, better AF, improved movie quality and lack of a 4K crop would still make it a very worthy competitor despite the smaller sensor. But making it the same price as a G9 and kit lens is just ridiculous. What's more, it smacks of one of Canon's less desirable traits - a sense that they consider themselves to be above actually competing on price, and that they don't need to acknowledge their competition.

Just for perspective, for the same price as this camera you could buy three Panasonic LX15s, which have the same sensor size, the same stills resolution, very similar video capabilities, and a faster lens. And while I've never actually used an LX15, it wouldn't surprise me if it can record video for longer than the 5 minutes that the RX100vii is rated for.

Much as the rumoured specs would be awesome, I have trouble believing that Canon would put out a 90D that's superior to the 5Div in video, and probably even photography as well. I'm also not sure why they'd move to on-sensor phase-detect AF considering all the time and effort they've put into DPAF over the last few years.

Well, let's be fair; supersampling what would effectively be a 12K image down to 4K would be complete overkill, and almost certainly would barbecue the sensor. Maybe if they dropped down to supersampling from an APS-C equivalent region that'd be workable, but then you may as well just use an X-T3.

Hey now, 300nm used to be a cutting-edge process... all the way back in 1996 or so, but it was certainly cutting-edge back then! (To be fair, 90nm processes aren't exactly new either - they've been around since roughly 2004 - but still, quite the difference)

I still struggle to comprehend why Canon are leaving 1080p24 out of their recent cameras. With stuff like the huge crop and lack of PDAF in 4K, plus the lack of other basic video features, you can at least chalk it up to market segmentation and/or a lack of processing power. But leaving out 1080p24 is like producing a car that lacks a second gear and instead goes straight from first to third - it's a pointless, arbitrary, and annoying omission.

Specs-wise, it's actually pretty much everything I'd want from a camera like this. Price is the real issue - £1,079 with a lens is getting awfully close to the G9's price range. EDIT: Just realised, it's got the same crop factor as the GX8 and GX9, rather than the less severe crop of their 16MP cameras. That's... not ideal.

Don't Panasonic's and Olympus's IBIS systems also drop down to a lower degree of stabilization if you have a lens from another manufacturer attached?

Didn't they change sensors with the D5300? I seem to remember that the D5200 (and by extension, D7100) had some issue with banding at high ISOs, which the D5300's newer sensor cleared up. But yeah, they've been on the same basic sensor and CPU for about five years now. Good news for those of us who invested in a D5500 right after it came out, less so for others.

To be fair, it wouldn't be completely without precedent, seeing how the Z6 and A7iii are both cheaper than the Z7 and A7Riii (even if they're not really entry-level per se) and generally regarded as better video cameras. And honestly, the EOS R already set the bar so low that just the smaller crop factor and more classic-style controls would have been a big improvement; it's just a shame that Canon crippled it in so many other ways.

It's clearly not physically impossible, but 8K resolution and m43 does mean that diffraction would start eating into the image detail much more quickly. Though at what point it would become a serious issue, I'm not really sure.

The Z6 already downsamples from 6K to get its in-camera 4K output, so assuming it's done early enough in the processing pipeline they can send the output as RAW over HDMI instead of encoding it to h264 and writing it to the memory card. I have a feeling an APS-C crop might be necessary for raw output on the Z7, as the line-skipping it uses for full-sensor 4K would make for some fugly RAW video.

I've noticed over the years that when a company is dominating in a product market in innovation and/or market share, even if that market is only quite niche, it leads to this attitude among fans of the company that they have some divine right to hold a monopoly over that market, and that all competing products (and the people who buy them) are preventing them from achieving that goal, and are thus the enemy. Even as a primarily Nikon user, I have to admit that Sony were absolutely killing it for the last few years, but I think the A7Riii was seen by some as kind of an underwhelming upgrade, and then a whole bunch of strong rivals showed up all at once from Fujifilm, Nikon and Panasonic (and one from Canon that was at least worthy of a participation award), which has probably led to fears about whether or not Sony can keep up that pace. Well, either that or it's just bleed-over from the console wars. ?

We're only just now starting to get past the overheating issues that dogged a lot of earlier large-sensor 4K cameras. Unless there's been a big jump in their manufacturing technology, Sony are going to find it seriously difficult to keep the sensor at acceptable temperatures in 8k30 mode, to say nothing of 80k60.

Full-Frame mirrorless cameras, and especially the lenses that go with them, are still well out of the price range of the average consumer. Plus, Fuji still seem very much dedicated to the APS-C format, so I doubt mirrorless APS-C cameras in general will be going anywhere anytime soon. I suspect we'll see a few more models from Sony (and probably also Canon), but the real question is how they push the market on from where it currently is.

Is there really going to be that much demand for a full-frame, $2,000+ vlogging camera, though? Because even if we restrict ourselves to talking about Canon cameras, I'd have thought the 80D and M50 would have had most bases covered for that market (outside of the lack of 4K support on the former).

Canon's own ones might be, but there are plenty of decent third-party crop lenses. The real problem is, if you're going down that route, you may as well slap them on a mirrorless from... well, basically any of the other manufacturers and call it a day.

You know, several years back I compared Canon to Nintendo, in that while they were occasionally capable of making something truly incredible, a lot of the time their products were so embarrassingly awful that you ended up wondering how they ever got to be an industry leader. Well, at least since then Nintendo have managed to produce the Switch. Canon have done the equivalent of producing a Wii U with a slightly nicer gamepad. Maybe it was Atari I should have been comparing Canon to - one revolutionary, industry-defining product, and then a whole load of disappointments. (And no, I don't doubt that Canon will sell a ton of these based on reputation, lens quality, stills performance, and after-market service. They didn't get to be an industry leader for nothing. It's just kinda sad that a decade ago this November they came out with such a groundbreaking product, and now they're in the position whereby the only company in this market sector with unquestionably worse video quality and features is Pentax)