David Bowgett

It's not needed, but right now it's the direction the industry seems to be moving in. Only Fujifilm and, weirdly enough, Canon really seem to be pushing the boundary in terms of APS-C sensors right now, and things have been even slower on the m4/3 front.

It's not needed, but right now it's the direction the industry seems to be moving in. Only Fujifilm and, weirdly enough, Canon really seem to be pushing the boundary in terms of APS-C sensors right now, and things have been even slower on the m4/3 front.

So, in the age where mirrorless is king, Canon's best option for video (not counting their cinema cameras) is a DSLR aimed primarily at sports shooters. You couldn't make this s**t up if you tried.

So, in the age where mirrorless is king, Canon's best option for video (not counting their cinema cameras) is a DSLR aimed primarily at sports shooters. You couldn't make this s**t up if you tried.

Meanwhile, the EOS R is looking like the Phantom Menace of cameras. Initially greeted with widespread groans and people saying "We waited all those years for THIS?", only for people to quickly soften their opinions on it after being even more disappointed with what came next.

If it were, the AF would be contrast-detect only; the Z5's AF looks to be phase-detect.

Not necessarily. Canon have been releasing bodies with multiple DIGIC processors for quite a while now - mostly in the 1D series, but the 7D Mark II had dual DIGICs as well. Most likely Nikon's next Expeed processor isn't anywhere near ready for release yet, and they figured slapping a second one in there was good enough for what I'm guessing are incremental updates.

If Nikon are putting a second Expeed processor in the body, my guess is it'll be full frame. It's the same trick that Canon used when they needed to put 1080p60 in the 7D Mark II to tick that box on the feature set, but their newest DIGIC processor at the time was only capable of 1080p30; they just bunged a second processor in there to get the job done.

There must be at least something of a demand for long-yet-compact primes, seeing how you can still buy mirror lenses - and I'm guessing that people who use said lenses would be willing to pay a bit extra to gain autofocus and lose the infamously horrible bokeh that goes hand-in-hand with them.

Canon EOS 250D
Nikon D7500

Canon EOS 250D
Nikon D7500

Canon's main weakness in that department has been that when it comes to flat image profiles, your choices have basically boiled down to C-LOG or nothing - or, on any camera that wasn't a 5Div, EOS R, 1DC or 1DXiii, just nothing (out of the box, anyway).
I presume this thing's gonna come with C-LOG given the price tag, but it'd be nice if they had some Flat/Cinelike-D type profile as well, for when all you need to make are quick-and-simple grading adjustments.

DPReview have just posted a follow-up video focusing on the A7iii. In short, the camera they tested wasn't defective; a second camera performed exactly the same.
However... it also looks like the A7iii's audio performance can differ drastically based on the microphone that's being used. Some microphones end up sounding as bad as the initial test, but others end up in the S1H's ballpark. Not sure what's going on there - maybe Sony cheaped out on the camera's EM shielding or something?
Also, based on what Jordan says at the end of the video, it sounds like they may have unwittingly tested the Z6 under optimal circumstances, and that with other microphones the results are much, much less rosy than their initial test indicated.

DPReview have just posted a follow-up video focusing on the A7iii. In short, the camera they tested wasn't defective; a second camera performed exactly the same.
However... it also looks like the A7iii's audio performance can differ drastically based on the microphone that's being used. Some microphones end up sounding as bad as the initial test, but others end up in the S1H's ballpark. Not sure what's going on there - maybe Sony cheaped out on the camera's EM shielding or something?
Also, based on what Jordan says at the end of the video, it sounds like they may have unwittingly tested the Z6 under optimal circumstances, and that with other microphones the results are much, much less rosy than their initial test indicated.

DPReview have just posted a follow-up video focusing on the A7iii. In short, the camera they tested wasn't defective; a second camera performed exactly the same.
However... it also looks like the A7iii's audio performance can differ drastically based on the microphone that's being used. Some microphones end up sounding as bad as the initial test, but others end up in the S1H's ballpark. Not sure what's going on there - maybe Sony cheaped out on the camera's EM shielding or something?
Also, based on what Jordan says at the end of the video, it sounds like they may have unwittingly tested the Z6 under optimal circumstances, and that with other microphones the results are much, much less rosy than their initial test indicated.

I was thinking of starting a PhD later this year, so I guess when I'm not editing I'll be doing groundwork and putting together a proper proposal on that. Fortunately, I managed to go into my former university's library and photocopy just about every textbook related to the subject area, which should keep me occupied for a good while. But if it drags on then I might have to, shock horror, actually buy some textbooks!
If nothing else, I'm actually weirdly glad that the Z6 I purchased last month exploded less than an hour after I first turned it on, and Amazon refused to exchange it, offering me only a refund. Would have been annoying having a nice new mirrorless and being all but unable to actually make use of it. Plus now I'll be able to see if the Canon R6 might be a better buy after all.

Weird how there seems to be this black hole when it comes to APS-C cameras and IBIS. Damn near every M4/3 and full-frame camera has it nowadays, but on the APS-C front there's only really the A6500 and A6600 that have it (plus some of Pentax's cameras).

Weird how there seems to be this black hole when it comes to APS-C cameras and IBIS. Damn near every M4/3 and full-frame camera has it nowadays, but on the APS-C front there's only really the A6500 and A6600 that have it (plus some of Pentax's cameras).

Weird how there seems to be this black hole when it comes to APS-C cameras and IBIS. Damn near every M4/3 and full-frame camera has it nowadays, but on the APS-C front there's only really the A6500 and A6600 that have it (plus some of Pentax's cameras).

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?

You would need a separate clock circuit for true 24.00p. However, the 23.976p that's more commonly used in consumer cameras is derived from a 60Hz base clock - in 60Hz mode my FZ2000 gives the option of "24p", 30p or 60p, but in 50Hz mode it's 25p or 50p only - so if a camera can do 30/60p, there's no fundamental reason it shouldn't be able to do 23.976p.

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?

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?

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.