David Bowgett

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

True, there's no definitive confirmation as of yet. But when you compare the M50's 4K output to that of the G7 and D7500, which are both confirmed to output 1:1 from a 4K crop of their respective sensors, it's noticeably softer and more moire prone. I suppose it's possible that Canon are just using a really poor codec, but the upscale theory seems to make sense given that Canon employed it on their early VDSLRs.
As to why they'd be doing that, could be any number of reasons from heat dissipation to "product segmentation." We can only speculate.
No, the 1080p uses the full width of the sensor, so it's probably the pixel bin and downscale technique that's believed to have been used on their sensors since the 80D came out. It's probably higher than full HD, but not 3.3K.

DPReview just posted their take on the camera, and yowzer; that's some horrible moire in the 4K mode! Probably worse than on any 4K camera I've ever seen outside of the A7Rii's full-frame mode.
I can understand not being able to put out footage as sharp as the A6300/A6500's oversampled 4K, but when it can't even match the G7 or D7500, something is clearly very wrong here (DPR themselves speculate that the footage is actually upscaled from ~3.3K).

It's ten years next September since Canon's 18MP sensor was first introduced in the original 7D, and ten years this October since DIGIC4 showed up in the 50D. It'd almost be impressive how much longevity Canon have gotten out of those components, if not for the comparative lack of progress elsewhere since then.

It's ten years next September since Canon's 18MP sensor was first introduced in the original 7D, and ten years this October since DIGIC4 showed up in the 50D. It'd almost be impressive how much longevity Canon have gotten out of those components, if not for the comparative lack of progress elsewhere since then.

The specs actually do look to be pretty solid, but it's priced far too high. Unless you really need the higher photo burst speed (and can live with the loss of V-Log and, presumably, unlimited recording times), I can't see much reason to go with this over the GH5.

Eh, it's not a bad upgrade per se, but it does kinda give the impression of something hurriedly put out to compete with the D850. Then again, Sony's really been killing it with just about every new mirrorless for the last few years, so I guess they had to stop and catch their breath sometime.

Pentax even beat Panasonic to the punch on that count; they introduced it to their line about five years ago.
In any case, it looks like UK pricing for the D850 is virtually identical to that of the 5Div. You'd think Canon would have to cut its pricing to remain competitive, but somehow I doubt they will. Weirdly enough, it looks like the 5DS and 5DSr are now the sweet spot in Canon's full-frame line-up, as they offer higher resolution than the D850 for a lower price (albeit being worse in terms of dynamic range and base ISO) and have pretty respectable video quality if you can live with only 1080p.

Well, if you really want to be precise, Pentax are actually the ones with the worst video among the DSLR makers; even the mighty K-1 has video that's almost as comically awful as Fujifilm's was in their pre-Sony era. Not that it really helps Canon's cause, having DSLR video better only than a manufacturer who's never bothered putting in any real effort in that area.

Not that these specs sound massively exciting by any means, but I'd be wary about making predictions like this. Back at the start of the year the 4K modes in the D5 and D500 were greeted with howls of derision by many on this forum, and predictions about how the still-to-be-announced A6300 would be a massive game-changer and render every similar camera (with the likely exception of the GH4) obsolete. The reality was... less clear-cut, to say the least.

Not that these specs sound massively exciting by any means, but I'd be wary about making predictions like this. Back at the start of the year the 4K modes in the D5 and D500 were greeted with howls of derision by many on this forum, and predictions about how the still-to-be-announced A6300 would be a massive game-changer and render every similar camera (with the likely exception of the GH4) obsolete. The reality was... less clear-cut, to say the least.

Weirdly enough, it looks like the biggest improvement might actually in the white balance. The 70D footage seems to have this murky greenish look to it, whereas the 80D's whites are a lot more crisp.
Then again, there were one or two spots where it looked like the 80D was actually worse in terms of aliasing than the 70D... though that might just be YouTube's encoding at work.

I think a lot of the reason why the D5 and D500 caught so much flack was because at the time they were announced, people were still expecting the A6300 to be a game-changing camera for 4K. And while you could probably make a case that the A6300 still represents the better option for video users, I think now we're seeing that there's still a lot of engineering issues regarding 4K on APS-C and above that manufacturers (except, ironically, the one who's now pulled out of the market) are having trouble dealing with.

More info is available in this PDF on Nikon's website: http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/d500/common/pdf/technology-digest.pdf
Strangely enough, the D500 can record up to the full 29:29 in 4K mode, but on the D5 it's limited to just three minutes!
EDIT: On further inspection, it seems that the D500 does full-pixel readout from a 4K area in order to get the video. Definitely better than line-skipping, though it's going to leave the effective crop quite near the m4/3rds level.

There was on the original, can't see why there wouldn't be on this one. Though presumably it shares the same caveat of being upscaled from ~2.5K.

​Mirrorless might be the future... but we don't live in the future, we live in the present. And the present situation is still that DSLRs are better in some areas, and mirrorless better in others.
In fact, that's probably a big part of why the D750 was so well-received. In photography terms it's better than the D610 and A7, but not overwhelmingly so. In video terms, it's clearly weaker than the A7S and GH4 in just about all aspects other than colour rendition (and low light performance versus the latter). But it still does both things so well that it makes a very good package for people who need one camera for both purposes.