Django

Hey gang, been a while. At first glance this FX5 felt a bit underwhelming but looking closer its a pretty substantial update. On paper the frame rate/resolution bump over FX3 looks small, 4K to 5K isn't a leap that sells itself, and I get why some are skeptical. But I don't think the gains are actually small once you look past resolution.
Also want to bring the A7R VI into the conversation, since it was announced just recently and shares the same sensor, and does some clever things of its own. It varies its subsampling by mode: 8K comes from an 8.2K region (1.22x crop), while 4K is read from the full sensor width but subsampled from a 5K portion, roughly 2:1 binning, and rolling shutter scales almost exactly with that ratio between modes. That's actually smart sensor use for a hybrid body, flexible readout depending on what you need, high-res stills and video modes both on tap from one chip without a fixed binning scheme. Arguably a more versatile use of this sensor than the FX5's fixed video-only binning, if you need both stills and video from a single body.
But for video-only work, FX5 still pulls ahead in what actually matters day to day. The RAW is the real story, 16-bit X-OCN, same bit depth as Burano/Venice 2, and the C1/C2 compression tiers are genuinely efficient, undercutting even the FX3's own compressed 10-bit codec at 4K24p. Triple base ISO and the selective dual-gain shadow cleanup add up to real, usable gains, albeit slower readout speeds a la S5ii. Oh and open gate, Sony finally caught up.
On price, worth noting Sony's being smart splitting the handle and EVF out separately rather than bundling, it softens the sticker shock even though fully kitted you're still at a whopping €6,800 here, FX6 money for a mirrorless body with no NDs, SDI etc. That's the one thing hard to swallow.
Went Canon with the C50 myself a couple months back, still very happy with it, dual OS is best of both worlds and the various crop modes and digi zoom punch-in flexibility over the 7K spec I rarely touch. For about 3K with the awesome XLR top handle included, it fit my wallet and needs, no regrets.
Bottom line: For Sony hybrid users that need stills over RAW, do take a look at the A7R VI, smart camera with impressive specs. For video only, no real flaws on the FX5 and some serious upgrades: RAW, open gate, triple ISO, dual gain, tilt EVF option..all genuinely exciting if you can swing the price. Personally I wish they would have left a stills option (even 16MP e-shutter mode) but I have no doubts the FX5 will become industry standard for years to come. But I also don't think FX3 is going obsolete anytime soon either.

Hey gang, been a while. At first glance this FX5 felt a bit underwhelming but looking closer its a pretty substantial update. On paper the frame rate/resolution bump over FX3 looks small, 4K to 5K isn't a leap that sells itself, and I get why some are skeptical. But I don't think the gains are actually small once you look past resolution.
Also want to bring the A7R VI into the conversation, since it was announced just recently and shares the same sensor, and does some clever things of its own. It varies its subsampling by mode: 8K comes from an 8.2K region (1.22x crop), while 4K is read from the full sensor width but subsampled from a 5K portion, roughly 2:1 binning, and rolling shutter scales almost exactly with that ratio between modes. That's actually smart sensor use for a hybrid body, flexible readout depending on what you need, high-res stills and video modes both on tap from one chip without a fixed binning scheme. Arguably a more versatile use of this sensor than the FX5's fixed video-only binning, if you need both stills and video from a single body.
But for video-only work, FX5 still pulls ahead in what actually matters day to day. The RAW is the real story, 16-bit X-OCN, same bit depth as Burano/Venice 2, and the C1/C2 compression tiers are genuinely efficient, undercutting even the FX3's own compressed 10-bit codec at 4K24p. Triple base ISO and the selective dual-gain shadow cleanup add up to real, usable gains, albeit slower readout speeds a la S5ii. Oh and open gate, Sony finally caught up.
On price, worth noting Sony's being smart splitting the handle and EVF out separately rather than bundling, it softens the sticker shock even though fully kitted you're still at a whopping €6,800 here, FX6 money for a mirrorless body with no NDs, SDI etc. That's the one thing hard to swallow.
Went Canon with the C50 myself a couple months back, still very happy with it, dual OS is best of both worlds and the various crop modes and digi zoom punch-in flexibility over the 7K spec I rarely touch. For about 3K with the awesome XLR top handle included, it fit my wallet and needs, no regrets.
Bottom line: For Sony hybrid users that need stills over RAW, do take a look at the A7R VI, smart camera with impressive specs. For video only, no real flaws on the FX5 and some serious upgrades: RAW, open gate, triple ISO, dual gain, tilt EVF option..all genuinely exciting if you can swing the price. Personally I wish they would have left a stills option (even 16MP e-shutter mode) but I have no doubts the FX5 will become industry standard for years to come. But I also don't think FX3 is going obsolete anytime soon either.

Hey gang, been a while. At first glance this FX5 felt a bit underwhelming but looking closer its a pretty substantial update. On paper the frame rate/resolution bump over FX3 looks small, 4K to 5K isn't a leap that sells itself, and I get why some are skeptical. But I don't think the gains are actually small once you look past resolution.
Also want to bring the A7R VI into the conversation, since it was announced just recently and shares the same sensor, and does some clever things of its own. It varies its subsampling by mode: 8K comes from an 8.2K region (1.22x crop), while 4K is read from the full sensor width but subsampled from a 5K portion, roughly 2:1 binning, and rolling shutter scales almost exactly with that ratio between modes. That's actually smart sensor use for a hybrid body, flexible readout depending on what you need, high-res stills and video modes both on tap from one chip without a fixed binning scheme. Arguably a more versatile use of this sensor than the FX5's fixed video-only binning, if you need both stills and video from a single body.
But for video-only work, FX5 still pulls ahead in what actually matters day to day. The RAW is the real story, 16-bit X-OCN, same bit depth as Burano/Venice 2, and the C1/C2 compression tiers are genuinely efficient, undercutting even the FX3's own compressed 10-bit codec at 4K24p. Triple base ISO and the selective dual-gain shadow cleanup add up to real, usable gains, albeit slower readout speeds a la S5ii. Oh and open gate, Sony finally caught up.
On price, worth noting Sony's being smart splitting the handle and EVF out separately rather than bundling, it softens the sticker shock even though fully kitted you're still at a whopping €6,800 here, FX6 money for a mirrorless body with no NDs, SDI etc. That's the one thing hard to swallow.
Went Canon with the C50 myself a couple months back, still very happy with it, dual OS is best of both worlds and the various crop modes and digi zoom punch-in flexibility over the 7K spec I rarely touch. For about 3K with the awesome XLR top handle included, it fit my wallet and needs, no regrets.
Bottom line: For Sony hybrid users that need stills over RAW, do take a look at the A7R VI, smart camera with impressive specs. For video only, no real flaws on the FX5 and some serious upgrades: RAW, open gate, triple ISO, dual gain, tilt EVF option..all genuinely exciting if you can swing the price. Personally I wish they would have left a stills option (even 16MP e-shutter mode) but I have no doubts the FX5 will become industry standard for years to come. But I also don't think FX3 is going obsolete anytime soon either.

Hey all, quick follow-up after having purchased the C50 and using it couple days.
The customization is seriously one of the best parts. I have EIS toggle, S&F, teleconverter, display brightness boost, view assist, WFM, false color all on physical buttons so they're instant. Then the touch quick cine menu overlay lets me flip through frame rates, codec, resolution and recording settings super fast without leaving shooting view. It just feels like one of the quickest cameras I've used in real life.
Open gate 3:2 is still my absolute favorite thing. The aspect ratio looks fresh and having that extra vertical headroom for reframing or pulling stills is addictive. Being able to shoot 7K open gate in 10-bit h265 at only 486Mbps in the lowest bitrate is a great data rate to resolution ratio.
The digital zoom via the rocker switches is the other standout. Light press for slow creep, hard press for fast punch, with separate speed curves for each. It's so tactile and controllable, and it makes punch-ins on primes feel intentional instead of a crop hack.
The top handle is really cool too. It gives better balance and a two-handed grip so handheld shake is noticeably reduced, especially low angles or longer takes. But what's even cooler is how modular it is. Snap it off and the camera becomes super compact for travel, storage or quick discreet shots. Having the choice is great.
Still working on stabilization. EIS helps when it's on, but you get that slight crop and occasional motion blur artifacts unless I crank shutter angle to 90° or 45° (which I do now). EIS is disabled in open gate 3:2 so those shots are raw shaky until post. Gyroflow should handle it but I'm still having trouble getting it to recognise the camera or lens. Anyone knows how to manually set it up? Any tricks for getting the gyro data to load properly?
Still in early testing phase but overall the camera feels fast, intentional and pro in a way that keeps me shooting. 
Cheers!

Yep that's the kind of intermediary codec that the ZR needs. But only if Nikon doesn't cook it with that aggressive noise reduction. You know the drill, Fuji had similar issues I seem to remember you pointing out. 
Thing is, I don't buy cameras based on promised or wishful features anymore. Been burned too many times waiting for "coming soon" updates that arrive late, incomplete, or not at all. So as of right now, the ZR is off the table for me. It's not just the codec situation though tbh, the unreliable view assist/exposure tools and first gen quirks also give me cold feet. 
Good to know LT is officially on the roadmap, though.. great for early adopters but I think I'm done gambling on "maybe later". 
 

Yep that's the kind of intermediary codec that the ZR needs. But only if Nikon doesn't cook it with that aggressive noise reduction. You know the drill, Fuji had similar issues I seem to remember you pointing out. 
Thing is, I don't buy cameras based on promised or wishful features anymore. Been burned too many times waiting for "coming soon" updates that arrive late, incomplete, or not at all. So as of right now, the ZR is off the table for me. It's not just the codec situation though tbh, the unreliable view assist/exposure tools and first gen quirks also give me cold feet. 
Good to know LT is officially on the roadmap, though.. great for early adopters but I think I'm done gambling on "maybe later". 
 

I am currently doing my own ZR image testing with footage I shot in every codec and the R3D RAW is beautiful, super rich, super detailed. Probably the best image you can get from a mid priced mirrorless. But then the h265 log conundrum. I just messed around with some log files and they're terrible. Reminds me of 8bit FHD 5D3 footage. Actually the whole camera reminds me of my C200 which had either Canon RAW or 8bit. I hated not having an intermediary codec and its the same scenario with the ZR. 
Quite a shame as I love the design, form factor and huge display. But it's basically a massive RAW file camera which isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. I'm headed back to Canon as Sony is in limbo and I don't do L-mount.

Yep that's the kind of intermediary codec that the ZR needs. But only if Nikon doesn't cook it with that aggressive noise reduction. You know the drill, Fuji had similar issues I seem to remember you pointing out. 
Thing is, I don't buy cameras based on promised or wishful features anymore. Been burned too many times waiting for "coming soon" updates that arrive late, incomplete, or not at all. So as of right now, the ZR is off the table for me. It's not just the codec situation though tbh, the unreliable view assist/exposure tools and first gen quirks also give me cold feet. 
Good to know LT is officially on the roadmap, though.. great for early adopters but I think I'm done gambling on "maybe later". 
 

Yep that's the kind of intermediary codec that the ZR needs. But only if Nikon doesn't cook it with that aggressive noise reduction. You know the drill, Fuji had similar issues I seem to remember you pointing out. 
Thing is, I don't buy cameras based on promised or wishful features anymore. Been burned too many times waiting for "coming soon" updates that arrive late, incomplete, or not at all. So as of right now, the ZR is off the table for me. It's not just the codec situation though tbh, the unreliable view assist/exposure tools and first gen quirks also give me cold feet. 
Good to know LT is officially on the roadmap, though.. great for early adopters but I think I'm done gambling on "maybe later". 
 

Yep that's the kind of intermediary codec that the ZR needs. But only if Nikon doesn't cook it with that aggressive noise reduction. You know the drill, Fuji had similar issues I seem to remember you pointing out. 
Thing is, I don't buy cameras based on promised or wishful features anymore. Been burned too many times waiting for "coming soon" updates that arrive late, incomplete, or not at all. So as of right now, the ZR is off the table for me. It's not just the codec situation though tbh, the unreliable view assist/exposure tools and first gen quirks also give me cold feet. 
Good to know LT is officially on the roadmap, though.. great for early adopters but I think I'm done gambling on "maybe later". 
 

I am currently doing my own ZR image testing with footage I shot in every codec and the R3D RAW is beautiful, super rich, super detailed. Probably the best image you can get from a mid priced mirrorless. But then the h265 log conundrum. I just messed around with some log files and they're terrible. Reminds me of 8bit FHD 5D3 footage. Actually the whole camera reminds me of my C200 which had either Canon RAW or 8bit. I hated not having an intermediary codec and its the same scenario with the ZR. 
Quite a shame as I love the design, form factor and huge display. But it's basically a massive RAW file camera which isn't going to be practical for a lot of people. I'm headed back to Canon as Sony is in limbo and I don't do L-mount.

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. 

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..

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.

@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.

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.

"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.

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.

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?

Hey everyone,
You know me. I’ve been agonizing over my next camera the entire year of 2025. Countless threads, rental tests, ecosystem debates… I've got a shortlist but I’m still somewhat undecided in February 2026.
Now a proper ongoing gig has landed: high-end lifestyle / product / mini-doc content for a well-known outlet. All solo run&gun: fast stories, Reels, interviews, close-up product detail, lifestyle vignettes, multi-platform deliverables (horizontal main cuts + vertical social + still assets). No crew, just me moving fast in boutiques, ateliers and interiors.
Current shortlist :
Canon EOS C50 (€3,500 ) Pros that keep winning me over after testing:
7K open-gate 3:2 + simultaneous 16:9 / 9:16 dual record to different cards = massive time-saver for vertical/horizontal from one take.
Dual zoom rockers (body + XLR handle) smooth variable-speed creeps and fast punch-ins on primes felt magical.
Built-in fan = no thermal anxiety on longer takes. Cine OS: frame guides for every ratio, false color/waveforms/zebras, shutter angle, base ISO switches.
Gyro data + Gyroflow covers stabilization so well that lack of IBIS isn’t a big issue. C-Log2 grading is easy and beautiful, plus Wide DR mode (I’ve missed that since my C100/C200 days).
Pro mini cine cam body look perception is important in my field; you can charge more with something that screams serious filmmaker.
Cons: Body+lens investment hurts minimum RF 24/1.8 Macro IS STM (~€500) + RF 45/1.2 STM (€500) = €4500 total. Closed RF glass. EIS only (electronic), so very dynamic handheld shots rely on technique or light post-stab.
Canon EOS R6 Mark III (€2,899) Pros: IBIS for aggressive handheld run-and-gun. Built-in EVF (huge for bright interiors/outdoors). Mechanical shutter + flash sync for occasional stills. 7K open-gate 3:2 for post-cropping multi-ratio. Same C-Log2 grading ease and fast hybrid menu/dial switching.
Cons: No simultaneous multi-format dual recording all multi-ratio work is post-crop only. No 7K downsampled digital zoom (FHD only). No built-in fan thermal limits in demanding long takes (30–60 min in 4K/7K high-bitrate). No XLR handle or mounting points out of box. Consumer-looking body doesn't have the pro mini cine cam vibe.
Sony FX3 (€3,500 ) I already have Zeiss Batis primes, so zero lens spend. IBIS, low-light is proven, and it’s the safe solo workhorse everyone knows.
But in 2026 it feels dated: Still capped at 4K internal (no 6K/7K future-proofing). No open-gate all multi-ratio work is post-crop from 4K (quality hit). No RAW for high-end stuff. No EVF. 12MP stills. Spending serious money on a 5-year-old body feels like questionable investment math, especially considering an FX3 mk2 will drop later this year.
Sony FX2 (€2,500) Despite its controversial usage of the old A7IV sensor, it's a real nice body thanks to its unique tilt EVF that I absolutely love. Also a proper hybrid. Its already gone down in price a little bit but like the above FX3 it feels silly investing in a cam with outdated tech and specs.
Nikon ZR €2,200. Cheapest option. I could adapt my Sony glass. Internal R3D RAW is appealing for high-end grading. Big, beautiful display is the main draw.
Main cons: R3D RAW means huge files. H.265 codec applies quite heavy noise reduction that turns into “mush”. No open-gate. Basic controls. No EVF, no mech shutter. Ecosystem still feels young for run-and-gun reliability on a high-profile gig
I’m leaning hard toward the C50 right now. The open-gate + simultaneous dual-ratio recording + rocker zoom control feel tailor made for the exact multi-platform content I’ll be shooting. C-Log2 grading is easy and beautiful, Wide DR mode brings back what I loved on my old C100/C200 days, and Gyroflow + EIS covers stabilization perfectly for my style. Cine menu and exposure tools also feel like a step up for product polish. RAW and anamorphic support for potential high-end stuff. The handling with the excellent top handle makes it feel like an evolved FX3.
It's a hefty investment although I should recoup fast once I start getting paid.
Yes I'm purposely omitting Lumix, a forum favourite I know but I just don't gel with either bodies or lens choice.
Appreciate any real-world takes from people who may have used above gear and/or deliver this kind of content. Thanks in advance.

I hear you, they are great lenses, especially L series and it was actually hard selling them.. but if I go back to Canon it will be the affordable RF STM series (mostly have IS) and who knows maybe I'll venture back to EF for the more exotic ones like tilt shift etc.
Sure it is. Just wishful thinking they put the A9iii GS sensor.
Gotcha, I'm trying to test it out but it looks like the C50 test footage mxf files I got don't have the meta data in them 😞

Interesting, I'm usually not a fan of post stabilisation as it often crops a lot and you get weirdness depending on the shot. Gyroflow seems so much smarter thanks to gyro data. Of course IBIS on the R6 mk3 would actually be enough in most case scenarios so sure I agree IBIS is a plus vs no IBIS on C50, however I feel GF somewhat alleviates the lack of IBIS, and I'm gaining a whole lotta reliability with the C50 fan etc. The top handle on the C50 is really really nice and helps keeping the cam steady, especially with body contact point. 
I was actually all set on the R6 mk3 as it checks just about every box on a hybrid.. and then I tried the C50 and it immediately reminded me of my C100/C200 days, except in a so much lighter package with so many more specs. Now the C50 feels like the 5D mk3 after I upgraded to the C100. Still great but photo centric body and UI. I still have about a week to make my mind so keep the feedback coming!