MdB

Consider this: The person you describe is essentially not going to be buying ANYTHING. They are therefore no longer part of the market and manufacturers can't really make them something they need. So nobody is gunning for that non-existent market. However they MIGHT be able to snare a few of those from that group that want to downsize (reducing business, changing focus, retiring etc) or want a smaller companion option without the compromises. Nobody with a D850 and $15k worth of lenses is dragging that around to picnics. They are exactly the sort of market that might not be satisfied with just a smartphone. This becomes a 'dabble' system. New buyers building new systems from scratch are buying mirrorless. These manufacturers know that, that's why they are pursuing it. They can't live off their stalwarts forever. One of the BIGGEST things Sony are claiming (that again nobody seems to be picking up on nor understanding), is not that they are poaching Canon and Nikon sales, that they are actually building new sales from non-existing customers at a really significant rate. In a shrinking market that is a huge deal. Fanboys seem to want to get caught up in whatever else, to me that is the most signifiant thing. I don't think we will. The product will be announced, but I don't think details like how well adapted lenses work will be available for some time yet. Exactly. Nikon has been particularly hard hit by all this change. I don't think the 23rd is about launching a product (I don't think it will be hitting stores for months), it is a desperate attempt and plea to 'wait'. Well on sensor can have many more sites that collectively gather more light. My M50 mostly out focuses my 1DC, especially in low light. My (sold) A73 definitely out focussed the 1DC in low light. I think this is an incredibly outdated notion. Again strongly disagree. That's assuming that Sony has the market strength to reach number 1 just because they have the newest release. Most of the fanboys out there would disagree Sony was ever in such a position. It's never been the case in the past that 'just because' Sony have the newest one out they are also definitely in #1. I mean Nikon have never been #1 just because they had a newer model than Canon before. It's a silly notion being spread around to downplay the significance of this shift. There has ALWAYS been a duopoly and now that is being shattered. This is incredibly good times for us (the consumers) that I don't know why people are getting their backs up about it (elsewhere, not saying that's happening here). You know you don't have to use Log right I think it is one of the downfalls of the Sony's - They give you Log in everything, so we feel compelled to use it! They are capable of outputting a decent ready-to-use picture too. Personally have never cared who is number one. But I agree, it will be swings and roundabouts. It will be nice to have even more options. 645Z is a wonderful beast

Pretty sure Canon, Nikon, Ricoh and Leica all make an array of full frame cameras. Granted most of them not mirrorless. It speaks volumes about the popularity of mirrorless, people seem to be missing that about this press release. So when the K1 II launched Pentax were #1? That seems to be the logic here. You're making the assumption that everyone is on an equal footing and therefore the brand with the latest release gets boosted to the top spot (temporarily). That is definitely NOT the case. Most Canon fanboys will gleefully state (when someone pans the lacklustre 6D II for example) "oh but it outsells the whole A7 range 5:1..." which is absolute bunk and has been for years. You do realise how little sense that makes? Are you just repeating what every other numpty is saying? Can definitely agree on this. Honestly I cannot see the point of this Nikon branded Sony clone that has fanboys drooling (and suddenly retracting everything they ever said about mirrorless). I also don't think that Nikon is the dominant brand that people think it is. Just take a look at their last mirrorless effort... abandoned. Now take a look at their action cameras... abandoned. They couldn't get a foothold in either market. Now look at how weak the EOS M line was, abandoned in the US immediately after launch. BUT the Canon name has built it up as a power in asian markets. Canon can do that, Nikon couldn't. Nikon couldn't beat (or even compete) with Sony in the 1" market. Disagree. My latest is a 1DC, but have had pro bodies dating back to the Nikon D1. My 1DC feels nothing like you describe. Couldn't agree more. More RX1 and RX10 IMO. But it isn't about controls, or what people crassly call 'colour science'. I just almost never feel good about images when I capture them on a Sony. I know I can make them good in post, but they simply don't jump out. Ergonomics and menus and features and lenses and abilities are all top notch, better than most I would argue. Yep, including menus. But the results just don't feel good. Fuji's lack of grip pre-X-H1 is a real put off for me. Works ok on an extra wide X-Pro2 with small primes... For everything else they're kind of garbage. It's just a shame a lot of the actual controls went backward with the X-H1 over the X-T2. People do all the time. It is genuinely head and shoulders above basically everything in the hybrid market and people notice. They also say 'oh that crop' or 'oh that terrible codec' when talking about things like 5D IV, or 'oh that useless AF' or obviously the mount when talking about Nikon. Though I would take the 5D IV for much of the reasons you state. Almost too much to take in here. Clear to say though that photo isn't a high priority for you and that's fair (as well as being a really swell place to be in that you're spoilt for choice at absolutely minimal outlay - so yay!). Yep. I find it remarkable that the anti-Sony crowd (lets call them fanboys) have being saying for so long 'oh those mirrorless toys, nobody wants those' and claiming that Sony is full of it when it comes to these sales numbers because according to their own (completely nonsense) calculations that nobody ever buys these cameras ever and it's only because Nikon can't keep up with demand for the D850... blah, blah, blah... Let me ask them this: If that is true, that nobody wants these cameras - WHY IS YOUR FAVOURITE BRAND(S) COPYING THEM ALMOST TO THE LETTER? There is clearly no market for these things, yet they've just put ALL their eggs in to that basket? Unbelievable. Yes but the people making these claims have absolutely zero clue just how much Sony is in that market. Like how the people claim some kind of superiority that their brand is being used by the newspapers to capture still images for the World Cup or Olympics, while not reading those platforms and watching the game(s) delivered to them on Sony broadcast systems costing 100x what was spent on the photography. Mind boggling. Oh and then make little fanboy jokes about how there is Sony branding at the stadium. I actually don't think they were capable of it when that camera came out. Next round they have the tech, whether they implement it or treat us with disdain (again) remains to be seen. I don't think any brand can just sit idle at this time. The original had some really special mojo. I too would rate it as one of my favourite ever cameras (stills and video). It's a shame in many ways that they cow tailed and went with a more DSLR-mini design in latter models. The original body had a more modern and dare I say premium design to it that fit (I felt) better with the mirrorless ethos (plus the S was the last and most refined of the original design). They also designed much prettier lenses then too, plus they didn't make everything enormous. I may just have to own one for the third time. Indeed and well said. Though I would say filmmaking is art and science. And the perfect example of this is the Sony F35

Had and sold. The rolling shutter, 100/120fps and low light are probably the main 'advantages', but are mostly pretty slight. The A7R III IMO is a much nicer stills camera. If you can justify the difference, that's what I would get. Or wait. A73 has all the hype because of what you get for the money, where as the R3 is some 60% more expensive.

Downside of the C200B is that you lose the touch to focus (and if DPAF is important then the area selection should be too). Plus if you are using an external recorder as you've mentioned, you can't really have the display info on it, such as exposure settings etc on your clean feed external recorder. Honestly think the savings are so not worth it (unless you really want to use it remotely anyway).

Exactly. Plus they can do 4K out if you really need them to.

A7S original - plenty of bargains around on those these days.

Ikan does a 3.5” that is much better res than this thing. It also has an optional loupe to convert to an EVF.

Is that because they just don't like making good products? Your suggestions are that they have the capability but don't want to allow it in their products, in other words: protectionism. In this case I can't see any evidence of that (Canon are well known for it and I actually thought the same for a long while). Protectionism would imply that they want to sell you a different, more expensive product that has that feature. The Clean 1080p HDMI was something that was available on the C100, so they wanted to push users up to that model. Until recently this capability however was simply unavailable anywhere in their product range. Maybe they were trying to direct customers to competing brands? Additionally, if it is simply the case that they just didn't bother to switch it on, then why would they enable it in THIS camera, their lowest end model. The features in this camera are causing it to be their most popular / sold model deferring buyers away from the more expensive M5 and 80D. Why would they do that if they were just simply holding features back to try and upsell? Wouldn't they just 'magically' enable it in those cameras and leave the poor little M50 the runt of the litter? Surely instead of the deep discounting on the brand new 6D II, they could have dropped a 'magic' firmware update to make it better than the M50? Instead people are buying the latter rather than the higher value former. Yes we know magic lantern has been able to coax great things off the sensors of older Canon camera, but the processing is simply not capable of highly compressed output. So most of the hacking that goes on simply can't write to cards fast enough, no matter how much they can coax off the sensor. And for those cameras that do do 4K and could 'magically' just enable more advanced compression schemes, again why wouldn't they roll that out? Why would they let the little M50 eat their lunch? What is the market advantage of those cameras only doing MJPEG? Lastly, why now? Why did they release a product in that level of the market with these capabilities now? It's not like 4K is new to the market and they are releasing their first 4K product.

Evidence suggests unable. Using MJPEG is not about protecting their product lines, they could do that with any codec. It is that they didn't have the processing to compress 4K images to MPEG4 on the fly in a small and power efficient form factor. Therefore they had to use the enormous MJPEG which required CF cards as they didn't have the write speed to SD in any comfortable way. So only models with CF or Cfast got 4K. That's 1DC, 5D IV and then C-series (but even then only the recent C200 have been able to do really compressed 4K). Digic 8 is what has enabled MPEG4 compression on the fly in such a tiny camera and onto SD cards. XF400 seemingly uses a similar camcorder version of that processing (and C200 maybe). At present they don't seem to be able to downsample on the fly, which is why we still get windowed modes on all of these cameras. The next generation of sensor may be able to provide a 4K full sensor feed right off the sensor, so the image processor still just needs to compress that 4K feed. The M50 is the only camera I know of from Canon that outputs 4K over HDMI (the C300 II might? - I'm sure someone knows the answer to that). All others that have 4K downsample the 4K out to 1080p. It is also possible to get nearly clean 4K out. So that's all quite a big jump in the technology available in this little camera. I DEFINITELY think the DPAF being disabled is about being unwilling. They crippled it on purpose. Typical Canon. Canon have promised to be much more focussed on video in the next wave of products starting with this, which is already a big leap (for them). Really looking forward to see what Canon launch in the next 12 months.

It sure had some promise, we all know it was a bit 'gimped', it was far more exciting in the rumour stage. M5 II will be a much better product. This does finally show Canon can process 4K in a small consumer camera - Something up until now they have been completely unable to. I look forward to the next one. In the mean time I might grab a cheap X-T2 or X-E3 to replace this thing.

I thought we were doing a reality check? I said they are the same price and you wanted to prove me wrong. Then I provide actual evidence and you want to wind back the clock. Try this Andrew: "I'm sorry, last time I looked they were more expensive" or something to that effect. It isn't that hard. And you know this because... reasons? How about the price has dropped because it is naturally reaching the end of it's life cycle and is about to be replaced by a 100MP version? Probably with much improved everything else. Funny that eh? I guess that makes you right then. So when I said 'where I am they are the same price' and you decided to give me a 'reality check' you meant the prices at B&H (which happen to include a cash back)? All very odd if you ask me. I love how much insight you have into the inner workings of Nikon and Hasselblad and Sony. The plot thickens. So when you said it was so much cheaper... you meant used. Used prices are determined by what the market is prepared to pay. You're saying the X1D is much more expensive, but that nobody wants them? Wouldn't they therefore be cheaper than the much more desirable GFX? So you paid half? In less than 12 months? From a store that has bought it and then added their own markup. So the poor guy selling it to them probably only got 2k for it... So the X1D only goes for 200 quid less than they cost brand new? Seems like second hand units are in strong demand there... And this is where you completely lost me. Let me get this right, the GFX (which is supposedly massively better than the X1D) is only worth 2000 (1/3) to a store buying one, or 1/2 on the second hand market. The X1D is worth still 96.6% of it's new value on the second hand market. And you think it is the X1D owners that should be annoyed by that depreciation? Honestly Andrew, this is nonsense. You know it. I know it. How about this, you prefer the GFX because it suits you better and was better bang for buck? I would 100% agree with that and again that is why I would buy one for myself (and very nearly did recently for almost exactly the same reasons). None of that 'proves' that the X1D is a worse product in absolute terms for it's intended market. It also doesn't prove that the X1D won't improve into a very viable product line in the future, which is exactly my point. They couldn't make enough X1Ds and you couldn't buy one for the longest time for ANY amount of money. The GFX? Well they have been deep discounting the thing since it landed. I didn't buy one because I knew this version would sink like a rock as soon as the next version comes out (and the supposedly much cheaper version on the horizon as well). I will hold off until then picking up the lenses on the cheap because it's currently an over priced and under performing system that seemingly is getting dumped for next to nothing. Not in absolute terms no. It makes it better for use tinkerers, I'll give you that. That's nice. That's about f/1.2 in full frame. I can shoot f/1.2 on MF. I can shoot f/0.95 on FF. Illumination across the frame (i.e. not having dark corners) is not really that relevant. Every one of the lenses I have seen turn to mush on the corners and edges apart from very few lenses. This to me makes adapting these kinds of lenses 'fun' (much like using APS-C lenses on the A7s when they first came out), but ultimately it is not practical for most real world uses. You'v been able to do it on an Alpa for ages. GFX just makes it more affordable (and maybe a bit more practical). having a difference of opinion doesn't make me a troll. You don't disagree with me? This is a circular argument. The exact same applies to the X1D. Hasselblad lenses don't autofocus? Pretty sure they do. Better again according to whom? For professionals wanting leaf shutters? Oh you mean you like the fuji apertures better... Uhm no. The Hasselblad images have more data stored in them. Period. Same sensor, different data. There are plenty of cameras that have video or adapt lenses etc, doesn't make the SL or GFX unique. I don't get the point you are making? We are comparing two cameras, what has this got to do with anything? It's such a pointless little attempt to be right. Does the GFX have any leaf shutter lenses? No? Then in this comparison it is a point of difference. End of story. It's like you saying: Other systems have lenses lineups with more and better lenses, it's hardly unique. Do you see how pointless that is? I truly get your reasons why you prefer your Fuji, but your biased arguments about the X1D are just exactly that.

The 30p mode has a slight crop in full frame mode, which would probably explain why it doesn’t occur then (by whichever means it does occur). It’s unlikely to be an FCP thing as video doesn’t have any ‘spare’ realestate like stills do. What you see is what you get. But either the other two might be right. I mean there are all sorts of funny artefacts at the edges of sensors (things like debayering gets mixed p because there aren’t the surrounding pixels etc), so if the camera was fully sub sampling right to the edge that would likely cause visible issues. These won’t occur in the 1.1x or 1.5x crop modes, but could occur at full read. It’s also likely to ‘flash’ and cause other anomalies as the the sensor is constantly combining the read out pixels, those ‘duds’ will be mixing with perfectly normal pixels and flicker between the two. A bit like when you have a stuck pixel on a sensor and it flickers on and off on the LCD when not in 1:1 magnification mode. Any sensor would / could do this. They normally have a bit of run off of unused pixels around the edges. But the downsampling is where it becomes highlighted.

Funny but me too. Does it? That's pretty cool. RED also did a mechanical shutter mount of sorts, can't remember the exact technology behind it.

The X1D and the GFX are the same price. Don't you have to invest in all new medium format glass for the Fuji? Seem like a moot point. Yes an old, second hand medium format camera is cheaper than a brand new one. I see those points and raise you: non-modular design, much small, better build, live view, video, MUCH better high ISO performance and so on. Don't cherry pick. Good idea! Yes it seems so. That's it's discounted price. Price is 4999 GBP. Here it is $8500 AUD. Clearly didn't bother to fact check this one. Current price is wait for it... 5999 GBP brand. A fairly small 20% jump over the SL. Lenses are cheaper though. Fujifilm GFX 50S? Wait for it... 5999 GBP brand new. Here they are $9,999 AUD for the GFX and wait.... $9,999 for the X1D. Reality check indeed. Seems like a string of strange and off topic tidbits. Does the fact you can adapt lenses easier on the GFX make it 'better' than the Hasselblad as a system? If the SL is better because it has better AF and better video, doesn't that make it 'better' than the GFX also? Again seems like a weird mish-mash of cherry picking. X1D lenses are expensive. So are GFX lenses. So are Leica L mount lenses. The Hasselblad is the smallest of the three, has arguably the best image quality and has high speed flash sync. To the market that these cameras are aimed which is more important: 1. Wonky lenses adapted that don't work properly? 2. 4K video in S35 crop mode? 3. The best image quality and high speed sync? Again not arguing which one I would buy. Or indeed which one you should buy. I would hands down have the GFX or SL for exactly the reasons you state. That doesn't mean I think they are in absolute terms a better product, just better suited to me. I have also been talking about the development of the product line in the future, not the products that exist right now. Most professionals using the GFX or 645Z are screaming for better flash sync. This is not wealthy enthusiasts dabbling in adapting full frame glass. While I let you ponder that I'll move on... Very capable doesn't mean it is 'superior to Sony's latest stuff' as you claimed. I see nothing that makes it 'superior' other than some claims the grip is better. The rest looks like another Sony clone with a bit of Nikon badging. Plus probably the ugliest design I've ever seen (looks like an A7 humped a C300 and then had a botched abortion). Of course I would be happy if it is better looking than leaked images suggest. I would also be VERY happy if the camera is any good. Intentions 'isn't' in the same category. Autocorrect. As for comparing them, I'm pretty sure you did that - not me. I agree it is an odd comparison, but being that you made it I felt it worth responding to. The point was the C300 didn't have to worry about mechanical shutters and AF etc so as it is an arguably more simple box, it is easier to get right off the bat. I didn't make the comparison as I didn't think it made much sense. The first Alexa is also an excellent camera. Not really the same thing. Not to disagree, but the F35 doesn't have a mechanical shutter AFAIK, it has a global shutter due to CCD design. Film cameras on the other hand...

Let me ask you Mr Genius, how much can 'I' learn from 'you' regarding the M50? I own one. You do not. Let's be really really clear on that. I am sharing my experience, you are bitterly arguing based on nothing AT ALL but your bias against another particular brand. Your comments are truly worthless, yet you want to critique me? I would tell you the same thing to your face, if we were having this discussion at the pub. I don't tolerate fools, this much is true. You are showing yourself as an absolute fool. @Kisaha @newfoundmass I think both of you have looked at the camera based solely on photos on the internet and determined that because it is 'shaped' like an SLR type camera (and is a Canon) that it must feel and handle like a Canon SLR (or like the NX1 etc). This couldn't be further from true. Understand this: I don't care whether you hate the ergonomics of the A6xxx series, couldn't care less - It's completely up to you. I am not trying to persuade you that those are good handling cameras. Let me repeat that: I am NOT trying to convince you that those cameras you dislike the handling of have good handling. What I AM saying is regardless of what you think about the A6xxx series cameras, the M50 is hands down worse. The M6 and M5 are better in many ways, but the M50 is unequivocally worse. Can you wrap your heads around that?

Have YOU used the M50? It’s a really simple question.

Sadly, yeah. It's really, really awful to use. I mean, it was nearly $900, so keep in mind that's my benchmark when people have been buying A6300's for less. It's also only ever so slightly cheaper than the M5. I didn't much like the GX85 either. The EVF was terrible! But the controls were better. However that body is heavy for it's size and complete lack of grip (with shiny, slippery, non-grippy 'leather' texture). I still think the GX85 was more useful and with better controls and more usable output. A G9 is only an extra $600 for me over the M50, so an extra 2/3's... I should have got a G9. But I have pretty much all Canon now, so thus the M50. I had the original Q when they were Mag-alloy (and darn expensive!). Wouldn't the BM Pocket be a better choice for all of this? I mean surely if you like the crop factor that has the better image. They are cheap and the speed boosters are cheap for them now s/h. Even rigging them up is cheap (most will come with everything needed). Or like a micro?

I like top handle for some things, but it's nice to be able not to use it. I would use the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on mine as the weight and natural balance (plus the very low rolling shutter) meant you can get a very natural camera movement free of nasty IS artefacts / artificial look. The other thing this camera REALLY needs, is a decent monitor. I would chuck on a 5" FHD lightweight one or a Blackmagic Video Assist. I would prefer the latter, but those cheap monitors would be fine. I used a bigger Atomos Ninja Flame for a while, but it was just big and clunky and awful. The VA has beenabsolutely fantastic though. haha this is a tricky one, but they are out there. Where are you based? Love the label My wife would add the same.

Me either! Who cares what brand is on the front? I love my Canon gear, but I am deeply disappointed at how poor this particular product is. I feel like those reviewing it just have a really distorted perspective of what else is out there. Like the number of people I read who talk about Canon mirrorless as being good, who haven't used any of the other mirrorless systems at all. None. I had the M6 and I've had a bunch of M1's. The M50 is just so disappointing. Nothing to do with brand allegiance. I've never really enjoyed the A6xxx series. In fact I don't particularly like any of the Sony ILCs, but it isn't really about the 'ergonomics'. In fact the later A7 series have excellent ergonomics (apart from maybe a few minor things), but I just don't really love the cameras. The A6xxx are reasonably capable and as mentioned I think they simply outclass the Canon in every way. Where I am the A6300 is cheaper at the moment the M50 cost me. I am really struggling to find things I do like about this camera. I think that its actually pretty ok when I pair it with my 22mm pancake as a basic point and shoot. So yes. But there are so many other cameras that fill that roll just as well if not better to much, much better. An X-E3 comes to mind - A WAY better camera than this thing. Again going off prices where I am. I mean, this is kind of interesting if you have a load of these lenses. However this has been an option with cameras like the GX85 for a long time now. That camera is WAY better than this M50. Yes Canon colour is appealing, their 4K is nice too, but the rolling shutter plus EIS just work totally against it. I'm not fussed by the crop either. The lack of DPAF is quite sucky though. Maybe. If you can get over how awful it is to use first. Still think there are better options out there. Yes I really should have held off. People like Andrew and Dave were just saying such nice positive things about this little camera I was so temped to have a nice compact Canon option. The M5 II would be really interesting with this processing and with a faster sensor. Then there is the complete lack of lenses. Sure adapt people say, well it's still missing really key lenses. 35mm f/1.4 is meant to be coming. They need a 50-60mm f/1.8 or similar too. Heck what they REALLY need is Sigma to release their DN series primes for the mount. The 16/30/56mm f/1.4s on the M5 II could be quite a thing. Canon just need then to sort out their controls a bit better and unify their menus and they'd have a very nice product on their hands. As it stands now I give the M50 1-star.

I don't doubt that for a moment. Doesn't mean that's what you have to use I sold my C100 to a guy with a GH5, he LOVES it. He vastly prefers the output of the C100 and so do I. It can easily be used for narrative work as well as trade shows and events etc. It's just an absolute workhorse. NDs, XLRs, C-Log, lovely images, nice weight and balance, perfect grip, access to waveforms and peaking etc. Clean full sized HDMI output, dual recording, huge batteries, Good mounting options. Simple, fast and intuitive operation. If you haven't used one you will get what I mean only when you finally have one.

I'm not here to be your buddy. That's fine. I don't know what culture you're from, but your comprehension skills are very, very poor. It matters ZERO how poorly you think of the Sony's. That doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make a Canon (regardless of any features and abilities) better than those cameras in the ergonomics stakes. YES the A6xxx series are not my ideal design, far from it. BUT the M50 is worse. WAY worse. This idea from people on the internet who like to make claims they cannot substantiate in ANY way other than to say 'oh the Sony's are known to be bad' and just follow this idea that Canon MUST be better... because Canon is really rather pathetic. I DO own this camera, you haven't even touched it. I don't own a Sony, especially not an A6xxx series, but I have owned one and know them quite well. The Sony thumps this dreadful little Canon in every way. Touch interface on the Canon is better, BUT the camera is so small and fiddly and poxy that the touchscreen gets lost. I don't need your feeble points to 'special press articles', I have used all the Sony's. Are they perfect? No. Are they better than the M50? HELL YES. Not even a debate. Honestly, I think that makes you just a sheep. This camera was more expensive than the A6300 where I am. It is cheap, plastic, has an awful control scheme with such basic customisation. The 11-22mm is a nice cheap UWA. The 22mm is ok, pretty far from amazing, but it's pretty small. I guess if you're a Samsung holdout you probably don't have that high standards anyway. You're the one who flew off the handle the moment I suggested a 'perfect' Canon could be worse than a Sony. Honestly you keep saying 'read the forums', I'm trying to give you a real user perspective and you've got nothing to contribute when all you want to do is argue based on brand loyalty. Come back to me when you have something you can actually discuss, with detail and facts. I'm more than happy to be wrong - Are you?

Not to state the obvious, but C100 and 80D are just such completely different leagues. I wouldn’t use 80D footage personally, C100 on the other hand is gorgeous. It’s also about a million times more enjoyable to use, plus SO much more practical. Save for the C100, you will be so grateful you did. Wait it out, they’ve gotten so affordable. I sold mine for $1600 AUD, which is less than $1300 USD. I’ve seen others for similar price. I’m halfway tempted to buy another one, but with DPAF. But then I can get a MkII for not ‘that’ much more. C100 is worth every penny.

So as expected you have nothing? Clueless and assume the position. Good on you champ. I always knew there were a lot of sheep around, just hard to fathom how devoted they are to causes they seemingly have little interest in. ‘Obviously’, I mean one says Canon and the other Sony. One must be very good and the other one rubbish. These are givens because the internet tells me how to feel and I’m incapable of thinking for myself - Love, Kisaha.

Well this is just continuing the noise that a Canon ‘must’ be better. The A6500 destroys this junker for ‘ergonomics’. Colour is another thing entirely. And yes I would agree about the preference of colour on the M50 (the other Canon mirrorless like M3, M5 etc not so much). But it’s also very hard to gauge colour on this camera with its poor representations on both the LCD and especially the EVF. Sorry I don’t blindly assume Canon have better ergonomics because... Canon. Ugh another blind follower. When did this have ANYTHING to do with your NX1 (Nikon DSLR clone) or the A7? The fact that the C series Canons have good ergonomics (for the most, but not all part) does not automatically mean this tiny POS has better ergonomics. It really doesn’t. For reference, knowing some bumbling idiot that doesn’t know how to use their camera doesn’t make the camera a poor design. There is a reason Canon (you know, the brand you blindly think have great ergonomics) copied Sony in their recent turn to improve ergonomics in their mirrorless cameras. Sadly the M50 doesn’t follow that design (not that it is anywhere near as well implemented). I really do love how the sheep who have never even touched these products always bleet when someone disagrees with their simplistic view of the world.

I did say ‘I’ would. But a few reasons are: Leaf shutter. You complain about a lack of focal plane shutter AND electronic shutter, but seem to miss the actual shutter type in use and it’s significant advantages for its intended market. Not only that but as a system there is nothing to say that we won’t see a MUCH better electronic shutter or introduction of an optional focal plane shutter. I didn’t say it was a better product now. I also don’t think the Fuji is a particularly ‘good’ product, especially for the money. Where I am they are priced exactly the same. G1 was mature according to whom? It was noticeably worse than say the A55 at the same time. Sure it worked and maybe not full of bugs like some of these cameras, but it wasn’t amazing. I mentioned the SL. Although it’s had its fair share of critics. It’s priced similarly to the X1D, but offers only a FF 24MP sensor. But as I said in my previous post, it is one of the few. Nikon’s looks ‘on paper’ to be better than Sony’s stuff? According to what exactly? Rumours led by fanboy sites? On paper? Do you mean on spec sheets? There aren’t any. We know nothing about the camera really. There is a LOT of fanboy speculation about how ‘great’ this camera is, just because it’s a Nikon. These same people seem to very quicky forget how recently Nikon have screwed their customers and failed to deliver promised products. They just have fanboy blindness. I remember the eve of the last mirrorless system Nikon we’re releasing that was going to ‘crush’ Sony by the sleeping giant. You know, the one they finally officially discontinued a few weeks ago. Remember that system? The one they couldn’t seem to figure out what to do with? The second mirrorless Mount to be dumped by companies that wouldn’t ever dump a mount to make a buck? Good on ya. Oh and that system was appalling from day one and never got any better. I agree the C300 was excellent. Although I would debate that it’s intention is in the same category. Cameras like this are a sensor in a box with a mount, screen and power. They didn’t have AF, or mechanical shutters etc either. Plus their sheer size means they can be littered with buttons, something these smaller cameras can’t do. They are also very singular in purpose. So pretty hard to screw up. BUT Sony managed to with their awful versions of this camera at the time. Also Canon did manage to develop a design that while different was very well liked. Well I don’t think it is meant to ‘take on’ Sony, Nikon and Panasonic. It’s also not particularly expensive especially for its intended market. However I think it will become a very polished and usable product range. If Nikon’s upcoming release (and subsequent abandonment of their existing mirrorless) tells us anything, its that the future of enthusiast cameras is in larger sensors. Everyone knows the higher end is where all the profit is and everything below is collapsing into smartphones. That’s why the new Nikon mirrorless is all about full frame and not APS-C (or smaller). The tech gets cheaper (witness A7 III) and there becomes less and less of a reason to use the smaller systems. Medium format (crop and later full sized) will become a hotly contested space above the entry level full frame (again, ie back to film days). What experience does Nikon have in Medium format? Canon? Hasselblad, Fujifilm and Pentax all have a huge head start. The X1D is one generation away from being great. Sensors are lacking in medium format to produce a really good mirrorless camera, so were full frame ones when the A7 originally launched. That gets resolved and cameras become instantly better, to the point they become the benchmark.