MdB

3 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

Consider this. Take a D850 owner who likes its form factor and OVF, has US$15,000 of F mount lenses and doesnt shoot video (my guess, is that most of them dont). And let's heroically assume that Nikon comes out with a 45mp mirrorless that is as good as the A7riii in a 'more ergonomic' form factor. What possible reason would the D850 owner have to switch to Nikon mirrorless (or any other) when their existing lenses wont work nearly as well on the new camera or they have to sell their lenses and buy anew? I dont really see what mirrorless brings to a 'core' D850 owner now or in the future (well apart from silent shooting with a VF). And so Nikon mirrorless and DSLRs are likely to have to live somewhat uncomfortably side by side for a long, long time.

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. 

1 hour ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

We still don't know how F mount lenses will perform with Nikon's mirrorless adapters. Say they perform flawlessly, then the change to mirrorless will be pleasant for most users. We'll find out in one week.

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. 

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

If Sony’s press release ‘reeks of desperation’, one could with equal justification accuse Nikon’s timing of their announcement as a last-ditch effort to stem the tide of their customers from switching over to Sony. But the very idea of Sony - a technological powerhouse - trembling before the likes of Nikon seems ludicrous on its face.

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'. 

 

36 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

I think we sort of do. Conceptually on sensor pdaf cannot really match a dedicated off sensor pdaf array because the off sensor array can have much larger sensors which gather far more light... 

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. 

 

36 minutes ago, mercer said:

Of course Sony is number 1 when they have no competition in FF and just released a new camera that’s one of their best cameras to date... their next one will be even better.

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). 

40 minutes ago, mercer said:

I’ve always liked the Sony image and I end up buying a Sony camera once a year, or so, and then I remember I’m horrible at grading sLog and I go back to Canon, Nikon or even Panasonic. But the Sony image is so detailed and crisp and modern, what’s not to love about them? Okay... their menus are annoying but it’s not like they’re impossible to figure out.

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. 

42 minutes ago, mercer said:

Point being is that statistics like this are fun, and as a Canon shooter I like to boast that Canon is number 1 in mirrorless in Japan. But in the end, who cares? It doesn’t really matter or mean anything. Depending on the release date of the Z6, Nikon will win the fourth quarter. Next year when Casey Neistat is shooting with a FF Canon mirrorless, Canon will win. Sadly, brand ambassadors on YouTube or Instagram will sell more cameras than the tech, color science, AF capabilities, video specs, burst rates, etc inside the camera ever will.

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. 

43 minutes ago, mercer said:

Also, if I was a stills shooter only, I’d probably own a Pentax... yuck. 

645Z is a wonderful beast

16 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

They are doing well partly due to a good product but partly due to zero competition.

No full frame mirrorless Panasonic, no Olympus, no Fuji, no Canon, no Nikon.

That is about to change.

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. 

14 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

This announcement reeks of desperation, the a7III and the largely ignored Pentax K1.2 are the only FF bodies released in the last 6 months. They have a new camera, they should be #1.

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. 

14 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

The market share numbers are exaggerated by the fact that neither Canon or Nikon have launched a new FF in the past year.

You do realise how little sense that makes? Are you just repeating what every other numpty is saying? 

14 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

I tend to disagree with most people here about the ergonomics.

Can definitely agree on this. 

14 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

I will be super impressed if Nikon comes out with a better mirrorless than Sony (I will be totally gobsmacked if Canon does). I don’t think Nikon actually needs a better mirrorless to outsell Sony -their brand name should do that with a fairly solid offering.

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. 

14 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

f you ever hold the top end Canon, Nikon bodies, like the1DX, the D5 you Would like them, heck love them. They fit in your hand like a glove, and don't seem to weigh anything like they look like they would, and are balanced it seems no matter the lens on them. They are magic.

Disagree. My latest is a 1DC, but have had pro bodies dating back to the Nikon D1. My 1DC feels nothing like you describe. 

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Sony need to work on the X factor and look beyond the scientific.

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. 

14 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

But have not tried say a Fuji XT2

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. 

12 hours ago, kye said:

no-one is saying "oh, but that 6K downsampling resolution!".

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. 

12 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I doubt the majority of Nikon, Canon shooters ever even use Video on their cameras. So buying the latest and greatest ones for taking Photos is stupid to me. What the hell other than HDR, which I hate on photos, has evolved in them the last 5 years other than some low light ability. You aren't going to shoot photos at 50,000 ISO anyways.

A Nikon D750 or a D800, D4s is still good enough for photos. And Nikon has always had crazy good Photo AF on their higher end cameras. Better than Canon has, well at least a hell of a lot easier to get it to work right AF.

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!). 

11 hours ago, jonpais said:

have allowed Sony to take the lead where video is concerned

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. 

11 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Sony has pretty much taken the lead on Video since day one. I don't see that changing anytime soon either. Broadcast TV is just about dominated by Sony. And that is crazy big money Networks pay out. Scary money.

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. 

10 hours ago, Cinegain said:

They were reluctant to get 4K into consumer cameras. When they did... they put a huge crop on it. Stuff like that is just inexcusable. Will FF high-end mirrorless be any different? I mean... was the 5DmkIV any different?

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. 

9 hours ago, noone said:

Even though my A7s has died, and is likely a very expensive fix, I still rate it by far my all time favourite camera and I really do love it

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. 

9 hours ago, kye said:

Different tools for different folks.  Film-Making is Art after all

Indeed and well said. Though I would say filmmaking is art and science. 

9 hours ago, kye said:

They tend to say things like "I know camera X only shoots in soft 1080, weighs 25kg, battery life is 12 minutes, sound is unusable, and you need an engineering degree to operate the menus, BUT <insert subjective comments about the feel of the footage here> and that's why I choose it".

And the perfect example of this is the Sony F35  

 

7 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

Haven't found a clear and concise answer from a source I trust - Is the RIII lacking any features that are essential or very helpful for video?

From what I can tell the FF is better detailed on the III and it has better autofocus - are either of these reasons to hold out?

Anything else to consider?

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. 

On 6/30/2018 at 11:59 PM, mercer said:

Well, I’d only want the updated DPAF version... and I’d rather it be closer to a grand than 1500... and even then... a C200B will probably start going on sale for 4-5 grand this time next year, so it would probably be smarter for me to save that money for that.

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). 

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah and they have one of the best OOC 1080p going. 750 bucks is about as cheap as I see them on average. Which is damn cheap for what they can do.

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

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

On 8/8/2018 at 9:28 PM, IronFilm said:

For everyone who thinks that 5" monitor is too big and expensive:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3-5-inch-LCD-HDMI-USB-Touch-Screen-Real-HD-1920x1080-LCD-Display-for-Raspberry-3/32834839579.html

 

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

33 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They were unwilling.

Is that because they just don't like making good products? 

33 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

This is the company that brought out the 5D III originally with no 1080p HDMI output, claiming the hardware was unable.

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. 

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Unable or unwilling?

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. 

10 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

Thanks for the news MdB, I was thinking to get a M50 in the near future, but now based in your reviews I think I will wait for the next Canon release, if at least the M50 had DPAF in 4K I will get it anyway, the price is really right (around $500 now), I hope M5 II is released soon....

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. 

10 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

At launch:

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. 

11 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

At current time, the X1D has dropped $2500 because nobody bought it.

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? 

12 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's still more expensive than the GFX at B&H.

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. 

14 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They got the pricing wrong and they know it.

I love how much insight you have into the inner workings of Nikon and Hasselblad and Sony. 

15 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

bought mine used.

The plot thickens. So when you said it was so much cheaper... you meant used. 

15 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Used, they are going for £2000 less than the X1D.

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? 

17 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

For me, that is reality my friend. I.e. how can I get the camera for best price possible and still with 12 month warranty. I got mine from London Camera Exchange for £3800 with the 63mm F2.8, which effectively made the body cost £3000.

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...

18 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The cheapest I have seen the X1D go for used is £5800

So the X1D only goes for 200 quid less than they cost brand new? Seems like second hand units are in strong demand there... 

19 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

and that is only in the last few weeks after the massive price drop on the new bodies. If you bought the X1D at launch or just a few months ago, you'd be seriously fucked-off with that kind of depreciation and price drop on the new model.

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. 

26 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yes it does.

Not in absolute terms no. It makes it better for use tinkerers, I'll give you that. 

27 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I can shoot medium format at F1.4

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. 

28 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I can get full coverage from Minolta full frame lenses and even some Contax Zeiss gems on the cheap.

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. 

30 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The creativity is endless and the looks never before produced. Possible for the first time with the GFX 50S.

You'v been able to do it on an Alpa for ages. GFX just makes it more affordable (and maybe a bit more practical). 

31 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

For video? Yes. For AF? Yes.

For 50MP photography and dynamic range? No.

Don't try and simply my argument until it no longer makes sense, you won't win that way Mr Troll.

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. 

32 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They are less expensive on the GFX side and the line-up is better, not to mention the autofocus.

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...

34 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

"Best image quality" is more like "exact same image quality" in case of X1D vs GFX.

Uhm no. The Hasselblad images have more data stored in them. Period. Same sensor, different data. 

34 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

There are plenty of other cameras with a leaf shutter and high speed flash sync BTW. Hardly makes X1D unique.

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: 

36 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They are less expensive on the GFX side and the line-up is better, not to mention the autofocus.

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. 

12 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I'd love an a7s / C300 fusion!

Funny but me too. 

13 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

My bad! 
I meant the Sony F65

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

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

For the money I bought it for there was no better stills camera than the GFX 50S. Next jump would have been the 100MP Hasselblad H6D which is £20k+. I could pay £3000 more than the Fuji for the X1D for no benefit at all, and have to invest in all-new medium format glass. Besides my 13 year old Hasselblad H3D II has faster autofocus, better viewfinder and similar resolution.

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. 

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

OK. OK. Let's get a reality check.

Good idea!

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Leica SL is £4500 brand new, £3700 used.

Yes it seems so. That's it's discounted price. Price is 4999 GBP. Here it is $8500 AUD. 

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Hasselblad X1D is £12,000 with one lens! I have not seen it for less than £7000 body-only either new or used.

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. 

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Besides the cost of the X1D lenses, you can use all sorts of stuff on the Leica and Fuji GFX...Also AF is much better on the native SL mount, as well as the fact it does 4K video whereas Hassy does not.

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...

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Specs are out there and unless proven to be wildly wrong, suggest it is very capable. Of course "reality" after the camera is out, is a different matter, which is why I said "on paper".

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. 

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Since when has a mechanical shutter mattered on a camcorder?! "Intention in same category". No. One is a photo-camera, one is a camcorder. You're not comparing even remotely the same tools.

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. 

5 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Most Sony F35 owners would say it matters.

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...

3 hours ago, Kisaha said:

As we do not have a physical presence, we are mostly  "judged" from what we say/type. My e-time lately is too limited to waste on such individuals. This guy came here to have a fight, not to learn anything. I will just pass.

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? 

4 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

@MdB seems to just want to argue. He called me a sheep and I don't even shoot Canon or have any plan to! He seems unable to process that people actually hate the ergonomics of the a6xxx cameras and prefer a more traditional DSLR body. Weird guy and a bit of a jerk. 

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

1 minute ago, mercer said:

Really 1 Star? 

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. 

3 minutes ago, mercer said:

I had two GX85s and I wanted to like them but I just don’t get along well with Panasonic color. But it was fun to use my c-mounts with IBIS. In fact, I’ve contemplated getting a G85 or G9 for that reason alone. 

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. 

6 minutes ago, mercer said:

get gear crazy every summer, so I doubt I’ll get one but if I do it would really be as glove box cam. I bought a Q7 a few years back just to use a bunch of D mount lenses I acquired over the years. It was fun for a few minutes but that camera, with its pluses and it had a couple, had the worst RS I had ever seen, you literally couldn’t even frame your shot without a dose of Dramamine.

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? 

4 minutes ago, mercer said:

I don’t doubt it for a moment. @webrunner5 shared this video with me the other day that he found online.

This would be the exact way I would use the camera for narratives... Stripped down to its basics for a verite feel.

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.

45 minutes ago, mercer said:

Honestly, I’d rather not have to do any paid work and just shoot Raw on my 5D3 but short films are becoming way too expensive as a hobbyist. I’m a year into a short film that I am so thrilled about and excited for the possibilities but I cannot find a leading actress that shares my enthusiasm if dollar signs aren’t attached. Honestly, if I can find that actress, I may abandon the idea of getting a C100 and trudge forward as a “serious” narrative hobbyist... it sucks how I have to label myself on forums... there aren’t enough adjectives... my girlfriend would probably add dumbass...

haha this is a tricky one, but they are out there. Where are you based? Love the label

My wife would add the same. 

42 minutes ago, mercer said:

Yeah, I’m unsure why there needs to be lines drawn in the sand about camera brands and more specifically, product lines within camera brands.

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. 

45 minutes ago, mercer said:

I had an a 6500 and I didn’t find it unwieldy at all. The ibis was nice and even found sLog3 to be quite usable under the right circumstances. The level of detail and dr in 8bit was the closest to Raw video that I ever used.

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. 

48 minutes ago, mercer said:

With that being said, the M50 isn’t even a comparable camera at half the cost.

Where I am the A6300 is cheaper at the moment the M50 cost me. 

48 minutes ago, mercer said:

It definitely has its issues but even some of its issues are what makes it appealing as a grab and go, leisure camera.

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. 

52 minutes ago, mercer said:

For one, I welcome the 4K crop. For the most part, I have little interest in 4K video right now, but the 4K crop offers me a chance to use my crappy old c-mount lenses with it while enjoying the benefits of Canon color and a little extra resolution.

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. 

54 minutes ago, mercer said:

For the same type of leisurely, family photos and videos, the 1080p seems plenty good enough when married with the 22mm for videos with a street shooting vibe and DPAF.

Maybe. If you can get over how awful it is to use first. Still think there are better options out there. 

55 minutes ago, mercer said:

Now the rumor sites speculate that the next generation of the M5 may fix some of the issues the M50 suffers from... who knows... if it does, I may look into that as well. Or maybe this time next year, Sony will release an a5200 in this price range or Nikon will release a mirrorless D5700. If so, maybe I’ll give them a try as well.

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. 

9 minutes ago, mercer said:

I don’t disagree with you, but for me this is a means to an end. My real job is in the trade show industry and it is crazy the amount of 80Ds being used to record trade show footage for Fortune 500 companies.

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. 

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I am not aware from what culture you are coming from but calling names to people you do not know, is not a good start to make friends

I'm not here to be your buddy. 

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

we have debated and argue about the lack of any ergononics (whatsoever) on a6xxx and A7 cameras for hundrends of pages

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. 

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

The only Canon I own is the AE-1 and a set of FD lenses, so I have no horse in this race, but for professional reasons I have to use Sony cameras all the time, and they are seriously lacking in so many respects, that I do not have the time to state here but are very well documented here, and in other forum and special press articles.

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. 

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

The market seems to favor these Canon cameras, and I do agree, as these are perfectly placed (cost wise as well) for entry level and slightly more advanced users, together with the ultra cheap and quite good 11-22, 22mm pancake and maybe the 55-200, and the kit 15-45 is sufficient for such a use. Small, light and cheap.

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. 

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

You obviously disagree, but you can state your disagreement with a milder and more civilized manner, and be ready to face different point of views.

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? 

46 minutes ago, mercer said:

@MdB thanks for the info. If only Canon would update the 1DC at current C Line or 1DXii pricing. If they used RawLite, there would be a perfect A and B cam set up that would be hard to ignore.

In the meantime, I’m hoping to find a used C100 for $1300 or less. Anything more and I’m unsure if it will be worth the investment for me. Any paid work I do will be small jobs (birthday parties, family reunions) or second shooter type of work. I don’t expect to make a living out of it, but I hope it will pay off the camera and fund my short films.

At any higher of a price, I may as well pick up an a6000 and RX10. Or even an 80D for the DPAF to make my life easier. I probably won’t get second shooter jobs with those but I can easily recoup the costs with small jobs found on Craigslist. Obviously, the higher cost of the C100 is worth it over the Sonys and the 80D because I can also shoot some of my own narrative work with it.

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. 

49 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

You are obviously full of animal crap.

All the Sonys I have used are the worst in their tier. A lot of words and insults for something as simple as that, that even Sony users know and most admit.

You believe you are the wolf (or the pig) and you try to impose your views on the "sheep" but we are not on Animal Farm.

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. 

6 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

No, I haven't, I was simply giving my opinion that the ergonomics (as someone with larger hands) and the Canon color has me more interested in it than the a6500. I'm sorry for not "contributing" enough to your liking. 

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. 

6 hours ago, Kisaha said:

@MdB haha! That s a good one!

Seriously, have you ever use a Sony camera??!!

There are millions of pages on the net about the worst ergonomics, button placement, menu system and touch interface (not!) in business.

Unfortunatelly, from time to time I have to work with an A7 camera, and the difference between those and my NX1s are night and day.

A few weeks ago we were shooting with some A7s cameras, and I asked the owner of the camera to change something and it took him several minutes to find the menu and change it.

In any segment Sony has issues with their ergonomics and menus, that applies to C100 vs FS5 and C300 vs FS7, in my humble opinion of course.

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. 

4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Why would one buy it over the GFX 50S?

It is a hip design but far less practical and much more expensive, with no advantage in image quality over the Fuji!

Plus you can't adapt glass to it very well, it lacks a mechanical focal plane shutter and the electronic shutter has more rolling shutter than a A6300 shooting howl's moving castle.

Panasonic G1 was mature and very refined straight off the bat.

Leica SL was and is a much better all-round system than the X1D.

Nikon's first gen full frame mirrorless looks on paper to be superior to latest Sony stuff.

In Cinema EOS land, C300 was a first gen product... and took over the planet.

So it's not the case that no company has never made a great first effort, starting anew.

It might. It might not. A bit of blind speculation there... I'd bet on it remaining a very expensive one-off rather than something to take on Panasonic, Sony and Nikon.

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.